NAD+ Patches: Do They Work? Evidence, Brands & Alternatives (2026)

Key Takeaways

• No published human clinical trial has tested any NAD+ patch for efficacy or safety. No pharmacokinetic data showing blood NAD+ changes after patch application exists in the peer-reviewed literature.
• NAD+ is a large, charged molecule (663 Da) that does not readily cross intact skin. Most transdermal drug delivery research sets the upper limit for passive skin absorption at around 500 Da. NAD+ exceeds that.
• Some patches contain NMN (~334 Da) or NR (~255 Da) instead of NAD+ itself. These are smaller molecules with theoretically better skin permeability, but no published study has confirmed meaningful transdermal absorption of either one.
• Oral NMN and NR have been shown to raise blood NAD+ by roughly 2x within 14 days across multiple controlled trials. That evidence does not exist for patches.

What Are NAD+ Patches?

NAD+ patches are adhesive patches applied to the skin, typically on the inner arm, upper shoulder, or abdomen. You wear them for 8 to 12 hours, during which the active ingredient is supposed to absorb through the skin and into the bloodstream. Most patches are marketed as slow-release delivery systems that maintain steady NAD+ levels throughout the day, avoiding the peak-and-trough pattern of oral supplements.

The active ingredient varies by brand. Some patches claim to contain NAD+ itself. Others use NMN (nicotinamide mononucleotide), NR (nicotinamide riboside), or a combination of NAD+ precursors with additional ingredients like berberine, glutathione, or CoQ10.

The appeal is convenience. No pills to swallow, no needles, no clinic appointments. Apply a patch in the morning, go about your day, remove it at night. That simplicity is the selling point, and it's legitimate. Whether the product delivers on the biochemistry behind that simplicity is a separate question.

Do NAD+ Patches Work?

This is what 700+ people per month search for, and the honest answer as of September 2026 is: we don't know, because nobody has tested it properly.

Here is what "no evidence" means in concrete terms:

No published randomized controlled trial has compared a NAD+ patch to a placebo patch in human subjects. That's the gold standard for supplement efficacy, and it hasn't been done.

No published pharmacokinetic study has measured blood NAD+ levels before and after applying a NAD+ patch. This is the minimum necessary data to confirm the patch delivers anything into the bloodstream at all, and it doesn't exist in the peer-reviewed literature.

No published study has measured intracellular NAD+ levels after patch application. Blood levels are a proxy. What actually matters is whether NAD+ reaches the inside of your cells, and that hasn't been measured either.

What we do have is a theoretical basis for skepticism, and it centers on molecular size.

The Skin Absorption Problem

Your skin is a barrier. That's its job. It keeps things out. For a molecule to cross the skin passively (without needles, electric current, or chemical enhancers), it generally needs to be small, uncharged, and lipophilic (fat-soluble).

The "500 dalton rule" is a widely cited guideline in pharmaceutical science: molecules above 500 daltons generally do not cross intact skin in therapeutically meaningful amounts. This rule comes from decades of transdermal drug delivery research. The successful transdermal drugs on the market (nicotine patches at 162 Da, fentanyl patches at 336 Da, estradiol patches at 272 Da) are all well below 500 Da.

NAD+ has a molecular weight of approximately 663 Da. It is also a charged molecule (it carries a positive charge; that's what the "+" means). Charged molecules are repelled by the lipid layers of the stratum corneum, the outermost skin layer, making penetration even harder.

NMN comes in at roughly 334 Da and is also charged. NR is roughly 255 Da. Both are closer to the size range where passive transdermal absorption is plausible, but neither has been tested in a published human transdermal absorption study.

Some patches use penetration-enhancing technologies to address the size problem. Iontophoresis (applying a mild electrical current to push charged molecules through the skin) is a legitimate pharmaceutical technique used in clinical settings. Microneedle arrays (tiny needles that create micro-channels in the skin) are another approach with real research backing. Whether any consumer NAD+ patch uses these technologies effectively is unknown, because no brand has published absorption data from a controlled human study.

The Bolt Pharmacy review (February 2026) summarized it directly: "No peer-reviewed human clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy of NAD+ patches, and bioavailability through intact skin remains unestablished."

Transdermal Delivery Technologies: What Patches Actually Use

Not all patches are the same, and the technology behind them matters for whether absorption is even physically possible.

The simplest NAD+ patches use a "matrix" design: the active ingredient is embedded in an adhesive matrix, and molecules migrate out of the adhesive and into the skin passively. This is how nicotine patches work. But nicotine is 162 Da, lipophilic, and uncharged. NAD+ is 663 Da, hydrophilic, and positively charged. The physics that work for nicotine do not apply to NAD+. Expecting a matrix patch to deliver meaningful NAD+ is like expecting a coffee filter to strain gravel.

Some manufacturers claim to use iontophoresis, which applies a mild electrical current to drive charged molecules across the skin. This is legitimate technology with real clinical applications (it's used to deliver lidocaine and pilocarpine in medical settings). The question is whether the current density and duration achievable from a battery-powered consumer patch are sufficient to push NAD+ through the full thickness of the skin in therapeutically meaningful amounts. No published data answers this for NAD+.

Microneedle patches represent the most promising technology for this application. They use arrays of tiny needles (typically 100 to 800 micrometers long) that penetrate the outermost skin layer (stratum corneum) and create micro-channels for drug delivery. This bypasses the molecular-size barrier because the molecule doesn't have to passively diffuse through the skin. It enters through the channels instead. Microneedle technology has published success with much larger molecules than NAD+, including insulin (5,808 Da) and vaccines. However, no consumer NAD+ patch on the market currently uses actual microneedle arrays. And even microneedle delivery would require clinical testing to confirm that NAD+ delivered this way achieves sufficient blood and tissue concentrations.

A 2021 review in Metabolism Open (Grammatikopoulou et al.) on transdermal micronutrient delivery patches noted that "limited evidence from human non-randomized trials point to a sub-optimal delivery of iron through skin patches" and concluded that the transdermal delivery of supplements "seems promising" but has "limited evidence for its efficacy in humans." If iron (55.8 Da, far smaller than NAD+) faces absorption challenges through patches, the bar for NAD+ is considerably higher.

The Berberine x NAD Patch: A Deeper Look

This deserves its own section because it's the most-searched subset of the NAD patch keyword cluster (1,350+ monthly searches for "berberine x NAD patch," "moringa berberine x NAD patches," and related terms).

These patches typically combine berberine (an alkaloid compound found in plants like goldenseal and Oregon grape) with NAD+ or NMN. Some formulations also include moringa leaf extract. The marketing premise is stacked metabolic support: berberine activates AMPK (which improves insulin sensitivity and glucose metabolism), while NAD+ supports mitochondrial energy production and sirtuin activation.

The logic is not wrong, it's just unproven in this delivery format. Berberine taken orally has published human trial data supporting modest blood sugar reductions. A 2024 meta-analysis of berberine RCTs found significant reductions in fasting blood glucose and HbA1c in people with type 2 diabetes or metabolic syndrome. That evidence is for oral berberine, not transdermal berberine. The skin absorption characteristics of berberine have not been established in published human pharmacokinetic studies.

Combining two compounds, each individually unproven for transdermal delivery, into a single patch, does not make either one more proven. The unknowns multiply rather than cancel out. If you're interested in berberine for metabolic health, oral berberine capsules have actual trial data. If you want to raise NAD+, oral NMN or NR capsules have actual trial data. Buying a patch that claims to do both transdermally is paying a convenience premium for an unvalidated delivery method.

How to Use NAD+ Patches (If You Choose to Try Them)

If you've read the evidence section above and still want to try NAD+ patches, here's what manufacturers generally recommend and what practical experience from users suggests.

Apply the patch to clean, dry, relatively hair-free skin. The inner arm, upper shoulder blade, or lower abdomen are the most common sites. Avoid areas with cuts, irritation, or heavy sweating. Wear the patch for 8 to 12 hours. Remove it, dispose of it, and rotate to a different skin site for the next application to prevent adhesive buildup and skin irritation.

Some practical tips from user reports: if the adhesive doesn't hold well during exercise or sweating, medical tape over the edges can help. If skin irritation occurs, try a different body site before assuming you're reacting to the active ingredient; many irritation complaints trace back to the adhesive, not the NAD+. If you're combining patches with oral NMN or NR, you're stacking two delivery methods for the same pathway. There's no evidence that this produces better outcomes than oral alone, and no evidence that it's harmful either.

One thing to watch for: some patches market a "loading phase" where you wear multiple patches simultaneously or increase patch count during the first week. No clinical basis exists for this recommendation. It's a marketing strategy, not a pharmacological protocol.

Transdermal Drugs That Work: Why NAD+ Is Different

Transdermal patches are a proven, FDA-approved delivery method for a specific class of drugs. Understanding which drugs work through skin, and why, explains exactly why NAD+ is a hard case.

The successful transdermal patches share a profile. Nicotine (162 Da), fentanyl (336 Da), estradiol (272 Da), scopolamine (303 Da), clonidine (230 Da), and testosterone (288 Da) all cross intact skin well enough to deliver therapeutic doses. Every one of them is under 400 daltons, and most are lipophilic, meaning they dissolve into the fatty layers of the stratum corneum that block water-soluble molecules. These drugs also tend to be potent, so the small amount that crosses the skin is enough to produce an effect.

NAD+ fails this profile on multiple counts. At 663 daltons it exceeds the 500-dalton ceiling that Bos and Meinardi established as the practical upper limit for skin penetration. It is hydrophilic and charged, the opposite of the lipophilic profile that helps molecules cross the stratum corneum. And it is not potent in microgram quantities the way fentanyl or estradiol are; meaningful NAD+ elevation requires hundreds of milligrams orally, which sets a high bar for how much would need to cross the skin to matter.

This is why the comparison to nicotine patches, which patch marketing sometimes invokes, is misleading. Nicotine is a small, lipophilic, potent molecule almost purpose-built for transdermal delivery. NAD+ is a large, hydrophilic, charged molecule that needs to be delivered in large quantities. The two could not be more different from a skin-penetration standpoint. A patch that works beautifully for nicotine tells you nothing about whether the same patch format can deliver NAD+.

The precursors change the math slightly but not decisively. NMN (334 Da) and NR (255 Da) are smaller and fall within the range where transdermal delivery is at least plausible. Nicotinamide (122 Da) is smaller still and is the most credible candidate for skin delivery among the NAD+ family. But "plausible" is not "demonstrated," and no published human study has measured transdermal absorption for any of them. A patch containing nicotinamide has a better theoretical case than one containing NAD+ itself, but neither has the data to back a purchase.

NAD+ Patch Brands: What's on the Market

Several brands sell NAD+ patches. Here is what each claims and what evidence stands behind those claims.

Kind Patches NAD+

Kind Patches is one of the more visible NAD+ patch brands. Their NAD+ patch contains NMN alongside other ingredients. They market it for energy, recovery, and cellular health. Like all NAD+ patch brands, Kind Patches has not published any clinical trial or pharmacokinetic study demonstrating that their patch raises blood or intracellular NAD+ levels in humans. Customer reviews are mixed: some users report feeling more energized, others report no noticeable effect. Without controlled data, it's impossible to distinguish a genuine response from placebo.

PatchAid NAD+ Patch

PatchAid sells vitamin and supplement patches across multiple categories. Their NAD+ patch lists NMN, NR, and other B vitamins as ingredients. Same evidence gap as Kind Patches: no published human trial, no absorption data. PatchAid does include a disclaimer on their site noting that their patches are dietary supplements and have not been evaluated by the FDA.

Berberine x NAD Patches

"Berberine x NAD patch" and "moringa berberine x NAD patches" are among the most searched terms in this cluster (1,350+ monthly searches combined). These are combination patches that include berberine (an alkaloid with metabolic effects) alongside NAD+ or NMN. The product premise is that berberine activates AMPK while NAD+ supports mitochondrial function, creating a synergistic metabolic boost.

Berberine itself has meaningful oral bioavailability data and published clinical trials for blood sugar management. However, berberine's transdermal absorption is poorly studied, and stacking two compounds with unproven transdermal delivery doesn't create stronger evidence; it multiplies the unknowns. No clinical trial has tested a berberine-NAD combination patch in humans.

Gentle Patches NAD+

Gentle Patches markets an NMN-based transdermal patch with additional ingredients. They emphasize wear time (8-12 hours), slow-release delivery, and skin-site rotation. No published absorption or efficacy data available.

Numbuzin No.9 NAD+ Collagen Under Eye Patches

This is a different product category entirely. Numbuzin eye patches are a Korean skincare product designed for the under-eye area, using NAD+ as a topical anti-aging ingredient. They are not systemic NAD+ delivery patches; they target local skin effects (hydration, dark circles, fine lines). The evidence base for topical NAD+ in skincare is preclinical only as of September 2026, though the application context is different from systemic NAD+ boosting.

NAD+ Patches Side Effects

Reported side effects of NAD+ patches are limited to:

• Skin irritation or redness at the application site (the most common complaint)
• Adhesive reactions, especially in people with sensitive skin or adhesive allergies
• Mild headache (reported occasionally, unclear whether caused by the NAD+ or the patch adhesive)

Because no clinical trial has tested NAD+ patches, there is no formal adverse event data. The side effects reported come from customer reviews and manufacturer disclaimers. If the patch is not delivering meaningful amounts of NAD+ through the skin (which is the central unresolved question), then the side effects you experience are essentially the side effects of wearing an adhesive patch, not of NAD+ supplementation.

For a full breakdown of NAD+ side effects by delivery method (including oral, IV, and injection), see NAD+ Side Effects: What Clinical Trials Report.

NAD+ Patches vs Oral Supplements: The Real Comparison

This is the practical question most people are trying to answer when they search for NAD+ patches.

The convenience difference between a patch and a capsule is real but marginal. Swallowing one capsule per day is not a high-friction activity. The evidence difference, on the other hand, is enormous: 0 trials vs 30+ trials. For someone whose goal is to raise their NAD+ levels based on the best available data, oral supplementation is the evidence-supported option. Patches are a bet on a delivery mechanism that has not been validated for this molecule.

That doesn't mean patches will never work. Transdermal drug delivery is a legitimate pharmaceutical field with real successes. It's possible that future formulations using microneedle technology, iontophoresis, or novel penetration enhancers will solve the skin absorption problem for NAD+. But those solutions need to show their work in published human trials before you spend money on them.

NAD+ Patches vs IV Therapy

Some people compare patches to IV NAD+ therapy rather than to oral supplements. The comparison is less relevant because the two products serve different markets. IV therapy costs $400 to $1,500 per session, requires a clinic visit, and takes 1 to 4 hours. Patches cost $40 to $90 per month and can be used at home.

IV NAD+ delivers the molecule directly into the bloodstream, so the absorption question doesn't apply. The trade-off is cost, time, side effects (chest tightness, nausea during the drip), and the fact that no published outcomes trial has evaluated IV NAD+ for anti-aging either.

If someone considering IV therapy is looking for a cheaper, more convenient alternative, oral NMN or NR is the option with clinical evidence behind it. Patches are not a proven substitute for either delivery method.

What Would Prove NAD+ Patches Work?

If a patch manufacturer wanted to settle the question, here is the minimum study that would be needed:

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in healthy adults. One group wears the active NAD+ patch. The other wears an identical-looking patch without the active ingredient (placebo patch). Blood samples are drawn before application and at multiple time points after (2 hours, 8 hours, 24 hours). NAD+ and its metabolites (NMN, NR, NAM, ADPR) are measured in whole blood. The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, follows a pre-specified protocol, and is published in a peer-reviewed journal.

This type of study is not prohibitively expensive. Oral NMN brands have funded similar pharmacokinetic trials. The fact that no patch manufacturer has done this, despite the product category generating millions in annual revenue, should factor into your assessment. Companies that have data showing their product works tend to publish it. Companies that don't have data tend to emphasize testimonials and theoretical mechanisms instead.

Are NAD+ Patches Worth It?

If "worth it" means spending money on a product with evidence that it raises NAD+ levels, then NAD+ patches do not meet that bar as of September 2026. The evidence does not exist.

If "worth it" means you've already tried oral NMN or NR, you're happy with your NAD+ regimen, and you want to experiment with a patch in addition to your oral supplement, that's a personal decision. The patches are unlikely to cause harm (the side effects are mostly adhesive-related), and the financial cost is modest. Just understand that you're paying for a delivery mechanism that has not been shown to deliver.

If you haven't started any NAD+ supplementation yet and are choosing between patches and capsules, the capsules have 30+ clinical trials behind them and the patches have zero. That's not a close comparison.

NAD+ Patch Cost: What You're Actually Paying For

Most NAD+ patches retail between $40 and $90 per month for a 30-day supply. That puts them in the same price range as mid-tier oral NMN supplements ($30 to $60/month). On the surface, the cost comparison looks close. But the value proposition is starkly different.

With oral NMN at $30 to $60/month, you're getting a product category backed by 12+ human RCTs specifically for NMN, plus 20+ for NR. The delivery route (oral, through the GI tract) has been validated in every one of those trials. You can look up the exact studies, the doses, the blood NAD+ measurements, and the safety profiles.

With a NAD+ patch at $40 to $90/month, you're getting a product with zero published human trials. You don't know whether the active ingredient reaches your bloodstream. You don't know whether the dose listed on the label translates to any measurable change in NAD+ levels. You're paying a similar price for a fundamentally different evidence footing.

Some patch brands charge premium prices ($80 to $120/month) by positioning themselves as "clinical grade" or using phrases like "pharmaceutical-grade transdermal delivery." These descriptors are not regulated terms in the dietary supplement space. A product described as "clinical grade" has not necessarily been tested in a clinical trial. Don't let label language substitute for published evidence.

What to Look For If You Buy NAD+ Patches

If you decide to try patches despite the evidence gap, these are the questions worth asking about any specific product.

Does the manufacturer publish a Certificate of Analysis (COA) from a third-party lab? A COA confirms that the patch contains what the label says it contains. Without one, you don't know whether the NAD+ or NMN listed on the label is actually in the adhesive at the stated concentration.

Does the manufacturer publish any absorption data, even non-peer-reviewed? Some companies conduct internal pharmacokinetic testing without publishing in a journal. That data is less rigorous than a peer-reviewed study, but it's better than nothing. If a brand has tested whether their patch delivers the active ingredient into the blood and the results showed it did, they would almost certainly tell you. Silence on this point is informative.

What is the active ingredient? Not all "NAD+ patches" contain NAD+. Some contain NMN (334 Da, smaller, better chance of absorption). Some contain NR (255 Da, smallest). Some contain nicotinamide (122 Da, the smallest NAD+ precursor and the most plausible candidate for transdermal delivery). Knowing which molecule is in your patch tells you how severe the skin-barrier challenge is for that specific product.

Does the patch use any penetration-enhancing technology? Look for mentions of iontophoresis, microneedle, liposomal encapsulation, or chemical penetration enhancers. A standard matrix patch relying on passive diffusion has the weakest theoretical case for delivering NAD+ through skin. If the manufacturer doesn't specify the delivery technology, assume it's passive diffusion.

What's the actual dose per patch? If a patch lists "500 mg NAD+" but doesn't specify how much of that reaches the bloodstream, the number is meaningless for dosing purposes. A 500 mg oral NMN capsule delivers a quantified amount through a validated route. A 500 mg patch label tells you what's in the adhesive, not what reaches your cells.

NAD+ Patches and the Future

The current verdict on NAD+ patches is a timing problem, not necessarily a technology problem. Transdermal delivery is a legitimate pharmaceutical approach that works for dozens of approved drugs. The technology exists to push large molecules through skin (microneedles, iontophoresis, nanoparticle carriers). NAD+ precursors are medically interesting molecules with a growing evidence base for their effects when they reach the bloodstream.

The missing piece is the application-specific proof. Someone needs to take a NAD+ patch, put it on a human arm, draw blood at intervals, measure NAD+ and its metabolites, compare the results to a placebo patch, and publish the findings. Until that study happens, every claim about NAD+ patches is projection from adjacent evidence, not direct proof.

If that study shows meaningful transdermal absorption and NAD+ elevation comparable to oral NMN or NR, patches could become a preferred delivery method for people who don't like swallowing capsules, have GI sensitivity to oral supplements, or want steady-state dosing rather than once-daily peaks. Those are real advantages. They just need to be proven first.

For now, oral NMN and NR remain the evidence-supported choice. If patches interest you and you want to track the science, watch for registered clinical trials on ClinicalTrials.gov that specifically test transdermal NAD+ delivery. When those trials appear, the picture will change. Until they do, the evidence gap between patches and capsules is too large to recommend patches as a primary NAD+ strategy.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do NAD patches work?

Unknown. No published human trial has tested whether NAD+ patches raise blood or intracellular NAD+ levels. The theoretical challenge is molecular size: NAD+ at 663 Da exceeds the general limit for passive skin absorption. Until a controlled study measures absorption, the question is unanswerable from evidence.

What are the benefits of NAD patches?

Manufacturers claim energy support, anti-aging effects, and cellular repair. These are the same benefits attributed to NAD+ supplementation generally. The difference is that oral NMN and NR have 30+ trials supporting these claims (to varying degrees), while patches have zero.

Are NAD patches safe?

No formal safety data exists for NAD+ patches. Reported side effects are adhesive-related (skin irritation, redness). If the patch fails to deliver meaningful NAD+ through the skin, the safety question is moot.

What are the best NAD+ patches?

No NAD+ patch has published clinical evidence demonstrating efficacy. Without absorption or outcome data, "best" cannot be determined by evidence. Brands like Kind Patches and PatchAid are among the most searched, but neither has published trial data.

How long should you wear a NAD patch?

Most manufacturers recommend 8 to 12 hours on clean, dry skin. Rotate application sites to reduce adhesive irritation. These are manufacturer instructions; no clinical study has optimized wear time for NAD+ delivery.

Are NAD patches better than supplements?

Not based on current evidence. Oral supplements (NMN, NR) have proven they raise NAD+ in controlled trials. Patches have not proven they deliver NAD+ through the skin at all. Supplements are also cheaper on average ($30-$60/month vs $40-$90/month for patches).

What is a berberine NAD patch?

A combination patch containing berberine (an alkaloid with metabolic effects) and NAD+ or NMN. The theory is synergistic metabolic support. No clinical trial has tested this combination in patch form. Berberine has oral efficacy data; its transdermal absorption is poorly studied.

Are Kind NAD+ patches effective?

Kind Patches has not published any clinical trial or pharmacokinetic study. Without absorption data, effectiveness cannot be assessed from evidence. Customer reviews are mixed. The same evidence gap applies to all NAD+ patch brands, not just Kind Patches.

What are NAD patches made of?

The active ingredient varies by brand: some contain NAD+ itself (663 Da), others use NMN (334 Da) or NR (255 Da). The patch body is typically a medical-grade adhesive matrix. Some patches include additional ingredients like CoQ10, glutathione, berberine, or B vitamins. The adhesive is usually hypoallergenic, though reactions still occur in some users.

Can you use NAD patches and oral NMN together?

There is no published evidence on combining patches with oral supplementation. Since patches have not been shown to deliver NAD+ through the skin, adding one to an oral regimen is unlikely to change your NAD+ levels beyond what the oral supplement alone provides. It's also unlikely to cause harm, since the patch contribution appears to be negligible based on the physics of skin absorption. If you want to stack, the cost of the patch is the main downside.

Where do you put a NAD patch?

Manufacturers recommend clean, dry, relatively hair-free skin. Common sites include the inner upper arm, upper back or shoulder blade, and lower abdomen. Avoid joints, areas with heavy sweating, broken or irritated skin, and the same exact spot on consecutive days. Rotate application sites to minimize adhesive-related skin irritation.

How quickly do NAD patches start working?

There is no published data to answer this because no study has measured when (or whether) NAD+ from a patch enters the bloodstream. For comparison, oral NMN produces measurable blood NAD+ elevation within hours of the first dose, with levels approximately doubling by day 14 in the Christen et al. 2026 trial. Patches have no comparable timeline data.

Are NAD+ patches FDA approved?

No. NAD+ patches are sold as dietary supplements or wellness products, which do not require FDA approval before sale. No NAD+ patch has been reviewed, evaluated, or approved by the FDA for any purpose. This is not unique to patches: oral NMN and NR supplements are also sold without FDA approval under the DSHEA framework.

Related Reading

• NAD+ Dosage: Oral, Injection & IV Dosing Guide
• NAD+ Nasal Spray: Does It Work?
• What Is NAD+? Benefits, Function & Why It Declines With Age
• NAD+ Side Effects: What Clinical Trials Report
• NAD+ Supplements: Types, Evidence & How to Choose
• Best NAD+ Supplements in 2026
• NAD+ IV Therapy: How It Works, Costs & Evidence
• NAD+ Injections: Benefits, Side Effects & Cost
• Is NAD+ a Peptide? No. Here's What It Actually Is

References

1. Gallagher C, Emmanuel OO. NAD+ supplementation for anti-aging and wellness: a PRISMA-guided systematic review of preclinical and clinical evidence. Ageing Research Reviews. 2026;116:103057. doi:10.1016/j.arr.2026.103057 View source (PubMed)
2. Christen S, Redeuil K, Goulet L, et al. The differential impact of three different NAD+ boosters on circulatory NAD and microbial metabolism in humans. Nature Metabolism. 2026;8:62-73. doi:10.1038/s42255-025-01421-8 View source (PubMed)
3. Bos JD, Meinardi MM. The 500 Dalton rule for the skin penetration of chemical compounds and drugs. Experimental Dermatology. 2000;9(3):165-169. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0625.2000.009003165.x View source (PubMed)
4. Grammatikopoulou MG, Gkiouras K, Dardiotis E, et al. Peeking into the future: transdermal patches for the delivery of micronutrient supplements. Metabolism Open. 2021;11:100109. doi:10.1016/j.metop.2021.100109 View source (PubMed)
5. Martens CR, Denman BA, Mazzo MR, et al. Chronic nicotinamide riboside supplementation is well-tolerated and elevates NAD+ in healthy middle-aged and older adults. Nature Communications. 2018;9:1286. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-03421-7 View source (PubMed)

Written by Tao Wu. Last reviewed September 2026. This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute medical advice. Talk to your doctor before starting any new supplement.