Supplement evidence

042 / 575Botanical compound

Berberine

View my plan →

The short answer

Some trials show glucose or lipid improvements, but study quality and formulations vary.

Evidence and scope: Emerging evidence
This status does not grade the ingredient for every goal, outcome, or person.
Important limitation: It is not equivalent to a regulated prescription medicine and has no demonstrated lifespan effect.
Before deciding: Avoid in pregnancy and infants; substantial drug-interaction and GI risks require clinician review.

01 / PRACTICAL GUIDE

Dose, absorption, and combinations

These are indication-specific reference or studied ranges—not a personalized prescription. Start with the objective, then check the form, label, medicines, and health conditions.

Reference range by objective

Glucose-related research500 mg two or three times daily with meals is common in short trials

Reference or studied range—not a personalized prescription. The product label or a clinician may specify a different dose.

Dose source ↗

More is not automatically better. A clinician or product label may specify a different amount.

Absorption / solubilityFormulation-dependent

Not usefully classified as a fat- or water-soluble vitamin; absorption depends on the salt, extract, delivery system, and meal.

How it is commonly taken

Divide with meals for tolerance.

Do not combine casually

Do not combine casually with glucose-lowering, anticoagulant, transplant, or CYP/P-gp substrate medicines; avoid pregnancy and infancy.

Dose and use source ↗

Dose and use links lead to primary or official source material. Search links are discovery tools, not proof that every returned paper applies.

02 / EVIDENCE

What the research says

We keep supportive, mixed, negative, safety, and contextual findings together. The headline never replaces the underlying papers.

4research papers in this ledger

4unique primary studies represented

372unique participants represented

These are audited counts for this JIVANA collection, not search-result totals. Participants are counted once when multiple papers use the same cohort; review papers are not added again to participant totals.

Open the research timelineResearch timeline

Entries are ordered by publication year. A study period appears only when the source reports it.

2017

Safety signalPMID 28792254

Variability in potency among commercial preparations of berberine

Average content was 75% of the label claim, ranged from 33% to 100%, and 9 of 15 products fell outside a 90%–110% potency range. Price did not predict content.

Published: 2017

Study design and methods

Design: Laboratory analysis of 15 U.S. dietary-supplement products
Population: Commercial products, not human participants
Intervention: Three capsules from each product tested by liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry
Outcome: Measured berberine content versus the label claim

Open research record ↗

2015

Mixed or qualifiedPMID 26252777 · NCT00633282

Efficacy of berberine in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

Adding berberine improved liver fat and several metabolic measures more than lifestyle alone, but the open-label design, attrition, and disease-specific population limit general weight-loss claims.

Published: 2015Duration: 16 weeksn=184 participants

Study design and methods

Design: Randomized multicenter open-label parallel trial
Population: 184 adults with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease
Intervention: Lifestyle alone, lifestyle plus pioglitazone 15 mg/day, or lifestyle plus berberine 500 mg three times daily
Outcome: MRI-measured liver fat, body weight, glucose, lipids, and liver enzymes

Open research record ↗

2008

Mixed or qualifiedPMID 18442638

Efficacy of berberine in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Glycemic markers improved and appeared similar to metformin in the 36-person comparison, but the studies were small, short, and lacked a placebo; gastrointestinal adverse effects were common.

Published: 2008Duration: 3 monthsn=84 participants2 primary studies represented

Study design and methods

Design: Two small pilot studies: one randomized active-comparator trial and one uncontrolled add-on study
Population: 36 newly diagnosed and 48 poorly controlled adults with type 2 diabetes
Intervention: Berberine 500 mg three times daily versus metformin, or added to existing treatment
Outcome: HbA1c, fasting and post-meal glucose, lipids, and adverse effects

Open research record ↗

2005

Safety signalPMID 16133554

Effects of berberine on the blood concentration of cyclosporin A in renal transplanted recipients

Berberine substantially increased cyclosporine exposure, demonstrating a clinically important interaction risk with a narrow-therapeutic-index medicine.

Published: 2005Duration: 3 months; nested pharmacokinetic study lasted 12 daysn=104 participants

Study design and methods

Design: Randomized controlled clinical interaction trial with a nested pharmacokinetic study
Population: 104 renal-transplant recipients taking cyclosporine; six also entered the pharmacokinetic study
Intervention: Berberine 200 mg three times daily plus cyclosporine versus cyclosporine alone
Outcome: Cyclosporine blood concentrations and pharmacokinetics

Open research record ↗

Unscreened discovery appendix—not evidence208 candidate publicationsSearch run: Aug 21, 2026

Complete for the displayed PubMed query at the search timestamp—not for all databases or every possible synonym. Candidates can be irrelevant, duplicate the same study, or report negative findings. They are never summed as evidence or participants until screened.

03 / SOURCES

Start with the source material

Official evidence overviewNational Center for Complementary and Integrative Health Live PubMed discovery searchNational Library of Medicine

The live search is for discovery only. Search-result counts change and are not included in the audited totals above.

Recent PubMed discovery recordsDirect links to the first 12 records returned by the reproducible search. These are discovery candidates—not reviewed summaries or a count of supportive findings.

04 / EXPERT CONTEXT

Expert context—not evidence

Expert positions are dated context—not scientific evidence. They never raise the evidence status or become consensus by repetition.

No direct, source-verified endorsement is currently recorded. Research authorship or discussion alone is not treated as endorsement.