The promise and pitfalls of longevity clinics

A new editorial was published in Aging-US on October 13, 2025, titled "Longevity clinics: between promise and peril."

In this editorial, Marco Demaria, Editor-in-Chief of Aging-US, from the European Research Institute for the Biology of Ageing (ERIBA), University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), University of Groningen (RUG), reviews the rapid rise of longevity clinics worldwide. 

Longevity clinics have emerged globally in response to increasing demand for personalized, preventive healthcare. Located in countries such as the United States, Switzerland, and the United Arab Emirates, these centers offer advanced diagnostic services, including genomic testing, advanced imaging, and multi-omics profiling. Their goal is to extend healthspan-the number of years a person lives in good health-through customized lifestyle interventions, nutritional guidance, and, in some cases, experimental therapies.

"Longevity clinics embody an important vision: healthcare is personalized, preventive, and engaged."

Although the concept of proactive aging care is attractive, the editorial raises serious concerns about the scientific and ethical foundations of these clinics. Many operate outside conventional medical systems and lack connections to academic geroscience. This disconnection allows them to market expensive interventions without sufficient clinical validation. Program costs can range from €10,000 to over €100,000 per year, limiting access to wealthy individuals while leaving out populations most at risk for premature aging.

Despite these challenges, Dr. Demaria notes that longevity clinics may contribute meaningfully to innovation. By collecting extensive, long-term health data from clients, these clinics have the potential to identify early biomarkers of aging and detect signs of age-related diseases. Unlike traditional clinical trials, which are limited in scope and duration, longevity clinics track a wide range of health data over time. When paired with artificial intelligence tools, this information could help advance the science of healthy aging.

However, several risks remain. Many clinics lack standardized protocols, and the tools they use, such as biological age calculators or hormone therapies, often lack accuracy or clear clinical value. Without proper guidelines, clients may receive advice that is confusing or not scientifically supported. This can reduce public trust in the broader field of longevity research.

To ensure these clinics contribute positively to health innovation, the editorial outlines different key steps: greater collaboration with academic researchers, the adoption of standardized protocols, increased transparency, and work toward regulatory clarity. Broader access must also be considered by developing scalable and more affordable models, possibly through partnerships with public health systems.

Ultimately, longevity clinics represent both a major opportunity and a serious concern. If integrated responsibly with science, policy, and public health, they could support a shift toward personalized, preventive healthcare. Without this alignment, however, they risk reinforcing inequality and weakening the credibility of the science behind aging.