4.8 Article

Nicotinamide riboside and pterostilbene reduces markers of hepatic inflammation in NAFLD: A double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial

期刊

HEPATOLOGY
卷 78, 期 3, 页码 863-877

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1002/hep.32778

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrates that NRPT at the recommended dose is safe and may hold promise in lowering markers of hepatic inflammation in patients with NAFLD.
Background and AimsThe prevalence of NAFLD is increasing globally and on a path to becoming the most frequent cause of chronic liver disease. Strategies for the prevention and treatment of NAFLD are urgently needed. Approach and ResultsA 6-month prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted to assess the efficacy of daily NRPT (commercially known as Basis, a combination of nicotinamide riboside and pterostilbene) supplementation in 111 adults with NAFLD. The study consisted of three arms: placebo, recommended daily dose of NRPT (NRPT 1x), and a double dose of NRPT (NRPT 2x). NRPT appeared safe and well tolerated. At the end of the study, no significant change was seen in the primary endpoint of hepatic fat fraction with respect to placebo. However, among prespecified secondary outcomes, a time-dependent decrease in the circulating levels of the liver enzymes alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT) was observed in the NRPT 1x group, and this decrease was significant with respect to placebo. Furthermore, a significant decrease in the circulating levels of the toxic lipid ceramide 14:0 was also observed in the NRPT 1x group versus placebo, and this decrease was associated with a decrease in ALT in individuals of this group. A dose-dependent effect was not observed with respect to ALT, GGT, or ceramide 14:0 in the NRPT 2x group. ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that NRPT at the recommended dose is safe and may hold promise in lowering markers of hepatic inflammation in patients with NAFLD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据