NMN Evidence Card: 25 Human Studies, Their Results, Funding and Registry Gaps

β-Nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN) sits one enzymatic step upstream of NAD+, the coenzyme that falls with age in several rodent tissues. That position made it the most marketed NAD+ precursor of the past decade. This dossier is built on a hand-curated layer: all 25 human intervention studies, read one by one (21 in full text), with their between-group results, attrition, funding, conflict statements and registrations, and every NMN trial registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. A rule-based census of 2,545 PubMed records provides context, with its uncertainty stated. It describes literature and regulation; it gives no basis for any use.

What does the NMN literature actually contain?

Before counting, we resolved the compound in PubChem (CID 14180) and checked every synonym against PubMed. Two synonyms that automated indexes pick up are traps. “Alpha9” is a supplier trade name that returns 951 papers on unrelated α9 proteins. “NMN” is also the standard abbreviation for normetanephrine, a catecholamine metabolite used in phaeochromocytoma diagnostics, and for N-methylnicotinamide, a probe of renal transporters. The documented query (see Methods) retrieved 2,545 records; 632 of them (25%) use “NMN” for something else, 245 in the catecholamine family alone.

The 1,913 records about nicotinamide mononucleotide fall into four groups. The unit in this section is the PubMed record, not the study, and the counts are approximate: a blind second coder agreed with the first-pass rules on 88.2% of records for “NMN given versus not” (κ 0.65). Treat them as orders of magnitude, not as precise figures.

Classification of 1,913 PubMed records by the role NMN plays in each. Rule-based classification on title, abstract, MeSH and publication type, with 125 records reviewed and corrected by hand; blind double coding of a 15% random sample is reported in Methods. Source: Condor Research census, query date 2026-10-17.

How fast has the intervention literature grown, and who writes it?

Of the 626 records in which NMN is given, 522 (83%) were published from 2020 onwards. Chinese first authors sign 345 (55%), US 90 (14%) and Japanese 65 (10%). The two laboratories most associated with the molecule’s public profile, Shin-ichiro Imai’s at Washington University and David Sinclair’s at Harvard, appear as authors on 28 (4.5%). Authorship is therefore spread across many groups. That is a statement about authorship, not about replication: we did not test whether individual preclinical findings were reproduced, and many of these papers test different outcomes in different models.

The census contains no peer-reviewed lifespan study of NMN in normally ageing mammals. A 2024 preprint from the Sinclair group reports an 8.5% increase in median lifespan in female mice and none in males.² A 2026 report on a different compound included NMN as a comparator arm and found no significant difference in median lifespan versus placebo in adult mice.³ The best-known long-term mouse study, a 12-month administration from the Imai group, measured physiological decline rather than survival.⁴

What have the 25 human studies tested?

We identified 25 primary reports of human intervention studies with NMN as the test agent, published from 2020 to 2026. Excluded: protocols, post hoc reanalyses of trials already counted, multi-ingredient formulas and an uncontrolled sub-study inside a mouse paper. Doses, routes, timing and schedules are omitted on purpose.

All human intervention studies of NMN indexed in PubMed to 2026-10-17. Funding: industry-funded = financed or sponsored by a company; industry-linked = product donated by a manufacturer, company employees among the authors, or investigator patents or funding from a manufacturer; independent = none declared. Dataset: dataset.json.

What did the controlled comparisons show on their primary endpoints?

Nineteen of the 25 studies compared NMN with a control. We define the primary comparison as the between-group difference (NMN minus control) on the endpoint the authors or the registry designate as primary; with co-primaries, any one of them. A confidence interval counts only if the paper publishes an estimate of that difference with its interval. Within-group intervals, group means with intervals, interaction tests without an estimate and intervals for secondary outcomes do not count. Three controlled studies designate no primary endpoint and are treated as not applicable. The table gives, for each study, the reported result on the primary endpoint, whether a confidence interval for the primary comparison is published, attrition, a simplified risk-of-bias judgement and whether the reported primary matches the registered one. We do not summarise these results as a success rate: the endpoints, populations and durations are too different for a count of “positive” trials to mean anything.

Controlled human comparisons of NMN. “Risk of bias” is a simplified judgement on the RoB 2 domains (randomisation reported, blinding, attrition, selection of the reported result); it is not a formal RoB 2 assessment. Registry correspondence was checked on ClinicalTrials.gov and jRCT; UMIN and ChiCTR records marked “not checked” were not read.

Three patterns stand out. First, the endpoints that consistently differ from control are NAD+ and its metabolites in blood. Second, of the 16 controlled studies with a designated primary endpoint, 1 publishes a confidence interval for the between-group difference on it; 12 do not (checked in full text), and for 3 assessed from the abstract only none is reported there. Several report within-group change or an interaction test without an effect estimate, which leaves the size of any NMN-versus-control difference unknown. Third, two studies report a primary endpoint different from the registered one: one registered serum cystatin C and reported serum creatinine (neither differed from placebo),²³ and one registered NAD+, walking distance, SF-36 and a telomerase sub-study as primaries and reported NAD+ alone as primary, without telomerase results.²⁰ Four studies cite no registration in the paper or abstract we read. One 30-participant MIB-626 study designated no primary endpoint, sized its sample for safety and the rise in blood NAD+, reported that rise only graphically, and states that all its P values, including those for weight, blood pressure and cholesterol, are nominal.¹⁷

The one human finding with replication is a rise in blood NAD+. Controlled evidence for clinical effects is sparse, small and rarely reported with intervals.

How does this compare with the 2026 GRADE review?

The most recent systematic review searched six databases to 13 May 2026, included 15 randomised trials and graded certainty with GRADE.¹ It found no increase in adverse events or liver enzymes, no effect on body weight, BMI, fasting glucose, HbA1c, lipids or systolic blood pressure, and a small decrease in diastolic blood pressure that its authors call hypothesis-generating. Certainty was moderate for liver enzymes, body weight, BMI, glucose, triglycerides and total adverse events, low for HbA1c, LDL cholesterol and blood pressure, and very low for HOMA-IR and serious adverse events. Our reading of the primary reports agrees with that picture. We add what a pooled analysis does not show: who funded each study, where disclosures conflict with funding sections, which trials match their registrations, and which finished trials are missing from the literature. A 2025 meta-analysis that kept NMN and NR separate found no effect of NMN on skeletal muscle index, grip strength, gait speed or chair-stand time.³⁰

Who paid for the human evidence?

Twelve of the 25 studies were funded or sponsored by a company (48%), and eight more had declared ties to one: product donated by the manufacturer, company employees among the authors, or investigator patents and research funding from NMN suppliers. Five (20%) declared none. Counting only direct funding, the industry share is 48%; counting declared ties as well, 80%. Three manufacturer families recur: Mitsubishi Corporation Life Sciences (four studies), Metro International Biotech (three) and Oriental Yeast, which supplied product for the Keio and Washington University studies.^5,7,22

Two disclosures do not match the papers they sit in. One trial declares “no conflict of interest” while its funding section states that Mitsubishi Corporation Life Sciences provided the research funds, the supplements and the publication fee, and three of its authors are company employees.¹¹ Another declares “no competing interests” while every author is affiliated with DHC Corporation, which funded it.¹⁵ The 66-participant trial sponsored by Effepharm, whose sole author is an Effepharm employee,⁹ is the human study that EFSA’s 2026 opinion identifies as the applicant’s own.³¹

Industry funding does not invalidate a trial. It means that most of the human evidence was produced by parties with a commercial interest in NMN, a category that includes the publisher of this dossier.

Which registered NMN trials have no article in PubMed?

ClinicalTrials.gov lists 37 interventional studies with an NMN arm. Seventeen are completed or terminated. For 11 of them we located no results article in PubMed at the cut-off; two of those 11 have posted results on the registry. Ten of the 11 finished more than 12 months before the cut-off. Industry is the lead sponsor on 13 of the 37 registrations. Absence here means “not located in PubMed by registration number or by matching to published trials on 2026-10-17”; articles may exist elsewhere or appear later.

Completed or terminated interventional NMN studies on ClinicalTrials.gov for which no results article was located in PubMed. Search by registration number and by matching published trials to their registrations; query date 2026-10-17. Sensitivity: excluding registrations completed less than 12 months before the cut-off, 10 of 16; counting results posted on the registry as reported, 9 of 17.

One of the eleven is the larger successor to the most cited human efficacy result. In 2021 the Washington University group reported that muscle insulin sensitivity rose after 10 weeks of NMN in 25 women with prediabetes.⁷ The same institution registered a randomised, quadruple-masked trial on the same primary endpoint over 16 weeks (NCT04571008, 56 enrolled, 40 analysed). It completed in March 2025 and posted results on 2026-03-11: mean change in muscle insulin sensitivity 13.5 with NMN and 19.0 with placebo (standard deviations 88.4 and 95.0).³² On the posted numbers, NMN did not outperform placebo. No article was located at the cut-off. We draw no conclusion about the direction of results in the other unpublished trials, which posted nothing.

Japanese studies are mostly registered on UMIN-CTR and jRCT. Among those we read, a placebo-controlled hearing trial whose recruitment the registry lists as complete (jRCTs031220373) and a tinnitus trial that is recruiting (jRCTs041220129) have no article in PubMed. Because jRCT and UMIN offer no complete public query interface, we computed no rate for them.

Is NMN evidence the same as NR or “NAD+ precursor” evidence?

No, and much of what is written about NMN borrows from nicotinamide riboside (NR). Only 2 of the 25 NMN studies also tested NR in the same protocol.^25,24 Several widely cited meta-analyses pool NMN and NR; kept apart, the NMN-only estimates for muscle outcomes are null.³⁰ In a 65-participant randomised comparison, NMN and NR raised whole-blood NAD+ to a similar extent, and ex vivo work in the same paper attributed much of that effect to gut bacteria converting both precursors to nicotinic acid.²⁵ For the pooled human picture across precursors, see our review of NAD+, NMN and NR human evidence; for the coenzyme itself, NMN versus NAD+.

What does this literature allow, and not allow, us to say?

1. Published human studies report higher blood NAD+ after NMN administration. Fifteen of 17 human studies that measured it reported an increase, across five countries and several manufacturers; the 2026 randomised comparison estimates the difference from placebo at 43.1 µM (95% CI 32.7 to 53.4) after 14 days.²⁵
2. No clinical effect in humans is established. Controlled studies with clinical primary endpoints are few, small and heterogeneous; the largest unpublished successor of the most cited positive result posted numbers that do not favour NMN; the 2026 GRADE review found no broad metabolic benefit.
3. The human evidence base is small and short. 894 participants across 25 studies, median 30 per study, none longer than 24 weeks.
4. Most human evidence is industry-produced. 48% directly funded, 80% including declared ties; two studies contain conflict statements that contradict their own funding sections.
5. The published record is incomplete. 11 of 17 finished registrations had no PubMed article at the cut-off, a median 21.5 months after completion; two published trials report primaries that differ from their registrations.
6. Counts of “NMN research” are unreliable unless the abbreviation is disambiguated. A quarter of PubMed hits for the query are about something else.

What is NMN’s legal status in the EU, the UK, the US and Japan?

The answer has changed more in the last 13 months than in the previous five years, and it depends on what NMN is sold as. As a food or supplement it is regulated food by food, jurisdiction by jurisdiction. A research reference material sits outside food law only as long as it is not presented for consumption. Status below is as of 2026-10-17, from primary sources.

Regulatory status of NMN by jurisdiction, primary sources consulted 2026-10-17. Informational, not legal advice.

Three points are easy to miss. A novel-food authorisation attaches to a dossier, not to the molecule: if adopted as drafted, the EU entry covers one company’s synthetic β-NMN, with exclusivity for five years. An EFSA opinion is advice, not authorisation; the gap between May and September 2026 was the Commission and Member State procedure. And none of these food-law decisions concerns NMN supplied as a research-use-only reference material, which is not a food and must not be labelled or described as one.

How stable is NMN as a solid and in solution?

Stability data for NMN come from a kinetic study in solution, a forced-degradation study, cell-culture work and regulatory dossier data for the dry solid. They agree on direction and differ on magnitude.

Published and regulatory stability data for NMN. Laboratory characterisation only.

The dry, sealed solid is the stable form: the only long-term data, from a regulatory dossier, show no change over 24 months at 25 °C and 60% RH. In solution NMN hydrolyses, and the two published room-temperature measurements differ roughly twofold (10% loss in about four days versus at most 7% in seven to ten days), most likely because of pH and matrix; neither reports conditions that would let the other be reproduced exactly. In cell work, serum in the medium converts NMN to NR before it reaches the cells, so an “NMN” condition in serum-containing medium is partly an NR condition.⁴³ Conservative laboratory practice for reference materials (sealed, dry, cold, protected from light, solutions prepared fresh, single-use aliquots, vials brought to room temperature before opening) sits within these data.

One widely repeated claim lacks a primary source: we located no peer-reviewed measurement of NMN hygroscopicity, such as a dynamic vapour-sorption isotherm, in PubMed. The evidence that moisture matters is indirect: hydrolysis in solution and the water limits in dossier specifications.

Identity is a separate question. NMN exists as α and β anomers; β-NMN is the biological precursor. An isomer-specific LC-MS/MS method applied to eight commercial supplements found substantial variation in anomer composition, including undeclared or inaccurately labelled ingredients.⁴⁴ A 2024 test of NMN and urolithin A supplements found active-ingredient content deviating from the label by +28.6% to −100%.⁴⁵ A 2025 method for cosmetics found no NMN in some products that claimed it.⁴⁶ Measuring NMN in blood or tissue has its own difficulty: endogenous levels are low, NMN is converted quickly during sample handling, and matrix effects distort LC-MS/MS signals. A 2024 method addressed this with two isotope-labelled NMN standards, one to correct matrix effects and one to trace losses during processing.⁴⁷ Published NMN concentrations in biological samples are therefore comparable only when the methods are.

What is NMN, chemically?

Identity data from PubChem CID 14180 and the EFSA opinion; PubMed counts from the census query, 2026-10-17.

What is still not known?

• How NMN enters cells. The Imai group reported a dedicated transporter, Slc12a8;⁴⁹ Schmidt and Brenner argued the data did not establish it.⁵⁰ The 2026 human comparison suggests that gut microbial conversion to nicotinic acid explains much of the systemic NAD+ rise.²⁵ Which route dominates in humans is unresolved.
• Whether the NAD+ rise does anything clinically. No human study has linked an NMN-induced change in blood NAD+ to a pre-specified clinical outcome with adequate power.
• What the unpublished trials found. Eleven finished registered trials, 620 participants enrolled, had no PubMed article at the cut-off; nine posted nothing.
• Long-term human safety. The longest human exposure is 24 weeks. A 2024 mouse preprint reported markers of kidney inflammation and higher circulating uraemic toxins in aged, but not young, mice given NMN.⁵¹
• Tissue NAD+ in humans. Most studies measure whole blood, plasma or PBMC. Brain NAD+ has been measured in one 12-person pharmacokinetic study.²⁴
• Solution stability and hygroscopicity. Room-temperature solution estimates differ about twofold; no peer-reviewed sorption data exist for the solid.

How was this census built?

Identity and synonyms. PubChem CID 14180, 99 synonyms retrieved 2026-10-17. Each candidate synonym was counted in PubMed; “Alpha9” (951 records) and “nicotinamide nucleotide” (1,011, mostly NAD(P) and transhydrogenase) were rejected as ambiguous; “fosribnicotinamide” returned no records.

PubMed query (run 2026-10-17, 2,545 records): ("nicotinamide mononucleotide"[tiab] OR "Nicotinamide Mononucleotide"[mh] OR "beta-nicotinamide mononucleotide"[tiab] OR "beta-NMN"[tiab] OR "nicotinamide ribotide"[tiab] OR "nicotinamide ribonucleotide"[tiab] OR "MIB-626"[tiab] OR "fosribnicotinamide"[tiab] OR NMN[tiab]). All records were downloaded with NCBI E-utilities (efetch, XML).

Classification. Each record was classified from title, abstract, MeSH and publication type by deterministic rules: relevance (about NMN or another meaning of “NMN”), role (NMN given as a tested agent, NAD+ pathway biology, chemistry/production, review, comment) and model (in vitro, animal, human). Enzyme names containing the phrase “nicotinamide mononucleotide” were masked before role assignment. In version 0.9 every record previously labelled as an intervention (466) was reviewed by hand by title, and 125 labels were corrected; human intervention studies were identified by a targeted search and curated from abstracts and full texts, including funding and conflict-of-interest sections.

Blind double coding. A second coder, an independent model instance with the written codebook and no access to the first coder’s labels, classified a random 15% sample (382 records, seed 20261017). Against the first-pass rules, agreement on “NMN given as a tested agent versus not” was 88.2% (Cohen’s κ 0.65). The disagreements showed that the rules missed NMN used as a rescue, comparator or positive control in papers about other subjects. We added a sentence-level rule for those uses and reviewed the remaining edge cases by hand; agreement then rose to 95.0% (κ 0.87). Because the rules were revised after seeing this sample, the second figure is not an independent estimate; the first is the conservative one. Agreement on relevance was 80.1% (κ 0.57), lower because the second coder treated passing mentions of NMN inside NAD+ biology as not about NMN; on model, among records both coders called interventions, 85.6% (κ 0.71), with most disagreement over papers that use both cells and animals. A hand check of 40 records newly captured by the sentence rule found 32 correct, so the count of 626 may include roughly 40 false positives.

Full texts read. For the human layer, 21 of the 25 primary reports were read in full: 17 from PubMed Central, 2 from J-STAGE and 2 supplied as full texts (Yamane 2023, Pencina 2023 in J Clin Endocrinol Metab). Four were assessed from the abstract and registry only: Pencina 2023 in J Gerontol A, Akasaka 2023, Morifuji 2024 and Li 2026. For stability, Xiang 2023 and Zhou 2024 were assessed from their abstracts; the file supplied as Zhou 2024 was a different article and was not used.

Publication-type filters are unreliable here. The query combined with PubMed’s clinical-trial publication types returns 37 records; 16 are NMN intervention studies, and it misses 9 of the 25.

Registries. ClinicalTrials.gov API v2, queried 2026-10-17 with intervention and free-text searches for nicotinamide mononucleotide, β-NMN, MIB-626 and NMN; 57 records retrieved, 37 interventional with an NMN arm (NR-only, niacin, NMNH and unrelated studies excluded). Results articles were searched in PubMed by registration number and by the registrations cited in published trials. jRCT records were read individually where found; no rate was computed for jRCT, UMIN or ChiCTR.

Limitations. PubMed only (no Embase, CNKI or journals indexed only in J-STAGE); rule-based roles carry the error measured above; funding categories rely on what papers declare; the risk-of-bias column is a simplified judgement by one reviewer.

Data and code. The classified census (2,545 records), every table on this page, the blind-coding sample and agreement, and a data dictionary are in dataset.json (CC BY 4.0). The scripts that reproduce every number and figure are published with this page in nmn-evidence-card-scripts-v1.0-rc.zip: fetch_pubmed.py, parse_pubmed.py, census.py, ctgov.py, analysis.py, agreement.py, figures.py and build_body.py.

How to cite this dossier

Condor Research Editorial. NMN (β-nicotinamide mononucleotide) Evidence Card: literature census, human studies, registry gap and regulatory status. Version 1.0-rc, data cut-off 2026-10-17. https://condorresearch.com/research/what-is-nmn/. Dataset: dataset.json, CC BY 4.0.

Changelog. 1.0-rc2 (2026-10-18): RUO review wording changes. 1.0-rc (2026-10-17): explicit definition of “primary comparison” and recount of published confidence intervals (1 of 16 controlled studies with a designated primary; 3 without a designated primary; 3 assessed from abstract only); Kim 2022 registration UMIN000038097 added from its Methods, risk-of-bias judgement revised and studies without a cited registration reduced to 4; Yoshino 2021 row rewritten (significant three-way interaction, P = 0.022, without a contrast estimate); Igarashi 2022 supplier allocation error and exclusion of 22 participants’ week-12 data added to attrition and risk of bias; “Key findings” box added. 0.95 (2026-10-17): header and card rebuilt on the curated human and registry layers, with the census shown as context and its κ visible; Yamane 2023 and Pencina 2023 (J Clin Endocrinol Metab) re-read in full text: Yamane registration (UMIN000047042), attrition and funding statement added; Pencina design, attrition, absence of a designated primary and nominal P values added, CI count corrected from 5 to 4; full-text count added to Methods; Zhou 2024 kept at abstract level because the supplied file was a different article. 0.9 (2026-10-17): first public version. Intervention records reclassified by hand (466 reviewed, 125 corrected) and classification audited by blind double coding; primary-endpoint “success rate” replaced by a table of between-group results; registry gap reported as “no article located in PubMed at the cut-off”, separating articles, registry results and time since completion; EU authorisation details checked against the draft annex; 2026 GRADE review added; declaration of interest added.

References

1. Yang W et al. Nutrients. 2026. PMID: 42514320 · doi: 10.3390/nu18142251
2. Kane AE et al. bioRxiv. 2024. Preprint, not peer reviewed. PMID: 38979132 · doi: 10.1101/2024.06.21.599604
3. Weiss B et al. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2026. PMID: 42011226 · doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S594895
4. Mills KF et al. Cell Metab. 2016. PMID: 28068222 · doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2016.09.013
5. Irie J et al. Endocr J. 2020. PMID: 31685720 · doi: 10.1507/endocrj.EJ19-0313
6. Liao B et al. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2021. PMID: 34238308 · doi: 10.1186/s12970-021-00442-4
7. Yoshino M et al. Science. 2021. PMID: 33888596 · doi: 10.1126/science.abe9985
8. Fukamizu Y et al. Sci Rep. 2022. PMID: 36002548 · doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-18272-y
9. Huang H Front Aging. 2022. PMID: 35821806 · doi: 10.3389/fragi.2022.851698
10. Igarashi M et al. NPJ Aging. 2022. PMID: 35927255 · doi: 10.1038/s41514-022-00084-z
11. Kim M et al. Nutrients. 2022. PMID: 35215405 · doi: 10.3390/nu14040755
12. Kimura S et al. Cureus. 2022. PMID: 36225528 · doi: 10.7759/cureus.28812
13. Okabe K et al. Front Nutr. 2022. PMID: 35479740 · doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.868640
14. Akasaka H et al. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2023. PMID: 36443648 · doi: 10.1111/ggi.14513
15. Katayoshi T et al. Sci Rep. 2023. PMID: 36797393 · doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-29787-3
16. Pencina KM et al. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2023. PMID: 35182418 · doi: 10.1093/gerona/glac049
17. Pencina KM et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2023. PMID: 36740954 · doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgad027
18. Qiu Y et al. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2023. PMID: 37718359 · doi: 10.1038/s41392-023-01577-3
19. Yamane T et al. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2023. PMID: 37344088 · doi: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2023.04.031
20. Yi L et al. Geroscience. 2023. PMID: 36482258 · doi: 10.1007/s11357-022-00705-1
21. Morifuji M et al. Geroscience. 2024. PMID: 38789831 · doi: 10.1007/s11357-024-01204-1
22. Yamaguchi S et al. Endocr J. 2024. PMID: 38191197 · doi: 10.1507/endocrj.EJ23-0431
23. Pencina KM et al. FASEB Bioadv. 2025. PMID: 40746868 · doi: 10.1096/fba.2025-00014
24. Berven H et al. iScience. 2026. PMID: 41858901 · doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2026.114764
25. Christen S et al. Nat Metab. 2026. PMID: 41540253 · doi: 10.1038/s42255-025-01421-8
26. Li H et al. Nat Med. 2026. PMID: 42056497 · doi: 10.1038/s41591-026-04366-x
27. Wakabayashi J et al. Sci Rep. 2026. PMID: 42304075 · doi: 10.1038/s41598-026-57552-9
28. Yang DL et al. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2026. PMID: 41705654 · doi: 10.1080/15502783.2026.2632284
29. Zhao C et al. Sci Rep. 2026. PMID: 41651893 · doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-34191-0
30. Prokopidis K et al. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2025. PMID: 40275690 · doi: 10.1002/jcsm.13799
31. EFSA NDA Panel EFSA J. 2026. PMID: 42125559 · doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2026.10007
32. ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT04571008, Effect of NMN Supplementation on Organ System Biology (Washington University School of Medicine); results first posted 11 March 2026. Accessed 2026-10-17. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04571008
33. European Commission. Consultation request for the determination of the novel food status of nicotinamide mononucleotide (Czech Republic). Published 11 October 2022. Accessed 2026-10-17. https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-10/novel-food_consult-status_nmn-cz.pdf
34. Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council on novel foods. Accessed 2026-10-17. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32015R2283
35. European Commission, Comitology Register. D118035/02, draft Commission Implementing Regulation authorising the placing on the market of beta-nicotinamide mononucleotide (β-NMN) as a novel food; PAFF Committee positive opinion 24 September 2026. Accessed 2026-10-17. https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/comitology-register/screen/documents/118035/2/consult?lang=en
36. European Commission. Novel food: decisions terminating the procedure (incl. C(2022) 1900 and C(2026) 6813 on nicotinamide mononucleotide). Accessed 2026-10-17. https://food.ec.europa.eu/food-safety/novel-food/decisions-terminating-procedure_en
37. Food Standards Agency. Register of regulated product applications, RP-2116: β-Nicotinamide Mononucleotide (Effepharm (Shanghai) Ltd.), status in progress. Accessed 2026-10-17. https://data.food.gov.uk/regulated-product-applications/products-list/RP-2116
38. US Food and Drug Administration. Response letter to the Natural Products Association and Alliance for Natural Health USA, docket FDA-2023-P-0872, 29 September 2025. Accessed 2026-10-17. https://www.regulations.gov/document/FDA-2023-P-0872-2754
39. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (Japan). Summary of the 2nd FY2019 working group on ingredients of pharmaceuticals, 13 September 2019. Accessed 2026-10-17. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/newpage_07867.html
40. World Anti-Doping Agency. International Standard Prohibited List 2026, in force 1 January 2026. Accessed 2026-10-17. https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/2025-09/2026list_en_final_clean_september_2025.pdf
41. Xiang DH et al. Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi. 2023. PMID: 38212023 · doi: 10.19540/j.cnki.cjcmm.20230905.301
42. Zhou H et al. J Chromatogr Sci. 2024. PMID: 36617938 · doi: 10.1093/chromsci/bmac107
43. Kulikova V et al. Metabolites. 2019. PMID: 31795381 · doi: 10.3390/metabo9120293
44. Hoei CS et al. Anal Chim Acta. 2026. PMID: 41545110 · doi: 10.1016/j.aca.2025.345027
45. Sandalova E et al. Geroscience. 2024. PMID: 38935229 · doi: 10.1007/s11357-024-01257-2
46. Lan T et al. J AOAC Int. 2025. PMID: 40193406 · doi: 10.1093/jaoacint/qsaf017
47. Unno J et al. NPJ Aging. 2024. PMID: 38167419 · doi: 10.1038/s41514-023-00133-1
48. PubChem. Compound summary CID 14180, nicotinamide mononucleotide. Accessed 2026-10-17. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/14180
49. Grozio A et al. Nat Metab. 2019. PMID: 31131364 · doi: 10.1038/s42255-018-0009-4
50. Schmidt MS et al. Nat Metab. 2019. PMID: 32694648 · doi: 10.1038/s42255-019-0085-0
51. Saleh TA et al. bioRxiv. 2024. Preprint, not peer reviewed. PMID: 38645109 · doi: 10.1101/2024.04.09.588624

Research Use Only. This page summarises published literature, public registries and regulatory documents. Condor Research supplies NMN strictly as a research-use-only reference material for in vitro and laboratory work. It is not a medicine, food or supplement, not intended for human or veterinary use, and nothing on this page is a recommendation to use any compound. Related: NMN research material · What is NAD+? · Longevity research compounds.