NAD+ in creams: the right molecule in the wrong place

NAD+ made its way into creams after passing through supplements, longevity podcasts, and vitamin IV drips. It is the signature molecule of cellular aging.

It is also a molecule that, because of its structure, has a very hard time reaching the skin.

NAD+ is biologically extremely important: without it, cells cannot produce energy. But in the form applied to the face, it is unstable and too large to cross the stratum corneum in useful amounts. And here is the paradox: the documented skin benefits come from a precursor we have known for twenty years that costs one-tenth as much. It is called niacinamide.

Cover image generated with the support of artificial intelligence.

[INDICE:h2]

What is NAD+ and why is it talked about so much?

Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide is a coenzyme found in every cell. It participates in the reactions that produce energy in the mitochondria and is involved in cellular repair and regulation processes.

NAD+ levels decrease with age. This observation made the molecule one of the leading subjects of longevity research, and from there it moved into cosmetics through reasoning that was as simple as it was optimistic: if it declines with age and is needed for cellular energy, putting it back in should help.

The logical leap is in “putting it back in.” Because saying that a molecule is important is one thing; demonstrating that applying it produces an effect is another.

The penetration problem

It is the same obstacle I described when discussing PDRN, and it comes up often enough that it should make us think.

The stratum corneum is not an imperfect filter: it is a structure designed to let almost nothing through, and it does that very well. The most frequently cited rule of thumb for skin penetration places the critical threshold at around 500 Daltons. NAD+ has a molecular weight above 660 Daltons and is also a charged molecule, meaning it has little affinity for the lipid environment it would need to cross.

Then there is stability. NAD+ degrades easily in aqueous solution, and keeping it intact inside an emulsion for a product’s shelf life is a serious formulation challenge. An active that degrades in the jar is a name on the label, not a functioning ingredient.

What the studies say, when read all the way through

A critical review published in 2026 in CosmoDerma examined the potential of NAD+ precursors in dermatology. The conclusion, quoted directly from the authors, is that clinical evidence supporting their dermatological efficacy remains limited.

There is also a 2024 study published in Cells that investigates an interesting approach: rather than adding NAD+ from the outside, targeting CD38, the enzyme that consumes it. It is a more elegant and potentially more sensible approach. However, one point that disappears from promotional citations must be noted: the study was conducted by the research center of a cosmetics company. That does not make it false; it makes it data with a conflict of interest that should be disclosed, as I explain in clinically and dermatologically tested.

The rest of the literature on topical NAD+ is largely in vitro or based on animal models. These are necessary stages of research, and no one disputes that. They simply are not studies of people using a cream.

“We have had the precursor that really works on the skin for twenty years. It is inexpensive and does not make headlines. It is called niacinamide.”

Niacinamide is already the answer

This is the point I find most interesting about the whole story, and also the most ironic.

Niacinamide is a precursor to NAD+: it is small, stable, penetrates well, and is one of the cosmetic ingredients with the strongest clinical literature behind it for the skin barrier, sebum, evenness of skin tone, and redness. It works on the skin.

So the question becomes concrete: what does a product containing NAD+ add compared with a niacinamide product? So far, looking at the available data, the honest answer is a newer word on the label and a higher price.

But be careful not to make the opposite mistake. Niacinamide is not “NAD+” and should not be sold as such: it is a precursor, something different. Presenting it as equivalent would be the same commercial shortcut, only in reverse.

The numbers going around and where they come from

Two types of figures circulate around this active ingredient, and it is useful to know how to distinguish them.

Market estimates - the NAD+ cosmetics sector valued in billions of dollars, with projections through 2033 - come from commercial market research companies. They describe how much is expected to be sold, not how well an ingredient works. They are legitimate within their scope and say nothing about efficacy.

Then there are the performance percentages found on some sales websites, such as a three-digit increase in skin elasticity. I looked for the study behind figures of this kind and could not find it: there is no stated method, no sample size, and no duration. A figure without these three pieces of information cannot be verified, and when something cannot be verified, the correct choice is not to use it. Not even to challenge it.

How I would evaluate it if it were proposed to me

The method is the usual one. I described it in what happens before an active ingredient goes into a cream, and here it produces four direct questions.

1. What exact form was used: NAD+ or a precursor? They are not interchangeable.
2. How was the penetration problem solved? If there is no answer, the problem remains.
3. How is stability guaranteed throughout the product’s shelf life, not just at production?
4. Do the studies concern the finished formula on people, or the pure active ingredient in cell cultures?

Almost everything I have seen so far stops at the fourth question. This is not a definitive condemnation of topical NAD+: it is a snapshot of where we are now.

My take

I have nothing against this molecule, and I would be happy to be proven wrong in three years. Research into cellular energy mechanisms is one of the most promising fields, and if someone solves the delivery problem with serious clinical data, I will be the first to examine it.

What bothers me is the timing. It is the same pattern as the longevity vocabulary: a molecule with solid biological foundations is taken to market before evidence exists for the delivery route being sold, and by the time the evidence finally arrives, the public will already have filed the subject away as just another passing trend.

That is how good molecules get burned out. And when that happens, the damage is not paid by the person who sold them first: it is paid by the person who comes later with the data in hand.