Supplement evidence

013 / 575Vitamin

Thiamin (B1)

View my plan →

The short answer

Preventing or treating deficiency, including in high-risk alcohol use or malabsorption.

Evidence and scope: Established for an indicated use
This status does not grade the ingredient for every goal, outcome, or person.
Important limitation: Extra thiamin is not a proven cognitive or longevity enhancer when status is adequate.
Before deciding: Oral thiamin is generally well tolerated; suspected severe deficiency needs urgent medical treatment.

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

Meeting usual needs1.1 mg/day women; 1.2 mg/day men

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

Dose source ↗

Confirmed deficiencyClinical dosing depends on severity and alcohol-use or refeeding risk

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 / solubilityWater-soluble

Water-soluble or readily water-dispersible. This does not mean excess is always harmless.

How it is commonly taken

May be taken with or without food.

Do not combine casually

Suspected severe deficiency requires medical treatment rather than a consumer supplement.

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

44unique primary studies represented

4,288unique 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.

2024

Mixed or qualifiedPMID 39307094

Effect of intravenous thiamine administration on critically ill patients

Low-certainty evidence found little or no mortality difference. Shock duration, lactate, and SOFA score may improve, while ICU stay was slightly longer; these surrogate changes do not establish a survival benefit.

Published: 2024n=3,494 participants35 primary studies represented

Study design and methods

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of 35 randomized trials
Population: 3,494 critically ill patients across varied intensive-care settings
Intervention: Intravenous thiamin-containing regimens versus control
Outcome: Mortality, shock duration, lactate, organ-failure score, ICU stay, and adverse events

Funding or conflict note: The authors declared no competing interests.

Open research record ↗

2024

Does not support the tested claimPMID 38940395

Role of Thiamine Supplementation in the Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure

Supplementation corrected thiamin deficiency but did not significantly improve cardiac function, walking performance, biomarkers, or symptom class. Deficiency correction should not be recast as a general heart-failure treatment effect.

Published: 2024n=274 participants7 primary studies represented

Study design and methods

Design: Updated meta-analysis of seven randomized double-blind controlled trials
Population: 274 patients with chronic heart failure
Intervention: Thiamin supplementation versus placebo
Outcome: Ejection fraction, ventricular volume, six-minute walk, NT-proBNP, NYHA class, and thiamin status

Funding or conflict note: The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Open research record ↗

2022

Mixed or qualifiedPMID 35428992

What is the optimum thiamine dose to treat or prevent Wernicke's encephalopathy or Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome?

No tested higher-dose regimen clearly outperformed the lower doses over these short intervals. Important real-world limitations mean this is not evidence to withhold urgent treatment; dosing remains patient-specific.

Published: 2022Duration: Three days in the prevention trial and five days in the treatment trialn=520 participants2 primary studies represented

Study design and methods

Design: Two double-blind, parallel-group randomized dose-comparison trials
Population: 393 asymptomatic at-risk and 127 symptomatic people with alcohol misuse
Intervention: Parenteral thiamin 100–900 mg/day for prevention or 300–1,500 mg/day for treatment
Outcome: Cognition, ataxia, eye-movement abnormalities, and confusion

Funding or conflict note: The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Open research record ↗

2016

Mixed or qualifiedPMID 26771781 · NCT01070810

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Thiamine as a Metabolic Resuscitator in Septic Shock

Thiamin did not improve lactate or secondary outcomes overall. A prespecified deficient subgroup had lower lactate and a possible mortality signal, which remains subgroup evidence rather than proof for all septic-shock patients.

Published: 2016Duration: Up to 7 days or hospital dischargen=88 participants

Study design and methods

Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial
Population: 88 adults with septic shock and elevated lactate
Intervention: Intravenous thiamin 200 mg twice daily or placebo
Outcome: 24-hour lactate, shock reversal, illness severity, and mortality

Funding or conflict note: This trial is represented in the 2024 critical-illness synthesis and is excluded from aggregate totals.

Open research record ↗

Unscreened discovery appendix—not evidence425 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 overviewNIH Office of Dietary Supplements 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.