NAD+, a compound derived from vitamin B3, has gained popularity as a potential anti-aging treatment and brain cell regenerator. It's also being marketed in the UK as a "clinically proven" and "effective" way to overcome substance misuse, despite a lack of scientific evidence to support these claims.
While the appeal of NAD+ infusions is understandable, given the rising rates of drug deaths and pressure on public treatment services, experts like Dr. Michael Sagner, a King's College clinical advisor and NAD+ expert, strongly caution against its use for substance use disorders. He emphasizes that NAD+ is ineffective for addressing withdrawal symptoms, which often involve physical pain.
The Observer has uncovered that unlicensed clinics across the UK are promoting NAD+ infusions for substance use disorders, potentially violating advertising and medicine regulations. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has already taken action against seven clinics offering NAD+ for medicinal purposes, requiring them to remove treatment claims.
The cost of these NAD+ infusions ranges from £370 for a basic protocol to £2,800 for a five-session "recovery detox". These treatments are being marketed by a variety of providers, including doctor-owned clinics regulated by the Care Quality Commission (CQC), wellness companies, and even beauticians.
Despite the claims made by these providers, there is no scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of NAD+ infusions for substance use disorders. Professor Harry Sumnall, an expert in substance use at Liverpool John Moores University, states that "It's untested and unproven. We don't know anything about its efficacy or long-term safety. There's very little evidence supporting this approach."
The lack of evidence and potential risks associated with NAD+ infusions for substance use disorders raise serious concerns about the ethical implications of their marketing and use.
Despite claims of effectiveness, NAD+ infusions for addiction are being marketed without scientific evidence. The lack of regulation and unproven efficacy raise concerns about the ethics of this growing private addiction industry.
Post a Comment