Longevity clinics in Panama: what the evidence says

A global business already advertised in Panama

In Panama, as in other capitals, patients ask about NAD+ infusions, hormone optimization, rapamycin, peptides and "drips" to live longer and better. A column published on May 17, 2026 in La Estrella de Panamá argues that many clinics and influencers in the sector moved from prevention to profit, with a market projected at 8 billion dollars a year by 2030 and thin evidence behind several popular tips¹. It is an opinion column, not a study, and it names no specific Panamanian clinics¹.

The geriatrics literature itself debates the phenomenon. A 2025 commentary in Aging is titled "Longevity clinics: between promise and peril"⁷. Other authors describe these clinics as a preclinical approach based on aging clocks and biomarkers in healthy people and acknowledge there is still no accepted standard model⁸. A 2026 article notes that clinics and direct-to-consumer companies sell "biological age" tests with the promise that targeted interventions can slow aging, while the validity of those tests is being examined¹⁰.

Which framework applies in Panama

We found no alert from the Ministry of Health (MINSA) or the National Directorate of Pharmacy and Drugs (DNFD) aimed at longevity clinics, NAD+ or intravenous drips. What exists is the general framework. Law 419 of 2024 classifies marketing a product without sanitary registration as a very serious offense, except for exceptions the law itself authorizes, and bans mass dissemination of treatment offers or recommendations²⁴. Our physician's legal map in Panama summarizes which articles affect clinical practice.

The closest precedent is stem cells. La Prensa reported on July 24, 2026 that, by late 2025, at least six companies operated in Panama with packages of 5,000 to 50,000 dollars; among the conditions promoted were "anti-aging treatments"². On August 31, La Prensa reported that MINSA had inspected two establishments and opened two administrative files, among other reasons for products without sanitary registration³. We explain it in stem cells in Panama. Separately, Law 491 of 2025 regulates fillers and modeling substances, with fines of 10,000 to 50,000 dollars, but it does not regulate intravenous drips; details are in Law 491, fillers and mycobacteria⁴.

NAD+ and IV drips: what exists and what is missing

A 2026 systematic review included 113 studies, among them 33 in humans (28 randomized). It concluded that NAD+ has clear biological activity but that clinical benefit for anti-aging is inconclusive, and that no outcome trials tested intravenous or intramuscular NAD+¹⁸. A 2026 narrative review likewise describes sparse evidence, with small studies lacking placebo, and reports nausea, cramping, flushing and chest discomfort; long-term safety data are lacking¹⁹.

Vitamin "drips" carry a different risk: preparation and asepsis. In Sonora (Mexico), as of April 5, 2026 six people had died after receiving vitamin drips at a clinic; the state prosecutor is investigating which substances were administered⁵. A Mexican outlet summarizes that there is no solid scientific evidence supporting their use in healthy people and lists infections, vein infiltration and anaphylaxis among the complications⁶. We found no equivalent documented case in Panama in the sources we reviewed.

Testosterone, rapamycin and peptides

Testosterone. TRAVERSE randomized 5,246 men aged 45 to 80 with hypogonadism and cardiovascular risk: 7.0% events on testosterone and 7.3% on placebo (HR 0.96), with more atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury and pulmonary embolism in the treated group¹¹. In older men with low testosterone and memory impairment, the Testosterone Trials found no memory improvement¹². The Endocrine Society guideline says to diagnose hypogonadism only with symptoms and "unequivocally and consistently" low concentrations¹³. In February 2025 the FDA recommended removing the cardiovascular boxed warning but kept the limitation of use for age-related hypogonadism¹⁴; in June 2026 the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) asked to remove that limitation, judging it no longer supported by the evidence¹⁵. Nothing we reviewed confirms that change is final.

Rapamycin. In genetically heterogeneous mice, rapamycin started late in life extended median and maximal lifespan in both sexes¹⁷. In humans, the PEARL trial (48 weeks, placebo and two weekly regimens in healthy older adults) showed no significant change in visceral fat; there were gains in lean mass and pain in women in one group and adverse events were similar. All authors are employees and shareholders of the company that sells the service¹⁶.

Peptides. The FDA, reviewing BPC-157 and the thymosin β4 fragment TB-500 for compounding, cited immunogenicity risk and limited safety information; for TB-500 it said it had identified no human exposure data²⁰. More in peptides and anti-aging: what the evidence supports.

What physicians can ask before referring or advising

• Does the product have sanitary registration or fall under a legal exception?²⁴
• Is the measured outcome clinical (events, function) or just a biomarker? In CALERIE, 2 years of calorie restriction in 220 adults slowed one clock (DunedinPACE) but not PhenoAge or GrimAge, with small effects²¹.
• Who funded the study and who sells the service?¹⁶¹¹
• Is there specific consent and documentation of what is and is not known about the product?