What clinical trials have tested honey or honey-derived compounds for Alzheimer’s disease in humans?
Executive summary
A systematic read of the recent reviews and primary reporting shows that rigorous, randomized clinical trials testing honey or honey-derived compounds specifically in people with diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease do not exist in the peer‑reviewed, registered trial literature [1] [2]. What does exist are abundant preclinical studies and a small number of human interventions examining cognition in older adults or other populations, plus a single large conference abstract from 2009 claiming a preventive trial in older adults that has not been clearly validated in the peer‑reviewed record [2] [3] [4].
1. No completed randomized controlled trials in diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease — the consensus from recent reviews
Multiple recent reviews that surveyed PubMed, Scopus and clinical trial registries conclude there are no completed randomized, placebo‑controlled human trials that directly evaluate honey as a therapeutic or preventive agent in patients with Alzheimer’s disease [1] [2]. The 2025 MDPI review explicitly states that “to our knowledge, no randomized controlled human studies have been completed or are currently registered” testing honey for AD, and urges well‑designed human trials to clarify any therapeutic relevance [1]. ReachMD and News‑Medical summaries of the literature arrive at the same core conclusion: promising preclinical signals but an absence of robust human evidence or guideline endorsement for honey in AD prevention or treatment [5] [2].
2. Human studies exist, but they are not trials in AD patients and are limited in scope
Clinical interventions involving honey have been carried out in non‑AD populations or older adults and report mixed cognitive effects, but these studies are small, heterogenous, and not targeted to Alzheimer’s disease per se [3] [6]. For example, trials cited in reviews include short‑term supplementation studies in postmenopausal women and people with schizophrenia that measured memory or oxidative stress markers, with variable outcomes and no link to clinical AD endpoints [3] [7]. Broader reviews of honey and neurodegeneration note a single “clinical intervention” among many preclinical reports, but they emphasize that more clinical trials are required to substantiate in‑vitro and animal findings [6] [8].
3. The large 2003–2008 Middle East study is reported as a conference abstract but lacks clear peer‑reviewed validation
A 2009 Alzheimer’s & Dementia conference abstract describes a randomized, placebo‑controlled, double‑blind 5‑year study in Iraq that reportedly randomized ~2,893 older adults to one tablespoon of honey daily or placebo and claimed fewer dementia cases in the honey group [4]. That poster/abstract is frequently cited in non‑peer venues and industry blogs, but the available record is limited to the conference abstract metadata; reviewers and subsequent systematic searches do not present a full peer‑reviewed paper, registry entry, or dataset to allow independent verification or assessment of methodology and bias [4] [9]. Review articles therefore treat that result cautiously rather than as definitive evidence [1] [6].
4. Why the gap between promising lab data and human trials persists
Preclinical literature documents numerous mechanistic reasons to study honey — antioxidant polyphenols, acetylcholinesterase inhibition, anti‑inflammatory effects and impacts on amyloid or mitochondrial stress in cell and animal models — generating rationale for human testing [7] [3] [2]. Yet reviews repeatedly note a “stark dearth” of human trials, warning that without randomized human data there is no basis for dosing, safety guidance in AD populations, or clinical recommendations [2] [1]. Clinical trial infrastructure, quality control for botanical preparations, and variability across honey types (manuka, tualang, chestnut, thyme) are named as practical obstacles in the reviews [6] [7].
5. Bottom line and responsible next steps for researchers and clinicians
Current, credible evidence does not include completed randomized controlled trials of honey or honey‑derived isolates in patients with Alzheimer’s disease; the literature contains promising preclinical work, a handful of human cognitive or biomarker studies in other populations, and an unvalidated large conference abstract that cannot substitute for peer‑reviewed trial data [1] [2] [4]. Authors of recent systematic reviews call explicitly for rigorously designed clinical trials with standardized honey preparations, appropriate dosing, and clinically meaningful cognitive and biological endpoints before any clinical claims can be made [1] [5].