NAD+-related supplements are available in many forms, including oral capsules, tablets, powders, sublingual products, liposomal preparations, transdermal patches, injections, and intravenous infusions. These forms are often advertised as different ways to improve the delivery or absorption of NAD+. However, the quantity and quality of data from human studies vary significantly among the individual methods.
The strongest clinical evidence currently concerns oral capsules and tablets containing NAD+ precursors, such as NR and NMN. Other formats, including liposomal products, sublingual tablets, transdermal patches, injections, and intravenous NAD+, have a significantly smaller or less controlled evidence base.
In this guide, we compare the main forms of NAD+ supplements, explain what they typically contain, discuss data on claimed absorption, and point out areas where scientific support remains limited.
NAD+ supplement forms in a nutshell
It should not be assumed that different forms of NAD+ supplements provide the same absorption, biological exposure, safety, or clinical effects. The strongest evidence currently concerns oral NAD+ precursors, while several newer delivery methods rely mainly on theoretical absorption benefits or limited early-phase studies.
| Shape | What does it usually contain | Declared bioavailability benefit | Typical investigated range | Market availability | Evidence from randomized human trials |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oral capsules/tablets | NAD+ precursors, such as NR, NMN, niacin, or nicotinamide | Standard gastrointestinal absorption | About 100–2000 mg/day depending on the compound [1–3] | Very wide | The strongest evidence base, multiple randomized placebo-controlled trials [1–4] |
| Powder | The same NAD+ precursors as in the capsules | A similar effect is usually assumed as after swallowing a capsule | Individually measured quantity | Wide | Evidence pertains to the compound itself; there are no studies comparing powder to capsules |
| Sublingual tablets/lozenges | NAD+ precursors or less commonly NAD+ | Declared partial bypass of the digestive tract | Lack of standardization, depending on the product | Available online and in specialty stores | There are no direct studies comparing sublingual administration with standard oral administration. |
| Liposomal | NAD+ or its precursors encapsulated in lipid carriers | Protection of the compound and potential increase in absorption or cellular transport | Depending on the product | Available, usually more expensive | Limited data; a single human preprint study showed an increase in intracellular NAD+ [5], and there is also cellular data [6] |
| Transdermal patches | NAD+, sometimes with another compound, e.g., low-dose naltrexone | Gradual absorption through the skin, sometimes with iontophoresis | Depending on the product | Limited availability | A single small open-label study on post-COVID-19 fatigue, with the concurrent use of another drug [7] |
| Intramuscular/subcutaneous injections | NAD+ | Gastrointestinal bypass | Determined by the clinic | Available in some clinics and telemedicine services | Very limited controlled clinical outcome data [8] |
| Intravenous infusion | NAD+ | Direct administration into the bloodstream | Determined by the clinic, often during long infusions | Common in IV and med-spa clinics | A 2026 systematic review found no eligible controlled trials for wellness/anti-aging; retrospective data indicated more gastrointestinal and cardiac symptoms than with IV NR [8,9] |
The most important thing is the distinction between the method of presentation and the quality of the evidence.
The preparation may look more technologically advanced, but it does not necessarily have stronger clinical support.
Oral capsules and tablets: what to expect?
Oral capsules and tablets are the most common form of NAD+-related products and currently have the strongest human research base.
In most cases, they do not contain intact NAD+.
Instead, they utilize precursors such as nicotinamide riboside, nicotinamide mononucleotide, niacin, or nicotinamide. Once absorbed, these compounds enter NAD+ biosynthesis pathways and are converted into NAD+ through normal cellular metabolism.
Most contemporary clinical trials focus on NR and NMN.
Randomized placebo-controlled trials have evaluated oral NR in amounts reaching approximately 2000 mg per day, and NMN in amounts reaching approximately 900–2000 mg per day, depending on the study design. [1–4]
In many of these studies, oral precursor supplementation increased blood levels of NAD+ or related metabolites.
This is the most common result.
Studies have also generally shown good short-term and medium-term tolerance over periods ranging from a few weeks to about a year, depending on the compound studied. [1–4]
However, this does not mean that an increase in NAD+ guarantees an improvement in all potential health outcomes.
Results regarding metabolism, physical fitness, cardiovascular system, cognitive functions, or other endpoints were more varied.
This is important when evaluating marketing messages.
The strongest evidence for oral NR and NMN concerns their effects on NAD+-related biomarkers. Data on broader clinical benefits depend to a greater extent on the population, dose, duration, and specific endpoint.
Therefore, capsules and tablets currently have the best direct support from randomized human trials, but they should not be presented as confirmed treatments for aging or diseases.
Sublingual and liposomal products: Do they really improve absorption?
Sublingual and liposomal products are often advertised as methods that improve absorption compared to standard capsules.
However, their premises are different.
Sublingual products utilize the oral mucosa, while liposomal formulations are designed to encapsulate NAD+ or its precursors within lipid structures.
The level of evidence for both approaches is not the same.
Sublingual NAD+ and its precursors
Tablets and sublingual lozenges are designed to dissolve under the tongue.
The premise is that some of the compounds may be absorbed through the oral mucosa, potentially limiting gastrointestinal degradation or first-pass metabolism.
This is a well-established pharmacological concept.
However, this does not automatically mean that every substance will be absorbed more effectively in this way.
No controlled human study has been identified for NAD+ and its precursors that directly compares sublingual administration with a standard oral capsule.
This means that claims regarding the higher bioavailability of sublingual NAD+ or NMN remain largely theoretical.
The sublingual form alone does not confirm greater systemic exposure, better cellular uptake, or a stronger biological effect.
Direct pharmacokinetic studies would be needed to demonstrate such an advantage.
Liposomal NAD+
Liposomal preparations utilize lipid structures surrounding the active ingredient.
Their purpose is usually to protect the compound from degradation and potentially increase absorption or cellular delivery.
This form has slightly more direct data than sublingual preparations.
In one controlled human study, oral liposomal NAD+ increased intracellular NAD+ levels by approximately 53% compared to placebo after five days in healthy adults aged 45–75. [5]
The result is interesting because it indicates the effect of a specific formulation on an intracellular biomarker.
At the time discussed here, however, the study had not yet undergone a full peer review.
This limits the certainty of the conclusions.
The same study also assessed well-being and data from wearable devices.
After adjusting for multiple comparisons, none of these additional clinical or functional outcomes remained statistically significant. [5]
This is an important distinction.
An increase in intracellular NAD+ indicates an effect on the biomarker, but it is not automatically evidence of improved health or function.
Additional laboratory studies analyzed liposomal NAD+ in endothelial cells and keratinocytes.
Stronger effects were observed in certain markers associated with cellular aging than with non-liposomal NAD+. [6]
However, these are data from cell culture studies, not confirmation of a clinical effect in humans.
Overall, liposomal NAD+ currently has slightly more direct data than sublingual products.
However, both forms have been studied much less extensively in humans than standard oral NR and NMN.
NAD+ Transdermal Patches
Transdermal NAD+ patches are a newer and less-studied delivery method.
Some rely on passive diffusion through the skin.
Others use iontophoresis, which is a mild electric current intended to increase the transport of the compound through the skin.
The most relevant human data comes from a small open-label study involving 36 people with persistent fatigue after COVID-19. [7]
Participants received oral low-dose naltrexone and NAD+ via iontophoresis patches for 12 weeks.
Researchers described improvements in quality of life and fatigue severity compared to baseline values.
The combined intervention was also evaluated as generally well tolerated.
About a quarter of the participants experienced mild and short-term skin irritation associated with the patches. [7]
However, the research project has a significant limitation.
Participants used naltrexone and NAD+ simultaneously.
There was no group receiving NAD+ patches exclusively.
There was also no placebo.
Therefore, it cannot be determined what part of the observed improvement resulted from NAD+, naltrexone, the combination of both interventions, natural recovery, the expectancy effect, or other factors.
The authors themselves pointed out this limitation and emphasized the need for larger controlled studies.
Currently, NAD+ patches are best described as a biologically plausible delivery method with very limited and partly confounded clinical data.
The available research does not prove that transdermal NAD+ alone improves fatigue after COVID-19 or other conditions.
NAD+ injections and intravenous infusions
NAD+ in the form of intravenous injections and infusions is widely offered by wellness clinics, IV therapy centers, med-spas, and some telemedicine and prescription services.
These forms are often promoted as being better because they bypass the digestive tract and deliver NAD+ more directly.
This assumption is intuitive.
The evidence is much weaker.
NAD+ injections
Intramuscular or subcutaneous administration bypasses the gastrointestinal tract.
This may affect systemic exposure compared to oral supplementation.
However, direct human data regarding clinical outcomes following injectable NAD+ remain very limited. [8]
Bypassing the digestive tract does not automatically result in a stronger biological effect.
Pharmacokinetics, cellular uptake, tissue distribution, tolerability, and clinical effects still need to be measured directly.
Intravenous NAD+
Intravenous NAD+ enters the bloodstream directly.
It is often promoted in the context of energy, recovery, cognitive function, detoxification, healthy aging, and general wellness.
Despite their widespread commercial availability, controlled clinical data remain surprisingly limited.
A 2026 systematic review found no eligible controlled human studies evaluating intravenous or intramuscular NAD+ in the context of anti-aging or wellness. [8]
This is an important distinction between a product's availability and its scientific validation.
Intravenous NAD+ may be widely offered without having the same basis in randomized trials as oral NR or NMN.
A separate retrospective observational study compared intravenous NAD+ with intravenous nicotinamide riboside. [9]
Gastrointestinal and cardiac symptoms were reported more frequently in the NAD+ group.
Because the study was retrospective rather than randomized, it does not allow for definitive conclusions regarding comparative safety.
However, it highlights specific questions regarding tolerance that require further controlled studies.
The available evidence does not, therefore, show that intravenous or injectable NAD+ is ineffective.
Rather, they show that claims of its higher efficacy currently exceed the available controlled clinical data.
This is a situation significantly different from oral NAD+ precursors.
NAD+ Powder: Is It Different from Capsules?
NAD+ precursor powders typically contain the same compounds as capsules, especially NMN or NR.
The main difference lies in physical form.
The powder allows you to measure out the amount yourself, rather than using a fixed dose in a capsule.
This may provide greater flexibility.
It can also affect comfort, storage methods, and the product's contact with heat, light, air, or moisture.
However, no controlled human study has been identified showing that NMN or NR powder has a higher bioavailability than the same compound in a capsule.
Clinical evidence therefore concerns the active ingredient itself, not the powder form.
This matters when interpreting claims that the powder is inherently absorbed faster or more effectively.
Such statements require a direct pharmacokinetic comparison.
Without such data, the powder should be treated primarily as an alternative physical form of the NAD+ precursor, rather than as a confirmed method with higher bioavailability.
How to choose the form of NAD+ depending on your goal?
The quality of evidence is very unevenly distributed among the various forms.
Therefore, choosing based on which method appears more advanced, direct, or technologically innovative can lead to erroneous conclusions.
If the priority is the strongest human research base
Oral capsules and tablets containing well-researched precursors, such as NR or NMN, currently have the strongest research support.
Numerous randomized, placebo-controlled trials have shown that these compounds can increase NAD+-related biomarkers in humans. [1–4]
This does not mean that all the claimed benefits regarding longevity, metabolism, or cognitive function have been proven.
It only means that their impact on NAD+ biomarkers is much better documented than in the case of most alternative methods.
If the priority is a potential improvement in absorption
Sublingual, liposomal, and transdermal products are often chosen precisely because of their declared better absorption.
However, the evidence is very different.
Liposomal NAD+ has early human data indicating an increase in intracellular NAD+, but the key study was still a preprint and, after correction for multiple comparisons, showed no significant benefit in additional clinical endpoints. [5]
Transdermal patches have one small open-label study in which NAD+ was used together with low-dose naltrexone, making it impossible to determine the independent effect of the patches. [7]
In the case of sublingual preparations, however, there are no direct studies in humans demonstrating superior absorption over standard oral forms.
In many of these cases, therefore, the theoretical rationale is stronger than the clinical evidence.
If the priority is direct administration at the clinic
Injections and intravenous infusions bypass the digestive tract.
This may seem like a more direct method.
However, it does not mean better clinical evidence.
A 2026 systematic review found no eligible controlled trials regarding IV or IM NAD+ in the field of anti-aging and wellness. [8]
Retrospective data also point to questions regarding gastrointestinal and cardiac tolerability with IV NAD+ compared to IV NR. [9]
These methods therefore have a much weaker base of controlled human studies than their popularity would suggest.
Regardless of the form, what matters is the actual relationship
The method of serving is just one of the elements.
Equally important is the exact active ingredient.
An NMN capsule, an NR tablet, liposomal NAD+, and an intravenous NAD+ infusion are not equivalent interventions just because they all fall under the broad category of „NAD+ supplementation.”.
The dose, chemical identity, route of administration, formulation, pharmacokinetics, and studied population matter.
Therefore, comparing a specific compound and the conditions of its use with those used in clinical trials is more valuable than being guided by marketing terms such as „maximum bioavailability,” „direct cellular delivery,” or „advanced NAD+ technology.”.
Comparison of NAD+ supplement forms
| Feature | Oral NR/NMN | Powder | Sublingual | Liposomal | Transdermal patches | NAD+ injections | IV NAD+ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Widely available | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | More limited | Clinic-dependent | Yes, in clinics |
| Randomized human data | The strongest | Regarding substance, not form | Very limited | Early/Limited | Very limited | Very limited | Very limited |
| The demonstrated increase in NAD+ biomarkers | Yes | Based on the data for the component | Lack of a clear comparison | Early data suggests so [5] | It cannot be isolated | Limited | Limited |
| Direct absorption comparisons | Some pharmacokinetic data for precursors | No powder-capsule comparison | No direct comparisons | Limited | Limited | Limited | Limited |
| Requires clinical justification | Not | Not | Not | Not | Usually not | Usually yes | Yes |
| Omija digestive tract | Not | Not | Partially declared | It is supposed to improve delivery | Yes, through the skin | Yes | Yes |
| Proven clinical superiority | Not | Not | Not | Not | Not | Not | Not |
| Main limitation | Ambiguous functional results | Lack of form research | No direct comparisons | Early research phase | Small study with combination therapy | Few controlled studies | No eligible controlled wellness trials in the 2026 review. |
The most important distinction, therefore, concerns well-studied oral precursors and newer or more invasive methods, for which the base of controlled human studies is significantly smaller.
Frequently asked questions about NAD+ supplement forms
What form of NAD+ supplement is best researched?
Oral capsules and tablets containing NAD+ precursors, such as NR and NMN, have the strongest base of human research.
Many randomized placebo-controlled trials have shown that oral NR and NMN can increase blood NAD+ or levels of related metabolites. [1–4]
This does not mean that they improve all possible health effects related to NAD+ biology.
Is liposomal NAD+ absorbed better?
Early data suggest that a specific liposomal formulation may increase intracellular NAD+ levels, but the main controlled human study discussed here was still a preprint and had not undergone full peer review. [5]
After correction for multiple comparisons, no statistically significant improvements in additional clinical and well-being outcomes were shown either.
Higher clinical efficacy has therefore not been confirmed.
Is sublingual NAD+ better than capsules?
No controlled human study has been identified that directly compares sublingual NAD+ or its precursors with standard oral capsules.
The sublingual route has a sound pharmacological rationale, but the bioavailability advantage specific to NAD+ remains unproven.
Do NAD+ patches work?
Human data is currently very limited.
A small open-label study showed improvements in fatigue and quality of life when NAD+ patches were used together with low-dose naltrexone. [7]
Since there was no placebo group or NAD+-only group, the independent effect of the patches alone cannot be determined.
Is NAD+ powder better than capsules?
There is no strong evidence that powder provides higher bioavailability than capsules containing the same active ingredient.
The main difference is greater flexibility in measuring quantities.
Are NAD+ injections better than oral precursors?
This has not been demonstrated in controlled comparative human studies.
An injection bypasses the gastrointestinal tract, but the route of administration alone does not confirm higher clinical efficacy or better cellular exposure.
Is IV NAD+ more effective because it goes directly into the bloodstream?
Direct administration into the blood confirms the route of administration, not the clinical outcome.
A 2026 systematic review found no eligible controlled human studies evaluating intravenous or intramuscular NAD+ for anti-aging or wellness applications. [8]
Claims of greater efficacy thus remain insufficiently substantiated.
Which form of NAD+ has the most clinical evidence?
Oral NR and NMN currently have the largest number of randomized human studies.
Sublingual products, liposomal products, patches, injections, and intravenous infusions have significantly smaller and less mature evidence bases.
Limitations of current evidence
The first significant limitation is the large difference in data quality between individual delivery forms.
Oral NR and NMN have the strongest base of randomized human trials, but even for them, results regarding anything beyond increases in NAD+ biomarkers remain inconclusive. [1–4]
The second limitation concerns liposomal NAD+.
The discussed human study showed an increase in intracellular NAD+, but at the time of analysis it was available as a preprint rather than a completed peer-reviewed publication. Additional clinical results and wearable device data did not remain significant after correction for multiple comparisons. [5]
Even more difficult to interpret are the data concerning transdermal forms.
The pilot study was small, open-label, and without a control group, and the NAD+ patches were used along with low-dose oral naltrexone. Therefore, the effect of transdermal NAD+ alone cannot be isolated. [7]
Another major gap is the lack of direct pharmacokinetic comparisons.
No human study has been identified that directly compares sublingual NAD+ with standard oral capsule powder or several newer formulations against well-studied oral NR or NMN under equivalent conditions.
Finally, intravenous and injectable NAD+ remain widely advertised despite a very limited base of controlled clinical trials.
A 2026 systematic review found no eligible controlled human trials regarding intravenous or intramuscular NAD+ for anti-aging and wellness applications. [8]
Therefore, separating commercial availability from clinical validation is the most scientifically justified approach.
A product can be widely sold, technologically advanced, or administered in a clinic, and yet have no stronger evidence base than a simpler oral preparation.
Disclaimer
This article is for educational and scientific-informational purposes only. It does not constitute medical advice, instructions for dosing or administration, therapeutic recommendations, advice on product selection, or a recommendation for the use of NAD+, NMN, NR, liposomal preparations, transdermal patches, injectable NAD+, intravenous NAD+, or any other NAD+-related interventions.
Individual forms of NAD+ supplements have very different levels of evidence in humans. The results of studies on oral NR or NMN should not be automatically extrapolated to sublingual, liposomal, transdermal, injectable, or intravenous preparations, and claimed superior absorption should not be treated as proof of better clinical outcomes without direct comparative studies.
NAD+ and its precursors are not FDA- or EMA-approved methods for treating, preventing, or curing diseases. Regulatory status, formulation standards, and permitted uses may vary between countries and change over time.
References
[1] Yi, L., Maier, A. B., Tao, R., Lin, Z., Vaidya, A., Pendse, S., Thasma, S., Andhalkar, N., Avhad, G., & Kumbhar, V. (2022). The efficacy and safety of β-nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN) supplementation in healthy middle-aged adults: A randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-dependent clinical trial. GeroScience, 45, 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-022-00705-1
[2] Pencina, K. M., Lavu, S., Dos Santos, M., Beleva, Y. M., Cheng, M., Livingston, D., & Bhasin, S. (2023). MIB-626, an oral formulation of a microcrystalline unique polymorph of β-nicotinamide mononucleotide, increases circulating nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide and its metabolome in middle-aged and older adults. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A, 78(1), 90–96. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glac049
[3] Conze, D., Brenner, C., & Kruger, C. L. (2019). Safety and metabolism of long-term administration of NIAGEN (nicotinamide riboside chloride) in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of healthy overweight adults. Scientific Reports, 9, 9772. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-46120-z
[4] Dellinger, R. W., Santos, S. R., Morris, M., Evans, M., Alminana, D., Guarente, L., & Marcotulli, E. (2017). Repeat dose NRPT (nicotinamide riboside and pterostilbene) increases NAD+ levels in humans safely and sustainably: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. npj Aging and Mechanisms of Disease, 3, 17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41514-017-0016-9
[5] Kornilov, S. A., Hastings, W. J., Fahey McGrath, L., Leitz-Langan, M., Magis, A. T., Coppess, S. M., & Komac, W. (2026). Novel oral LNAD+ increases intracellular NAD and metabolic flux without elevating catabolites in a randomized, placebo-controlled Phase 0/1b trial in healthy adults [Preprint]. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2026.03.25.714130
[6] Ministrini, S., Liberale, L., Erle, H.-E., Percoco, G., Tfayli, A., Assi, A., Kapitonov, I., Greiner, I., & Camici, G. G. (2025). A liposomal formulation enhances the anti-senescence properties of nicotinamide adenine-dinucleotide (NAD+) in endothelial cells and keratinocytes. Current Issues in Molecular Biology, 47(9), 722. https://doi.org/10.3390/cimb47090722
[7] Isman, A., Nyquist, A., Strecker, B., Harinath, G., Lee, V., Zhang, X., & Zalzala, S. (2024). Low-dose naltrexone and NAD+ for the treatment of patients with persistent fatigue symptoms after COVID-19. Brain, Behavior, & Immunity – Health, 36, 100733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbih.2024.100733
[8] Gallagher, C., & Emmanuel, O. O. (2026). NAD+ supplementation for anti-aging and wellness: A PRISMA-guided systematic review of preclinical and clinical evidence. Ageing Research Reviews, 116, 103057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2026.103057
[9] Reyna, K., Heinzen, G., Patel, N., Ritter, M., Siojo, A., Legere, H., & Pojednic, R. (2026). Intravenous infusion of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+) versus nicotinamide riboside (NR): A retrospective tolerability pilot study in a real-world setting. Frontiers in Aging, 7, 1652582. https://doi.org/10.3389/fragi.2026.1652582