What clinical trials have tested honey or honey-derived compounds for Alzheimer’s disease specifically?

1. What the literature says: many lab studies, few (if any) human AD trials

Multiple review papers compile preclinical evidence that honey and related bee products show neuroprotective effects in cell and animal models of AD — reducing oxidative stress, inflammation, amyloid aggregation and inhibiting cholinesterase — and call for clinical translation (Navarro‑Hortal et al.; Honey and Alzheimer’s Disease review) ^{[4] [5] [1]}. Metabolic Brain Disease’s recent review likewise highlights potential synergy between bee products and standard AD drugs and concludes that “further studies are needed to support the preclinical studies and promote the clinical trials” ^[2]. None of these reviews identify completed or ongoing human clinical trials in AD that directly test whole honey or honey‑derived compounds ^{[4] [5] [2] [1]}.

2. Clinical trials landscape for AD: a crowded field but no honey signal

Comprehensive AD pipeline overviews cataloged 182 trials and 138 novel agents on index dates in 2025, with repurposed agents forming a substantial fraction — yet these pipeline audits (which rely on clinicaltrials.gov) do not list honey or honey‑derived products among registered AD interventions ^{[3] [6] [7]}. The pipeline papers emphasize that AD trials must be registered and that most current trials are pharmacologic disease‑targeting therapies; the absence of bee‑product entries in that registry is notable in the sources ^[3].

3. Where the reporting does point: preclinical promise and small non‑AD clinical signals

Several news and secondary outlets summarize the scientific enthusiasm: reviews covering 27 preclinical studies conclude honey’s bioactive compounds counter oxidative stress, inflammation and amyloid buildup, but explicitly note the lack of human trials in AD to date (news‑medical summary of the review) (p1_s6 — note: ^[9] is a 2025 summary that states “no human trials exist” as reported). Other non‑AD clinical findings (for example, randomized trials of honey improving cognition in older adults reported in secondary summaries) are mentioned in popular writeups but are not presented in the primary AD‑focused reviews cited here and therefore are not confirmed by the AD reviews in these sources ^[8]. Available sources do not mention large, randomized Alzheimer’s disease trials testing honey as an intervention ^{[4] [5] [1]}.

4. Why researchers argue clinical trials are needed — and what they would test

Authors of the reviews describe multiple mechanisms by which honey could plausibly affect AD biology: antioxidant and anti‑inflammatory phytochemicals, phenolic compounds with cholinesterase‑inhibiting activity, and possible synergistic effects with approved symptomatic drugs ^{[4] [5] [2]}. Because these are largely mechanistic and preclinical findings, the reviews uniformly call for properly designed human studies to establish safety, dosing, target populations and clinical endpoints rather than promote off‑label use ^{[4] [2] [5]}.

5. Conflicting signals and limitations in the current reporting

Some secondary sources and blogs amplify findings and list particular honeys (e.g., Manuka, Tualang) as promising, and even cite trials in older adults or postmenopausal women for cognitive outcomes, but the AD‑focused systematic reviews and pipeline analyses used here do not corroborate registered AD clinical trials of honey — creating a mismatch between popular summaries and the formal AD literature (p1_s7, ^[8] versus ^[4], ^[5], p1_s3). The authoritative pipeline reviews emphasize that clinicaltrials.gov is the registry for AD trials; the absence of honey entries in those systematic searches implies that claims of large AD trials of honey are not supported in these sources ^[3].

6. Bottom line and practical guidance

Based on the sources provided, researchers have recommended and urged clinical testing of honey and bee products for Alzheimer’s disease because of strong preclinical signals, but available systematic reviews and AD trial registries cited here do not document any human Alzheimer’s trials specifically testing honey‑based interventions ^{[4] [5] [3] [2]}. If you want to track whether formal AD clinical trials of honey start, monitoring clinicaltrials.gov and future pipeline updates (like the Cummings pipeline reports) is the most reliable step; available sources do not mention any registered AD trials for honey at the time of these reports ^{[3] [6]}.

If you want, I can (a) search clinicaltrials.gov entries directly for "honey" or specific honey compounds, (b) pull the human cognition trials cited in secondary sources to check whether they studied AD populations specifically, or (c. display) summarize the preclinical mechanisms and key animal‑study results in more detail from the reviews cited above ^{[4] [5]}.