Updated November 15, 2021
since our review was published, we found no new reports of this supplement being used in people with ALS. We did find a new randomized, blinded, placebo controlled trial in 38 athletes which raised questions about Protandim’s antioxidant ability; as a result we change our Mechanisms grade from A to B (ex.PLoS One.2016; 11(8): e0160559). In this same study, headaches, dizzingess and gastrointestinal side effects were noted in at least 25% of those taking Protandim. This warrants a change in our Risks grade from B to C. Our conclusion remains unchanged: we hope to see a pilot trial of Protandim in people with ALS.
Updated July 24, 2023
As of July 2023 we found no new information that would warrant any TOE grade changes
Key Information
Click on any letter grade below for more info:
Preclinical Trials Grade:
U
Published: Sep 2015
Protandim appears reasonably safe and inexpensive, has a promising mechanism by which it could help ALS, and there is a patient with a validated ALS diagnosis whose ALSFRS-R score improved on it. There are significant problems with the data described, including small study sample sizes, failure to demonstrate that Protandim increases Nrf2 in humans, failure to establish an optimal dose, and potential conflicts of interest among several of the key individuals involved. Nonetheless, in our opinion, further study of Protandim in ALS appears warranted.
Declaration of interest: ALSUntangled is sponsored by the ALS Association and the Motor Neurone Disease Association.
Click here to download the complete review.
Grade A: Shown in a peer-reviewed publication to act on a relevant mechanism in humans
Grade B: Shown in a peer-reviewed publication to act on a relevant mechanism in pre-clinical model(s)
Grade C: Theoretically and plausibly acts on an ALS-relevant mechanism in humans
Grade D: Acts on a biological mechanism but it is not clear that this mechanism is relevant in ALS
Grade F: Implausible; would violate known principles or laws of biology
Grade U: No useful information was found for this category
Grade A: Two or more peer-reviewed publications reporting benefits in well-designed studies.
Animal studies are assumed to be ‘well designed’ when they follow published guidelines. When they deviate from these they are considered ‘flawed’.
Grade B: One peer-reviewed publication reporting benefits in a well-designed study.
Animal studies are assumed to be ‘well designed’ when they follow published guidelines. When they deviate from these they are considered ‘flawed’.
Grade C: One or more peer-reviewed publication(s) reporting benefits in flawed studies.
Animal studies are assumed to be ‘well designed’ when they follow published guidelines. When they deviate from these they are considered ‘flawed’.
Grade D: One or more non-peer reviewed studies reporting benefits (published on a website or in an abstract)
Grade F: The only studies available show no benefit
Grade U: No useful information was found for this category
Grade A: One or more peer-reviewed publications reporting benefits with validated diagnosis and benefits
Grade B: More than one unpublished report of benefit with validated diagnosis and benefits
Grade C: One unpublished report of benefit with validated diagnosis and benefits
Grade D: Subjective report(s) of benefit without validated diagnoses and/or benefits
Grade F: The only reports available show no benefit
Grade U: No useful information was found for this category
Two or more peer-reviewed publications describing benefits in well-designed randomized, blinded placebo-controlled phase III trials
Grade C: One or more peer-reviewed publications reporting benefits in a well-designed randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled phase I or II trial
Grade D: One or more peer-reviewed publications reporting benefits in a flawed trial.
Flawed trials means those in which there are identifiable problems with patient selection, randomization, blinding, controls or follow-up. These have ‘high or unclear risk of bias’ according to published criteria. Well-designed trials are those that have ‘low risk of bias’.
Grade F: The only trials available show no benefit
Grade U: No useful information was found for this category
Grade A: No exposed patients appear to have experienced harms
Grade B: More than 0% but less than 10% of exposed patients experienced harms (no hospitalizations or deaths)
Grade B (oral): More than 0% but less than10% of exposed patients experienced harms (no hospitalizations or deaths)
Grade D (intravenous): More than 0% but less than 5% of exposed patients experienced death or hospitalizations
Grade C: At least 10% of exposed patients experienced harms (no hospitalizations or deaths)
Grade D: More than 0% but less than 5% of exposed patients experienced death or hospitalizations
Grade D: More than 0% but less than 5% of exposed patients experienced death or hospitalizations
Grade F: At least 5% of exposed patients experienced death or hospitalization
Grade F: At least 5% of exposed patients experienced death or hospitalization
Grade U: No useful information was found for this category
Listen to the Podcast
Listen on Spreaker
