Digestery
Longevity supplements › NMN and Aging › Studies

Pooled review (meta-analysis)

Pooled review of 8 NMN trials, 342 people, found no clear blood sugar benefit

Chen and colleagues · Current diabetes reports · 2024

Original title: Effects of Nicotinamide Mononucleotide on Glucose and Lipid Metabolism in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

Under review. A person has not yet checked this summary against the paper. It is written from the PubMed abstract. Until a person checks it, search engines are asked not to list this page.

What the study found

No difference

In 342 middle-aged and older adults, NMN gave no benefit on fasting glucose, fasting insulin, HbA1c, insulin resistance or blood fats.

The study at a glance

Type of study
Pooled review (meta-analysis)
Who or what was studied
8 studies, 342 people · Middle-aged and older adults, mostly without diabetes
What was tested
NMN 250-2000 mg a day for 14 days to 12 weeks, vs placebo or control
What it measured
Lab tests or markers
Daily amount
2000 mg a day
How long
12 weeks
Who has a stake
No stake declared
No company ties stated. One author is a journal section editor.
Journal
Current diabetes reports, 2024
Source
PubMed record 39531138. This page is based on the abstract only.

How much this study counts

  • ✓Pools the results of 8 studies with 342 people.
  • •A pooled review is only as strong as the studies it pools.
  • –Measured lab tests or markers, which stand in for aging and age-related decline. A better marker does not always mean better health.
  • ✓No competing interests declared.
  • •Summarized from the PubMed abstract only. The full paper may hold details the abstract leaves out.

✓ Strength– Limit• Note

These points come from fixed rules about the type of study, its size and length, what it measured, and who has a stake. Every study on Digestery gets the same rules.

Where this study sits

This paper is not on the ladder. It is a pooled review (meta-analysis), and reviews and opinion pieces discuss studies that are already counted on the steps below.

↑ Stronger evidence

  1. Trials in people: aging and age-related decline

    0

    Not done yet. This is the step that would answer the question.

  2. Trials in people: other measures

    9

    3 benefit, 2 mixed, 4 no difference

  3. Trials in people: lab tests or safety

    7

    4 benefit, 1 mixed, 2 no difference

  4. Population studies

    0

    None among the papers we read.

  5. Blood levels and genes

    0

    None among the papers we read.

  6. Animals

    6

    5 benefit, 1 mixed

↓ Weaker evidence

  • Points to benefit
  • Mixed
  • No difference
  • No direction
  • Points to harm

How it fits with the other research

The short answer to “Does NMN slow aging?”

Not shown in people so far.

Confidence: very low. Based on 29 on-topic papers.

Read the full answer

Other reviews on this question

See all 29 studies on this question

How this page was made

Label

First read of the abstract
Claude Sonnet
Independent second read
Claude Haiku
Differences settled
The reviewer corrected 2 fields after reading the abstract. Claude Opus 5.5.
Headline
Claude Sonnet, from the checked study record. A script checked its numbers and wording.
Numbers
Checked against the abstract by a script
“How much this study counts”
Fixed rules, the same for every study
Source check by a person
Not yet. Required before search engines may list this page.

Spot an error? Email a flag with a link to your source, or use the form on the question page.