Compound Profile
What NAD+ Trials Measure, and What They Administer
Published: August 25, 2026
TL;DR
Two questions decide what an NAD+ study can tell you: what went into the participant, and where the assay looked afterwards. Both answers move around more than the shared name suggests. Registered studies have used intravenous infusion, intramuscular and subcutaneous injection, IV push, oral capsules and a weekly iontophoresis patch. And in the largest published oral study, whole-blood intracellular NAD rose 53 percent while plasma NAD did not move at all. Two trials with NAD in their titles administer nicotinamide riboside instead.
Curo lists this material as NAD+ in the research peptide catalogue. Lot documents are searchable through the COA library, and catalogue materials are supplied for research use only.
Route is part of the intervention
No two registered NAD+ studies deliver the compound the same way.
NCT06382688 infuses 500 mg of sterile NAD+ in 500 mL of saline, in 53 participants, with no results posted. NCT06919328 takes 100 mg in 2 mL of bacteriostatic water and compares three routes inside one design: intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection and IV push. It is recruiting toward an estimated 70 participants, and it has posted nothing yet.
NCT04604704 goes further still, pairing low-dose naltrexone with 400 mg of NAD+ in solution, delivered once weekly through an iontophoresis patch worn for four to six hours. That one is complete, with 36 participants and no posted results.
Set those beside each other and almost every variable moves at once: amount, formulation, schedule, co-intervention, assay. What the registry gives you here is a map of what people are trying, not a comparison of what works.
The assay compartment changes the answer
Only two human studies of directly administered NAD+ have published results, and between them they show why the assay compartment is not a technicality. Matching a report to the material that produced it is the same habit the guide to verifying a certificate against its lot applies at the bench.
The 2019 pilot gave 750 mg of NAD+ by IV infusion over six hours, at 3 micromoles per minute, to eight of eleven participants, with three on saline. For the first two hours nothing moved: no rise in the plasma or urinary NAD-related analytes being followed. By the end of the infusion, plasma NAD+, nicotinamide, methyl-nicotinamide and ADP-ribose all sat around 400 percent above baseline. It was a metabolite study, not a disease-outcome study, and eight participants on the infusion is far too few for its clean adverse-event record to say anything general about safety.
RENEWAL-NAD+ went oral: 2,000 mg of a formulation described as 50 percent NAD+ by mass, daily for five days, in healthy adults, with 50 participants in the primary analysis. At day 6 whole-blood intracellular NAD was 53 percent higher than placebo. Plasma NAD did not rise at all.
That pairing is the useful part. One study found the signal in plasma; the other found it inside cells and nowhere in plasma. Those are different compartments, not different words for the same thing, and the two results would look contradictory to anyone who read only the compound name. A finding here travels with four things attached: the analyte, the compartment, the collection time, and the route and formulation that produced it.
NAD+, NR, NMN and NADH need separate evidence lines
The title of a study is not its intervention. NADream is registered as "Effects of Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide Supplementation" and administers nicotinamide riboside at 2,000 mg daily. NCT03482167, registered as "NAD Therapy for Improving Memory and Brain Blood Flow in Older Adults", administers Niagen, which is NR, at 500 mg twice daily. Both are legitimate precursor studies. Neither one is evidence about administered NAD+, and the precursor literature is considerably larger than the direct one, so the substitution flatters the direct record every time it happens.
The same slippage shows up in identifiers. UNII 8295030YNC gets attached to NAD+ regularly, and the FDA substance record files it as disodium nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide reduced, CAS 606-68-8. That is NADH, the reduced form, not oxidized NAD+. One catalogue name can sit over several distinct chemical entities, which is exactly the situation the guide to reading purity claims and batch documents is written for. Curo's quality and testing standard sets out what each analytical method reports.
The human record is strongest as a measurement map
Read the whole set as a measurement map and it becomes navigable. Intervention first, then biospecimen, analyte, collection time and stated endpoint. Two results only belong side by side once those five line up.
It is also worth remembering what a registry entry is. It records a design, an enrolment figure and a status. A published paper adds findings. A completed status on its own supplies no number, and a biomarker moving is not a disease outcome.
The conclusion is narrow and still useful: form, compartment and timing change the observed NAD profile enough that a comparison which drops them is not really a comparison. The same discipline pays off elsewhere in the longevity literature, and the Epithalon research record shows what happens when you apply it to a compound whose reputation rests on cell-culture work.
Compounding records are separate status lines
Three separate federal records describe where NAD sits, and they answer different questions.
The current text of 21 CFR 216.23 lists six bulk drug substances usable under the 503A pathway. NAD is not one of them. Working backwards, FDA's 2019 proposed rule explains why: the agency evaluated NAD for fatigue in multiple sclerosis, found insufficient clinical data for that use, and proposed not to include it. The same document records that the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee discussed NAD on May 8, 2017.
On the outsourcing-facility side, FDA's March 21, 2025 category document places beta-nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide in Category 1, which the document defines as bulk drug substances under evaluation. Under evaluation is not approval.
One more thing is worth stating because the assumption travels: NAD was not on the July 2026 compounding committee agenda. The Federal Register notice for that meeting, docket FDA-2025-N-6895, scheduled seven peptides and NAD was not among them.
Common questions
What does "NAD increased" leave out?
It leaves out the analyte, sample compartment, collection time, administration route and formulation. Those details define what was actually measured.
Can the registered study amounts be used as administration guidance?
No. Each amount belongs to a named protocol with its own route, schedule, formulation, comparator and measurement plan.
Which NAD+ administration route has the strongest human evidence?
The current studies are too different in formulation, schedule, comparator, assay and endpoint to rank IV, IM, subcutaneous, oral, IV-push or iontophoresis delivery on one scale.
What should I check when a label says NAD+?
Check the exact chemical form first, then match it to the lot-specific identity and purity documentation. A broad catalogue name is not precise enough for evidence matching.