What randomized clinical trials have tested NAC for COVID-19 outcomes and what were their results?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) testing N‑acetylcysteine (NAC) in COVID‑19 have been small, heterogeneous, and produced inconsistent results; systematic reviews and meta‑analyses that pooled these RCTs conclude there is no clear, high‑certainty benefit and do not recommend routine NAC use for SARS‑CoV‑2 infection [1] [2] [3]. Some pooled analyses reported lower mortality in NAC arms but judged the evidence to be very low certainty because of high risk of bias and small sample sizes, leaving the clinical question unresolved [4].
1. Which randomized trials were actually run and how they differed
Multiple RCTs compared NAC (oral, inhaled or intravenous) versus placebo or standard care in hospitalized adults and in at least one pediatric cohort; examples cited in systematic reviews include small single‑ and double‑blind trials such as a phase III ICU trial in Iran (single‑blind, NAC 300 mg/kg IV single dose) and oral NAC trials like Atefi et al. and others identified in pooled analyses [5] [6] [7]. Trial registries and reviews also point to a variety of designs still underway or unreported at the time of the reviews (e.g., NCT04455243, NCT04374461, NCT04419025, NCT04458298), reflecting variation in dose, route and patient populations [8] [9].
2. Primary endpoints and reported individual trial findings
Most RCTs reported clinical endpoints such as all‑cause mortality, need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), ICU admission, oxygenation indices and hospital length of stay; a pediatric double‑blind placebo‑controlled RCT of 58 children found no significant differences in WBC, CRP, oxygenation or clinical signs after 7 days of 1,200 mg/day NAC [10]. A randomized ICU trial administering a high single IV dose reported outcome measures including respiration rate, SpO2, inflammatory markers and mortality, but individual small trials frequently lacked power to detect mortality differences and produced mixed physiologic and biomarker results [5] [7].
3. What the randomized‑trial meta‑analyses concluded
Multiple systematic reviews and meta‑analyses restricted to RCTs concluded that routine NAC use is not supported: a comprehensive meta‑analysis that searched major databases to December 2022 found no improvement in clinical outcomes and advised against routine NAC for COVID‑19 [1] [2] [3]. Another pooled analysis reported a numerically lower pooled mortality in NAC groups (15.6% vs control) but emphasized very low certainty due to widespread high risk of bias and heterogeneity across five included RCTs, tempering any claim of benefit [4].
4. Why the evidence is inconsistent and limits interpretation
The evidence base is undermined by small trial sizes, different NAC formulations and dosing schedules (oral, inhaled spray, IV, single high dose versus multi‑day regimens), variable patient severity (moderate pediatric to ICU adults), and methodological concerns flagged by RoB‑2 assessments; pooled results therefore suffer high heterogeneity and very low GRADE certainty, making subgroup signals (e.g., mortality trends) unreliable without larger, well‑conducted RCTs [4] [7] [11] [6].
5. How randomized evidence compares with observational and preclinical studies
Observational cohorts and preclinical work frequently suggested plausible mechanisms (antioxidant, glutathione precursor, anti‑inflammatory) and sometimes found associations with improved oxygenation or reduced mortality, but those nonrandomized signals have not been consistently reproduced in randomized trials and the discrepancy highlights potential confounding in observational data and the need for randomized confirmation [12] [8] [13].
6. Bottom line and where uncertainty remains
Randomized clinical trials to date do not provide high‑certainty evidence that NAC improves major COVID‑19 outcomes; systematic reviews of those RCTs do not endorse routine use, while acknowledging low study quality and small samples that leave open the possibility of benefit in specific subgroups or with different dosing—questions that ongoing or better‑powered RCTs and completed registry trials must resolve [1] [2] [4] [8].