The NAD IV infusion study often cited online tracked where NAD+ went over a few hours. It didn't test whether people had more energy or aged more slowly. Plasma levels, measured in the liquid part of blood, didn't rise during the first two hours. They rose by the end of the six-hour infusion.
NAD+ means nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, a helper molecule cells use for energy and repair. IV means delivery into a vein. The study helps explain its processing; a health benefit is a separate question.
What question did the NAD IV infusion study ask?
Ross Grant and colleagues asked what happens to infused NAD+ and its metabolites, the chemicals formed as the body processes it. Their 2019 pilot in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience followed the NAD+ metabolome: NAD+ and a group of related chemicals.
This was a study of movement and breakdown in the body. Its central measurements were chemical levels in plasma and urine, rather than a symptom score or disease outcome.
Who took part, and for how long?
Eleven men aged 30–55 were randomly assigned: eight received NAD+ and three received saline, a saltwater comparison infusion. All had a body mass index below 30, a weight-to-height measure.
The study excluded diabetes, liver or kidney failure, recent infection or trauma, significant untreated illness, and cholesterol-lowering or anti-inflammatory medicines. Participants smoked less than one cigarette and drank less than two standard alcoholic drinks daily.
The NAD+ group received 750 mg over six hours, approximately 2 mg per minute. The comparison group received saline over the same period. These were study exposures, not a schedule validated for ongoing treatment. Observation continued for two hours after the infusion ended.
What was measured, and when?
Blood was sampled before infusion and at 30 minutes, one hour, two hours, six hours and eight hours. Urine collection covered baseline, 30 minutes, two hours, six hours and eight hours.
The laboratory used mass spectrometry, a method that identifies and measures chemicals. Plasma is outside blood cells. NAD+ inside a cell is a different measurement, and this study didn't measure tissue stores in the brain or muscles.
The result: a late rise in plasma NAD+
At six hours, plasma NAD+ was 398% above baseline, its starting level — roughly a fivefold rise. The rise differed significantly from saline; the comparison group's plasma NAD+ didn't change significantly. NAD+ remained elevated at eight hours.
The authors interpreted the early lack of accumulation as rapid removal of the infused NAD+ through uptake or breakdown. That doesn't mean all NAD+ disappeared from the bloodstream. Nor does it show how much reached any particular tissue.
| Related chemical | Finding in the NAD+ group |
|---|---|
| Nicotinamide, a vitamin B3-related breakdown product | Rose at six hours |
| ADP-ribose, another breakdown product | Rose at six hours |
| Methyl-nicotinamide, a further processed product | Rose at six hours |
| NMN, nicotinamide mononucleotide, an ingredient used to rebuild NAD+ | Rose significantly at eight hours |
Urinary NAD+ and methyl-nicotinamide output rose at six hours, then fell after infusion ended. Nicotinamide output didn't significantly change. The urine findings don't establish that the whole dose was wasted.
What side effects did the pilot record?
The paper's safety findings were short-term:
| Safety measure | Reported finding |
|---|---|
| Adverse events during the six-hour infusion | None observed in either group |
| Liver-related blood tests at eight hours | Some changed, but the authors considered none clinically significant |
Eight treated men cannot establish the frequency of uncommon reactions. Eight hours cannot establish safety over months. The NAD+ injection side-effects guide covers the wider record; the NAD+ IV death report addresses the separate risks of administering an IV.
Why “the study shows IV NAD+ works” goes too far
A changing lab number answers whether something changed in a sample. It doesn't answer whether someone felt better, functioned better or lived longer.
The pilot didn't test fatigue, memory, recovery or lifespan. It also didn't compare IV treatment with injections under the skin. The NAD+ myths guide checks those broader claims.
The authors disclosed commercial ties involving an IV treatment center and NAD+ research funding. That disclosure belongs alongside the small sample and short observation period when weighing the findings.
What later studies add
Later controlled IV research exists. As of October 1, 2026, the day this article was written, Yu's trial in American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs provides disease-specific evidence. Published online September 15, 2025, and in the January 2026 issue, it randomized 180 adults with heart failure related to reduced heart blood supply. Both groups received standard care; the added treatment was 10 mg IV NAD+ daily for seven days or placebo.
At one month, ejection fraction, the share of blood pumped out with each heartbeat, averaged 45.44% versus 42.44%. The difference passed the study’s statistical test, meaning chance alone was an unlikely explanation under its assumptions. Differences in six-month clinical events weren't significant. This tests a particular heart condition, rather than wellness treatment in healthy adults.
As of October 1, 2026, the day this article was written, Reyna's February 2, 2026 Frontiers in Aging records review adds a tolerability finding. All six NAD+ clients reported moderate to severe symptoms during infusion, including nausea, vomiting, a faster heart rate and chest pressure. Symptoms stopped when infusion ended. It was a retrospective records review comparing NAD+ with NR infusions, rather than a randomized trial.
As of October 1, 2026, the day this article was written, an April 30 preprint from Niagen Bioscience, which makes an injectable form of nicotinamide riboside (NR), reports a placebo-controlled pilot comparing NR, NAD+ and placebo given into a vein, a muscle or under the skin. A preprint hasn't completed independent journal review. Its first trial divided 45 participants across nine groups, leaving only six in the under-the-skin NAD+ group. The registry record, NCT06919328, has no posted results. Short-term safety observations don't establish lasting benefits.
As of October 1, 2026, the day this article was written, PEDI-NAD, NCT07839130, was newly posted September 24. It plans to enroll 180 children with weak heart pumping in China. The record lists it as not yet recruiting, with no results posted. A study plan isn't evidence of a benefit.
As of October 1, 2026, the day this article was written, a September 10 review in Frontiers in Aging, 2026 calls the wellness evidence preliminary. Its concerns include small studies, short follow-up and missing long-term safety data.
Oral precursors and MOTS-c ask different questions
NR, nicotinamide riboside, and NMN are precursors: ingredients the body can use to make NAD+. Their oral trials don't establish an injected NAD+ benefit. The NAD+ injections overview and provider decision guide explain that distinction.
MOTS-c is a peptide, a short chain of protein building blocks, studied as a signal from mitochondria, the cell's energy-making structures. In Reynolds's Nature Communications study, 2021, human measurements followed naturally produced MOTS-c during exercise; treatment experiments were in mice. That evidence doesn't compare prescribed MOTS-c with NAD+.
What the study means for a prescription visit
A provider needs a specific goal and evidence relevant to the proposed preparation. This pilot cannot choose a different route, dose or ongoing schedule. Those decisions belong to the prescriber.
At Promise, NAD+ is dispensed as a compounded injectable medication, prepared by a pharmacy for a prescription after a licensed provider reviews your request. It is different from an FDA-approved product: the formulation offered here is not FDA-approved. FDA explains that it does not verify compounded drugs' safety, effectiveness or quality before marketing. There is no FDA-approved NAD+ injectable drug product.
A licensed provider may still prescribe — that decision is between you and your doctor.
At Promise, a licensed provider reviews every request, and not everyone qualifies. A useful visit ends with clear expectations, a follow-up plan and someone accountable for unwanted effects.
