In late March, New York longevity clinic Modern Age closed its doors, after less than three years of operation. The clinic, as reported here, had raised over $33 million to establish itself, and offered a combination of health/lifespan-related services, like blood marker analysis, bone density scans, and customized wellness analysis, along with esthetic services like microneedling and chemical peels, “as part of a comprehensive inner-outer beauty and wellness menu.”
The shutdown of Modern Age has provoked an understandable flurry of comment within the longevity clinic world and among observers of that world. Key questions:
– Are longevity clinics a bubble? Will more of them go the way of Modern Age?
– Are longevity clinics really just beauty spas/clinics in disguise? Does the whole “inner-outer beauty and wellness” idea make sense?
– Given the huge costs to the consumer — prices can range from $10,000 – $25,000 per year (and sometimes up to $100,000) — is this really a scalable concept? Or, to turn the question around, why should it be that expensive and can there be other models that would enable the health component (forgetting the esthetic piece) to be delivered to a much wider range of consumers at much more affordable prices?
For SuperAgers, who are always interested in what’s actually achievable and what steps to take, these are important questions.
That’s why we were very interested in this article, which offers a valuable checklist of what to look for in evaluating longevity clinics and their claims. The author, Petr Sramek, is an experienced longevity tech investor as well as head of a longevity clinic.
He points out that the premise of a longevity clinic — slowing down aging — requires a long-term focus and constant reference to clinical research. “Serious aging interventions,” he says, “can only be provided by a clinic that is fully absorbed within clinical research and the wider longevity research fields.”
For that reason, he’s skeptical of many, if not most, of the so-called longevity clinics now operating: “It’s my opinion that most of the clinics styling themselves as ‘longevity clinics’ have just rebranded and were formerly anti-aging, cosmetics, IV and esthetics clinics and providers. Another type of not actual ‘longevity clinics’ can be former lifestyle medicine or prevention-only clinics. The word ‘longevity’ is trendy.”
So what would a true “longevity clinic” look like? “If our industry is looking to promote proper longevity clinics,” Sramek says, “we must see a true and complete dedication to providing an advanced and fully personalized therapeutic approach. This is obviously not easy as it requires a novel and well-educated type of MD and an enormous capability to assess the latest research for advanced biomarker evaluation. We expect there are just a few such clinics around the world at this time.”
OK, but in the meantime there are many “longevity clinics” in the market, and even if some of them fall short of the absolute ideal, how do you judge? What should you look for? What can you expect?
His checklist:
- The clinic team includes people from multidisciplinary areas of the longevity space, with a focus on translational science.
- The clinic should actively participate in longevity clinical studies.
- The main focus should be medical interventions to increase healthspan.
- The clinic should not be dependent on and locked into a bunch of “magic” equipment solutions, but open to modifying its tools as better options with high safety and efficacy appear in the market.
- The clinic should not offer quick fixes but rather long-term programs.
What about the doctors at those clinics? He had a definite answer, but it’s a tougher proposition to find because there is not a huge supply of physicians who would fit the bill: “MDs must have long-term experience managing patients with functional and integrative medicine approaches, dealing with modulation of biological pathways related to the roots of different conditions, being educated on the theory and applications of other areas like OMICS, cell biology, nutrition, and physical activity prescription, while being committed to maintaining their studies, and being open-minded enough to change mindsets when science demonstrates new evidence.”
We’ve previously reported, here and here, that the industry is trying to create uniform standards that would prevent inaccurate claims and promises. This is clearly an emerging topic, and we’re encouraged that it’s receiving some very necessary expert (and critical) analysis. The ideal, per Sramek’s criteria, may not be widely available, but if you’re armed with his checklist, you’ll at least have a better chance of arriving at a better solution. We’ll continue to look for other expert advice on how to navigate this exciting but tricky landscape.