Hair loss can be difficult to ignore. Whether you notice more hair in the shower, a widening part, gradual thinning, or sudden shedding, it is understandable to start looking for solutions.
That search increasingly leads people to NAD+, NAD+ injections, NAD IV therapy, NMN supplements, and other products marketed around “cellular health.”
But the most important point comes first:
NAD+ is not a proven treatment for hair loss or hair regrowth.
Research into NAD+-related biology is scientifically interesting, and early laboratory, animal, and very limited human research has explored how NAD+ precursors such as NMN may relate to hair-follicle biology.
That is not the same as showing that NAD+ injections, NAD IV therapy, or NAD-related supplements reliably regrow hair, stop shedding, or treat alopecia.
If you are experiencing persistent, sudden, patchy, painful, or otherwise concerning hair loss, identifying the cause should come before choosing a wellness product.
The American Academy of Dermatology emphasizes that effective hair-loss treatment begins with determining why the hair loss is happening. Depending on the situation, that may involve a medical history, scalp examination, blood testing, or occasionally a scalp biopsy.
Written by: Drip Lounge Editorial Team
Medically reviewed by: Megan Nickerson, DNP
Last medically reviewed: September 2026
Last updated: September 2026
Important medical information: NAD+ injections and NAD IV therapy are not established treatments for hair loss or hair regrowth. Hair loss may have genetic, hormonal, nutritional, autoimmune, medication-related, inflammatory, infectious, or stress-related causes. Do not use an injectable, IV, supplement, or compounded wellness product as a substitute for appropriate evaluation.
The Short Answer: Can NAD+ Regrow Hair?
There is not enough high-quality human evidence to conclude that NAD+ regrows hair.
NAD+, or nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, is a coenzyme involved in normal cellular processes, including energy metabolism and reactions involving NAD-dependent enzymes.
Researchers have explored NAD-related pathways because hair follicles are biologically active structures influenced by cellular metabolism, oxidative stress, inflammation, hormones, DNA-damage responses, and stem-cell activity.
That makes NAD+ biology worth studying.
It does not make NAD+ an established hair-growth treatment.
If you are new to the subject, our guide to what NAD+ IV therapy is explains NAD+ and the IV route in more general terms.
The distinction to remember is:
Biological role → research hypothesis → clinical testing → replicated human outcomes → treatment recommendation
Those are very different stages of evidence.
Why Are People Talking About NAD+ and Hair Growth?
NAD+ has become highly visible in wellness conversations because it participates in cellular processes associated with metabolism, aging biology, stress response, and energy production.
Hair follicles also go through highly regulated growth and resting cycles.
That combination has encouraged a simple narrative:
NAD+ supports cellular function → hair follicles need cellular energy → NAD+ should improve hair growth.
The problem is the final step.
A biological mechanism can help researchers decide what to study. It cannot by itself tell us whether a treatment works in people.
This same distinction matters in many other areas of NAD+ research. For example, we make the same evidence separation in our article on NAD+ and weight loss: involvement in metabolism does not automatically establish a clinical treatment effect.
NAD+, NMN, NR, Injections and IV Therapy Are Not the Same Thing
Online discussions often use “NAD” as though all NAD-related products are interchangeable.
They are not.
| Term | What It Is | Typical Research Context | What It Does Not Prove |
|---|---|---|---|
| NAD+ | A naturally occurring cellular coenzyme | Metabolism and cellular biology | That extra NAD+ causes hair growth |
| NAD+ injection | Injectable NAD+ preparation | Limited human wellness use | That injections improve hair density |
| NAD IV therapy | Intravenous administration of NAD+ | Limited human clinical research | That IV NAD+ treats hair loss |
| NMN | Nicotinamide mononucleotide, an NAD+ precursor | Animal, laboratory and some oral human research | That NMN findings apply to NAD+ injections |
| NR | Nicotinamide riboside, another NAD+ precursor | Primarily oral human research | That NR improves hair growth |
| Niacin / nicotinamide | Forms of vitamin B3 | Nutrition and metabolic research | That they are equivalent to NAD+ therapy |
This distinction becomes especially important when someone cites an NMN study as evidence for NAD+ injections.
A result from oral NMN in humans or NMN in mice cannot automatically be transferred to IV NAD+ or injected NAD+.
Route, compound, dose, tissue exposure, population, study design, and outcome all matter.
What Does the Laboratory and Animal Research Show?
There is legitimate early research investigating NAD-related pathways and hair follicles.
The 2024 NMN Mouse Study
A 2024 study examined NMN, not NAD+ IV therapy, in laboratory models and mice.
Researchers studied hair growth after hair removal in mice and also examined cultured human dermal papilla cells exposed to dihydrotestosterone, or DHT.
The study reported changes in mouse hair-growth measures, follicle characteristics, oxidative-stress pathways, and inflammatory markers following NMN exposure.
Those findings are scientifically useful because they suggest biological pathways worth studying further.
But they do not demonstrate that:
- NAD+ injections regrow human hair,
- NAD IV therapy reverses pattern hair loss,
- NMN treats alopecia in people, or
- any NAD-related therapy should be prescribed for hair loss.
The animal model also cannot tell us what a safe or effective human treatment would look like.
Newer 2026 Preclinical Research
Research published in 2026 has continued examining NMN in relation to alopecia-related biology.
One study used hair-follicle stem cells obtained from people with alopecia areata alongside laboratory oxidative-stress models and an in vivo mouse model. Researchers reported effects involving oxidative stress, SIRT7 signaling, glutamine metabolism, and follicle damage in the experimental models.
The presence of human-derived cells does not make this a human treatment trial.
It remains primarily mechanistic and preclinical evidence.
That distinction is essential.
A plausible pathway is a reason to conduct better clinical research—not a reason to market NAD+ as a proven hair-regrowth treatment.
Is There Any Human Research on NMN and Hair?
There is now some early human research, but it needs careful interpretation.
A 2025 study enrolled 15 healthy Japanese women aged 40 to 50 who had hair-related concerns. They took oral NMN for 12 weeks.
Researchers reported changes in several measured and subjective hair characteristics after supplementation, including anagen hair measurements and hair diameter.
This sounds encouraging until the study design is considered.
It was:
- small, with only 15 participants;
- single-arm, meaning everyone received NMN;
- open-label, meaning participants knew what they were taking; and
- without a placebo control.
The study also evaluated oral NMN, not NAD+ injections or IV NAD+.
Interestingly, the authors also reported a reduction in overall hair count and noted that seasonal hair loss might have contributed. They called for larger and more rigorous studies.
So the appropriate conclusion is not:
“Human studies prove NAD+ grows hair.”
It is:
A small exploratory study of oral NMN has produced findings worth studying further, but the evidence is far too limited to establish NMN—and especially NAD+ injections or IV therapy—as a hair-loss treatment.
What Human Research Is Still Missing?
For NAD-related therapy to be considered an evidence-based hair-loss treatment, researchers would need substantially stronger clinical trials.
Those studies would need appropriate control groups, sufficient numbers of participants, clearly defined diagnoses, standardized measures of hair density and thickness, dermatologist evaluation, meaningful follow-up periods, adverse-event monitoring, and replication by independent research groups.
It would also matter which hair-loss condition was being studied.
Androgenetic alopecia, telogen effluvium, alopecia areata, nutritional hair loss, and scarring alopecia are not interchangeable conditions.
A treatment that affects one mechanism would not automatically work for all of them.
Hair Loss Has Many Possible Causes
Hair loss itself is not a diagnosis.
| Type or Cause | Examples | Why Evaluation Matters |
|---|---|---|
| Pattern hair loss | Male or female androgenetic alopecia | Often involves genetic and hormonal factors |
| Temporary shedding | Telogen effluvium after illness, surgery, childbirth, rapid weight change or major stress | The trigger may have occurred months earlier |
| Autoimmune hair loss | Alopecia areata | Can cause sudden patches and may require specific treatment |
| Scarring hair loss | Inflammatory scalp disorders | Early assessment can matter because follicles may be permanently damaged |
| Nutritional factors | Iron deficiency, low protein intake or restrictive diets | Testing may be needed before supplementation |
| Hormonal/endocrine factors | Thyroid disease, postpartum changes, PCOS-related changes | Requires cause-specific evaluation |
| Medication-associated shedding | Certain prescription medicines or treatments | Medication review should be done with a clinician |
| Scalp disorders | Fungal infection, psoriasis, dermatitis or inflammation | May need specific dermatologic treatment |
| Hair-shaft damage | Heat, chemical processing, traction or breakage | Different from loss caused at the follicle |
The AAD recommends identifying the cause because different types of hair loss require different approaches, and more than one cause can sometimes occur at the same time.
This is why assumptions such as “my NAD+ must be low” or “my shedding is from stress” should not replace an assessment.
