Tier 1 — highest

N-Acetylcysteine in Endometriosis: A Systematic Review of Biological Rationale and Clinical Evidence

Rafał Watrowski, Stoyan Kostov, Roberto Tozzi, Tomáš Kupec, Sebastian D Schäfer, Pierluigi Chieppa, Angel Yordanov, Radmila Sparić, Ingolf Juhasz-Böss, Salvatore Giovanni Vitale, Ibrahim Alkatout
Antioxidants (Basel) 2026 15(7):880

Bibliography

PubMed
PMID 42510611
PubMed Central
PMC13405467
DOI
10.3390/antiox15070880
Funding
Funding disclosure was not located in the indexed record reviewed; consult the source publication for the full funding statement.
Competing interests
Competing-interest disclosure was not located in the indexed record reviewed; consult the source publication for the full declaration.

Study snapshot

DesignPRISMA systematic review
ModelHuman
Sample22 studies including 6 clinical studies
InterventionNAC across clinical and nonclinical endometriosis studies
DurationVaried
EndpointsPain; NSAID use; Endometrioma size; Recurrence; Fertility; Mechanistic outcomes

What the study showed, in plain terms

July 2026 systematic review integrating clinical and mechanistic evidence for NAC in endometriosis.

Key findings

Non-postoperative studies suggested pain and endometrioma signals, while the postoperative randomized comparison found no added benefit; fertility evidence remained preliminary.

What this study can and cannot tell us

Clinical evidence is heterogeneous and methodologically limited, with many nonrandomized studies and substantial preclinical evidence.

Editorial review

Reviewed by the Biohack Blueprint research team

Last verified

Dr. Khaled Mahmoud, MBBChCritical Care Medicine, Longevity Science & Editorial Direction Dr. Amr Yasser, PhDCardiometabolic, Musculoskeletal, Gut & Bioavailability Dr. Abdulla Mostafa, PhDCellular Senescence, Neurological, Mitochondrial & Brain-Ageing Biology