Are there peer‑reviewed clinical trials assessing the safety of multi‑ingredient nootropic blends like Memo Blast or IQ Blast Pro?

1. What the question actually asks and why it matters

The user is asking not whether any ingredient has been studied, but whether multi‑ingredient commercial “stack” products — like Memo Blast or IQ Blast Pro — have peer‑reviewed clinical trials that specifically assess safety; that distinction matters because interactions, dosing, and manufacturing vary between products and single‑ingredient trials do not automatically translate to safety of blends ^{[3] [4]}.

2. Concrete peer‑reviewed trials of multi‑ingredient blends that exist

At least one rigorously designed study of a branded, multi‑ingredient nootropic exists in the peer‑reviewed literature: a randomized, triple‑blinded, placebo‑controlled crossover trial tested a 10 g serving of a commercial blend sold as Evo‑Gamers® in 26 healthy young adults and was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and published in Frontiers/Nutrition and in PMC ^{[1] [2]}. Other published randomized, double‑blind trials have assessed plant‑based blends or single botanical extracts with established safety data (e.g., Bacopa, Ginkgo) in larger trials, but those are not the same as full commercial multi‑ingredient stacks ^{[5] [6]}.

3. Quality and limitations of those trials from a safety perspective

The Evo‑Gamers study was randomized and triple‑blinded, but its sample was small (n=26) and assessed acute effects rather than long‑term safety, limiting generalizability to chronic consumers or vulnerable populations ^{[1] [2]}. Reviews and expert summaries repeatedly note that placebo effects, variable dosing, proprietary blends, and short durations are common problems in nootropics research and prevent broad safety conclusions — larger, longer, controlled trials are needed to understand interaction risks and rare adverse events ^{[7] [3] [4]}.

4. Evidence gaps about specific brands named in the question

The provided reporting does not include any peer‑reviewed clinical trials that evaluate Memo Blast or IQ Blast Pro specifically; thus, it is not possible from these sources to say those products have been assessed in peer‑reviewed safety trials ^{[1] [2]}. Industry marketing claims (for some brands) tout clinical backing or multiple trials for ingredient sets, but marketing citations in the dataset (e.g., Mind Lab Pro or other vendor claims) are not a substitute for independent peer‑reviewed safety trials of the finished product and in some cases reference non‑peer‑reviewed publications or small studies ^{[8] [9]}.

5. Broader context: single‑ingredient data vs. blend safety

There is substantial peer‑reviewed literature on many individual nootropic ingredients (caffeine/L‑theanine, Bacopa monnieri, Rhodiola, creatine, etc.) with randomized trials addressing efficacy and some safety endpoints, yet systematic reviews caution that single‑ingredient tolerability does not remove the need to study multi‑ingredient interactions and dosing in finished products ^{[6] [5] [7]}. Regulatory analyses and military health guidance emphasize that many multi‑ingredient supplements contain proprietary blends or untested combinations, leaving unknowns about safe dose ranges and potential for additive adverse effects ^{[3] [4]}.

6. Bottom line — what can be concluded from the available reporting

Peer‑reviewed clinical trials do exist for some multi‑ingredient nootropic products (for example Evo‑Gamers®) but they are few and often limited to acute, small‑sample studies; larger, longer randomized trials focused on safety and ingredient interactions are lacking and absent in these sources for Memo Blast and IQ Blast Pro specifically ^{[1] [2] [7] [3]}. Consumers and clinicians should treat claims about “clinically tested” stacks with caution and look for independent, peer‑reviewed safety data on the exact branded product and dosing regimen before inferring safety from single‑ingredient studies ^{[4] [5]}.