Evidence Hub

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

Mîndreanu R, Chiș IC, Sevastre-Berghian A, Login C, Stan A, Stan T, Clichici S, Suciu Ș

International journal of molecular sciences, 2026

6 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

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.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 6 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free