Tier 1 — highest

Effects of Nicotinamide Mononucleotide Supplementation on Blood Pressure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Mu Zhang, Yingci Chen, Nan Jiang, Jingjing Zeng, Jianyun Zhang, Chenyang Wu, Yingying Liu, Zizheng Nie, Jun Yang, Shufen Han
Nutrients 2026 18(6):890

Bibliography

PubMed
PMID 41901064
PubMed Central
PMC13028934
DOI
10.3390/nu18060890
Funding
Scientific Research Foundation for Scholars of Hangzhou Normal University (No. 2022QDL004).
Competing interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Study snapshot

DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials; PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and EBSCO searched through 13 December 2025; common-effects pooling with prespecified subgroup analyses.
ModelAdults in randomized placebo-controlled NMN trials reporting resting systolic and/or diastolic blood pressure.
Sample10 randomized controlled trials with 11 intervention arms; 349 participants.
InterventionOral NMN supplementation versus placebo across included trials; dose, duration, age, BMI, geography and baseline blood pressure were explored in subgroup analyses.
DurationIncluded trial durations varied; literature search through 13 December 2025.
EndpointsResting systolic blood pressure; Resting diastolic blood pressure; Age subgroup effects; Dose and duration subgroup effects

What the study showed, in plain terms

This 2026 meta-analysis pooled 10 randomized NMN trials involving 349 participants to assess resting blood pressure.

Across the full dataset, NMN was associated with a small reduction in diastolic blood pressure of about 2.15 mmHg, while the overall systolic blood-pressure effect was not statistically significant. A subgroup of adults aged 60 years or older showed a modest systolic reduction.

The signal is preliminary rather than proof that NMN is an antihypertensive treatment: the evidence base remains small, short-term and heterogeneous.

Key findings

  • 10 RCTs with 11 intervention arms and 349 participants were included.
  • Resting diastolic blood pressure decreased by a weighted mean difference of 2.15 mmHg versus placebo (95% CI 0.61 to 3.68 mmHg lower).
  • The pooled systolic blood-pressure effect was not statistically significant overall.
  • In adults aged 60 years or older, subgroup analysis found a systolic reduction of 3.94 mmHg (95% CI 0.82 to 7.06 mmHg lower).
  • The authors characterized the evidence as preliminary and called for larger, longer, high-quality RCTs.

What this study can and cannot tell us

Only 10 RCTs contributed, and the underlying trials varied in population, dose, formulation and duration. Subgroup findings can be unstable when based on small datasets and should be considered exploratory.

Blood-pressure changes were modest and do not establish NMN as a treatment for hypertension or replace guideline-directed blood-pressure management.

Citation network

Articles citing this research paper

4 articles

Biohack Blueprint analyses that reference this study in their evidence base.

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