Systematic review and meta-analysis

The Effect of Nicotinamide Mononucleotide and Riboside on Skeletal Muscle Mass and Function: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Konstantinos Prokopidis, Frank Moriarty, Gülistan Bahat, Joseph McLean, David D Church, Harnish P Patel

Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle · 2025 · 16(3):e13799

Original publication PubMed Full text on PMC

Study at a glance

Design: Systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled NMN and nicotinamide riboside trials
Population or model: Primarily middle-aged and older adults in NAD-precursor randomized trials
Sample size: Multiple NMN and NR randomized trials; NMN-specific pooled evidence was limited
Intervention: NMN or nicotinamide riboside versus placebo
Publication type: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Evidence class: review-perspective
Research area: Skeletal muscle mass and function
Trial registration: Not applicable.

Study endpoints

Skeletal muscle index
Handgrip strength
Gait speed
Chair-stand and physical-performance tests
Muscle mass and strength measures

Plain-language summary

This systematic review examined randomized trials of two NAD precursors, NMN and nicotinamide riboside, for skeletal-muscle mass and function.

The pooled evidence did not show convincing improvements in the main muscle-mass or function measures attributable to NMN. The available NMN evidence was small and heterogeneous.

Because the review combines two different NAD precursors, its overall results should not be treated as an NMN-only efficacy estimate.

Key findings

The review evaluated skeletal-muscle mass and functional outcomes across randomized NAD-precursor trials.
Pooled evidence did not support consistent NMN-related improvements in core muscle outcomes.
The NMN evidence base was smaller than the broader combined NMN/NR literature.
The authors concluded that current evidence does not support these precursors for preserving muscle mass or function in older adults.

Limitations

The review combines NMN and nicotinamide riboside, which are distinct interventions.
NMN-specific trial numbers were limited.
Underlying trials were small and short.
Different functional tests and populations created heterogeneity.

Funding and transparency

Funding

The authors reported no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests

See source publication for author disclosures.

HealthspanX observation

Because NMN and NR are pooled in parts of this review, NMN-specific conclusions should be separated from broader NAD-precursor conclusions.

Interpretive weight

Limited

Systematic review and meta-analysis of NAD-precursor trials; NMN-specific evidence remains sparse and does not show consistent improvements in muscle mass or function.

This record summarizes a publication; it is not medical advice or a claim that a HealthspanX product reproduces the study's results. Report a correction.

Explore HealthspanX

Science

Your wellbeing