Hey Doc,

Just back from ARDD in Boston, and glad to share what I learned for our fellow scientists about where medicine is going.

Meanwhile, we have been building a home for the voices of longevity medicine: the people working in the labs, treating patients, changing policy, building technology, and educating the field.

Today it goes live. longevitydocs™ News, every day at news.longevitydocs.org.

Who it's for. Physicians practicing or moving into longevity medicine first. Researchers, health systems, founders and investors who need to know what is real are welcome too.

What you get.

• The day's evidence, read for practice. Research, therapeutics, diagnostics, technology, business and policy, each with what it changes in clinic.

• The Buzz in the Chat. The best debates from our physician network, now in the open.

• Events. Not just ours. We now list the industry meetings worth your time, from Mount Sinai's imaging course to the Buck Institute roundtable and Eudēmonia, alongside our Mastermind, Tables and Cannes 2027. One calendar for the field.

• Voices. We will invite leaders in longevity medicine to share commentary, opinions, articles and reviews. My ARDD notes open the section: Five Things That Will Change How We Practice Medicine by 2030.

The Sunday Newsletter stays right here. Now you have something to read the other six days.

As always, happy Sunday evening!

Dr. David Luu, Founder, longevitydocs™

Each week, I try to explore one idea that could advance longevity medicine and hopefully support physicians in bringing it to life. For my full perspective, read the full issue on Substack.

How We Will Practice Medicine by 2030

I just spent two days at ARDD in Boston, away from its traditional home in Copenhagen. I went with one question: how will aging research change the way we practice medicine?

The people in the room answered part of it. HHS, ARPA-H and the FDA. Lilly, Novartis, Moderna and Novo Nordisk. Mayo Clinic, Sheba, Atria and Human Longevity. Five years ago this was a basic science meeting. This year regulators, pharma and health systems sat in the same sessions and asked the same questions.

So I asked the leading researchers and leaders directly: what are you working on that will change how we practice medicine by 2030?

Eight of them answered: Jamie Justice, David Barzilai, Wei Wu, Steve Horvath, George Church, Alex Zhavoronkov, Evelyn Bischof, and Zahi Fayad. Their answers point to five shifts.

1. Multiomic mapping of each patient

Today most workups start with a lipid panel, an HbA1c and maybe a CAC score. By 2030, many patients will start with a full biological map: genome, proteome, metabolome, epigenetic age and imaging, read together instead of one test at a time.

The science isn't new. The price is. Tests that were research tools five years ago are now commercial products, and they keep getting cheaper.

"The genome went from $3 billion down to $600 for your whole life. And all the other collections, like proteomics, are going to become cheaper and cheaper."

Wei Wu, PhD, CEO, Human Longevity

My view: cost is no longer the barrier. Interpretation is. A patient who arrives with a genome, a proteomic panel and three epigenetic clocks needs a physician who can tell them which findings matter, which are noise and which change nothing. Most of us weren't trained for that. That gap is the opportunity for physicians who learn this now.

2. AI that reads the data

A full multiomic profile isn't something a person can read. It's thousands of variables interacting. Nearly every guest came back to this point. AI isn't a separate trend. It's what makes the first shift usable.

"Historically, to analyze 20 terabytes of data was almost impossible for a physician. But today, with AI, that is becoming easier and easier. All that knowledge is going to be at the fingertips of every human being on Earth."

Wei Wu, PhD

AI is also changing how drugs are discovered. Alex Zhavoronkov runs systems that never stop working:

"We have long-running agentic frameworks that allow you to have always-on, 24/7 agents that will perform drug discovery tasks, aging research tasks and even clinical operations tasks. I think that will have massive impact in the short term."

Alex Zhavoronkov, PhD, founder and CEO, Insilico Medicine

My view: AI won't replace clinical judgment, but it will decide which signals reach the physician. In practice, that means AI will flag the three findings out of three thousand that deserve a conversation. Physicians who learn to question and check those outputs will see more and miss less. Those who don't will be handed conclusions they can't evaluate. Note Wu's last line: the knowledge reaches the patient too. Your patients will arrive with AI-generated interpretations. Your job is to be the trusted second read.

3. Continuous monitoring with wearables and biomarkers

Medicine still runs on snapshots: a yearly physical, a lab draw, a scan. Biology changes every day. The next shift is from snapshots to a continuous view, through wearables, repeated molecular measurements and new aging clocks.

"By 2030, I expect wearables and molecular measurements to give us a much clearer picture of how each person's health is changing."

Zahi Fayad, PhD, director, BioMedical Engineering and Imaging Institute, Mount Sinai

Steve Horvath, who built the first epigenetic clocks, is working on the measurement layer:

"I'm very excited about new generations of aging clocks. My wheelhouse are methylation clocks. I'm very excited about proteomic measures, metabolomics, imaging. So there's a real revolution, perhaps for diagnostics, and also to help find dosages."

Steve Horvath, PhD, ScD, Altos Labs and UCLA

But one caveat came up in almost every conversation, and David Barzilai stated it most clearly:

"What most people aren't thinking about for greatest innovation is biomarkers of aging. These are validated for populations, not yet for people. And when we have them with sufficiently high reliability for people, it'll be a game changer for individuals and also for shorter-term trials."

David Barzilai, MD, PhD, co-editor, Frontiers of Longevity Science

My view: this is the most important point in the piece. Continuous monitoring is only as good as the biomarkers behind it. A clock that is accurate across 10,000 people can still be wrong for the one patient in front of you. Until aging biomarkers are validated for individuals, use them to follow a trend in the same patient over time, on the same test, not as a verdict on a single draw. Tell your patients this directly. It builds trust, and it protects you when the next clock disagrees with the last one.

Barzilai's second point matters for the whole field. Reliable biomarkers would shorten clinical trials, because researchers could see whether a drug slows biological aging without waiting a decade for hard outcomes. Every other shift depends on this one.

4. Prevention and earlier intervention

Once you can map a patient and track how that map changes, you stop waiting for disease to show up. You act when the trajectory bends, not when the diagnosis arrives.

"The goal is to intervene earlier and help people maintain their strength, cognition and independence."

Zahi Fayad, PhD

Evelyn Bischof describes the clinical model that follows:

"To make longevity medicine a truly actionable medical discipline by 2030, we need to upscale its evidence base now. The next generation of medicine must be adaptive: continuously measuring biological change, intervening, learning from individual responses, and recalibrating therapy in real time."

Evelyn Bischof, MD, PhD, MPH

The research world is measuring the same outcomes. XPRIZE Healthspan is testing whether therapies can preserve function in older adults:

"We have teams right now running their final trials. They're going to see if their therapeutic can change muscle, cognitive and immune function through clinical trials in older adults. Those are all going to wrap up in 2030, and we'll be announcing our global winner."

Jamie Justice, PhD, XPRIZE Healthspan

My view: prevention has always been medicine's promise and rarely its practice, because we had no tools to see risk early or a care model to act on it. That is changing. Look at the outcomes everyone named: strength, cognition, independence. Not lab values. Function. Define success with your patients in those terms. Measure grip strength, gait speed, VO2 max and cognition the way you measure LDL. That's prevention patients can feel.

5. Precision therapies that target aging and disease

The last shift is in what we prescribe. The first aging therapies probably won't be called aging drugs. They'll be drugs we already know, or are developing for disease, that turn out to act on aging biology too.

"Everyone talks about GLP-1. I think we will have the answer within a year or two. But the big question is, are these [anti-inflammatories] also geroprotectors?"

Steve Horvath, PhD, ScD

Zhavoronkov is building his pipeline around the same idea:

"In the long term, we have many different therapeutic programs in different stages that have the potential to address aging and disease at the same time. Currently we're developing them for diseases, but then we want to repurpose them for aging."

Alex Zhavoronkov, PhD

George Church is working on combinations:

"There are a lot of genes that independently look very promising for age-related diseases. But what if you put them all together? Are they going to add up, or are they going to synergize? A lot of that is going to happen in the next four years at a research level."

George Church, PhD, Harvard Medical School

My view: this is where hype is most likely, so be careful. Church was candid that approved drugs take longer than four years. In the near term, precision means matching existing drugs to the right patient at the right dose, guided by the measurements in shift 3. The GLP-1 geroprotection data and the NLRP3 trials are the two to follow. They'll reach your prescribing decisions before most of what was presented at ARDD.

What I'm taking back to my colleagues

For physicians

• Map first, then monitor. A baseline is only useful if you repeat it on the same test.

• Treat clocks as trend tools, not verdicts, and tell your patients why.

• Personalize lifestyle freely, but prescribe only on evidence.

• Measure function: strength, cognition and independence, alongside your labs.

• Learn to read AI output, because your patients already are.

For industry

• Validated biomarkers are the shared bottleneck. Whoever helps validate them shortens every trial that follows.

• Develop for disease first and aging second. That's the regulatory path the field is taking.

• Build for continuous data, not annual snapshots.

• Bring physicians in early. Nothing changes practice until clinicians trust it.

Keep reading

• Which Longevity Data Is Worth Acting On?
  Last week's issue: the Longevity Data Efficacy Pyramid, for deciding which results should change care.

• What People Get Wrong About Longevity Medicine
  Ten misconceptions about the field, and why translation remains its bottleneck.

• Where Can I Find a Longevity Doctor?
  The longevitydocs™ Directory of license-verified physicians practicing longevity medicine.

Frequently Asked Questions