DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
PopulationAdults in randomized NMN supplementation trials reporting resting blood pressure
Sample10 RCTs; 349 participants
InterventionOral NMN versus placebo/control across included trials
EndpointsResting systolic blood pressure; Resting diastolic blood pressure; Subgroup effects by participant and intervention characteristics
What the publication reported
This 2026 meta-analysis pooled ten randomized NMN trials involving 349 participants to assess resting blood pressure.
Across the pooled evidence, systolic blood pressure was not significantly reduced. A small reduction in diastolic blood pressure was reported, but the authors described the evidence as preliminary.
The result should be interpreted cautiously because the underlying trials were small, short and not primarily designed as hypertension-treatment trials.
Key findings
Ten randomized trials involving 349 participants were included.
Overall systolic blood pressure was not significantly reduced.
A small pooled reduction in diastolic blood pressure was reported.
The authors considered the evidence preliminary and emphasized the need for larger dedicated trials.
What it cannot establish
Small total evidence base.
Most included trials were short.
Blood pressure was often a secondary rather than primary endpoint.
Heterogeneity across populations and doses limits generalization.
HealthspanX claim boundary: This review does not establish NMN as a treatment for hypertension or as a clinically proven blood-pressure-lowering intervention.
