SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

N-Acetylcysteine in Neurological Disorders: A Systematic Review of Clinical and Translational Evidence Across Seven Disorders.

Int J Mol Sci · 2026-03-27

DOI: 10.3390/ijms27073076PMID: 41977262

Open accessSystematic Review; review-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is a glutathione precursor with established antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties that has been investigated as a neuroprotective agent across multiple neurological conditions. This systematic review systematically mapped the clinical evidence for NAC across seven neurological disorders. PubMed and Cochrane Library were searched for studies published between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2025. Twenty-three studies were included: traumatic brain injury (TBI, n = 6), Alzheimer's disease (AD, n = 5), Parkinson's disease (PD, n = 5), multiple sclerosis (n = 4), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (n = 2), and migraine (n = 1); no eligible epilepsy studies were identified. The strongest evidence emerged for acute mild TBI, where early NAC administration significantly improved symptom resolution, and for PD, where combined intravenous/oral NAC improved dopamine transporter binding. In AD, nutraceutical formulations including NAC and other active compounds showed trends toward cognitive stabilization. Most included studies had a high or serious risk of bias, and only eight of 23 assessed oxidative stress biomarkers. NAC demonstrated a favorable safety profile across all conditions. Despite fragmented and heterogeneous evidence, the encouraging signals identified warrant large-scale randomized controlled trials with a standardized biomarker assessment.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.