← Back
NeuroTrials.ai
Neurology Clinical Trial Database

Vitamin B DPN Meta-Analysis

Vitamin B Supplementation for Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: A Review and Meta-Analysis

Year of Publication: 2026

Authors: Mandra EV, Parfenov VA, Stupin VA, Silina EV

Journal: Journal of Clinical Medicine

Citation: J Clin Med. 2026;15(13):5156. doi:10.3390/jcm15135156

Link: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15135156

Bottom Line

In 13 RCTs (834 patients) with DPN, vitamin B improved MNSI clinical scores and sural sensory nerve conduction, but did not consistently reduce generic pain or motor nerve parameters; substantial heterogeneity and near-universal absence of baseline B-vitamin status data preclude routine recommendation, and combination regimens appear more promising than monotherapy.

Major Points

  • 13 RCTs (834 participants; 414 vitamin B, 420 control) published 1981–2026 from Greece, Indonesia, USA, Iran, Germany, Malaysia, and Norway were pooled with random-effects meta-analysis (PRISMA 2020, RoB 2).
  • MNSI Questionnaire improved with vitamin B (MD -1.44, 95% CI -2.48 to -0.39; 4 studies, n=233; I²=80.1%) and MNSI Examination improved (MD -0.39, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.12; 5 studies, n=284; I²=0%), though the MNSIE change did not reach the MCID of 0.5 points.
  • Sural sensory nerve conduction velocity increased (MD 2.10 m/s, 95% CI 0.35–3.86; 5 studies, n=329; I²=0.6%) and sural amplitude increased (MD 0.88 µV, 95% CI 0.08–1.67; 5 studies, n=360; I²=52.7%) — the most consistent finding.
  • Generic pain (NRS/VAS) showed no significant pooled effect (MD -0.44, 95% CI -1.77 to 0.89; 4 studies, n=321; I²=84.5%); disease-specific Pain Detect Questionnaire favored vitamin B (MD -3.06, 95% CI -5.61 to -0.51) but only 2 studies from same research group.
  • Peroneal NCV (MD 0.09, 95% CI -2.04 to 2.22; I²=87.6%) and peroneal/tibial amplitudes were not significantly changed; tibial NCV paradoxically favored control (MD -1.23, 95% CI -2.37 to -0.09; I²=0%), driven by a single 24-month benfotiamine trial in T1DM (Fraser 2012).
  • Combination B-vitamin regimens (n=4 studies) consistently produced numerically larger effects than monotherapy (n=9), but the interaction test was significant only for peroneal NCV (p=0.039); other outcomes remained non-significant.
  • Risk of bias (RoB 2): low in 6/13 studies, some concerns in 5/13, high in 2/13, with randomization process and outcome measurement as the main sources of concern.
  • Adverse events: only 4 of 13 trials reported AEs; no serious AEs attributable to vitamin B were reported; oral and IV B vitamins were generally well tolerated.
  • Critical evidence gap: 11 of 13 trials did not measure baseline B-vitamin status and none stratified randomization by deficiency, likely diluting true treatment effects.

Design

Study Type: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Randomization:

Blinding: Not applicable (meta-analysis of RCTs; included RCTs ranged from open-label to double-blind)

Enrollment Period: Included RCTs published 1981–March 2026 (search performed 14 March 2026)

Follow-up Duration: Included trial durations 0.28 months (5 IV injections over 9 days) to 24 months

Centers: Multiple (13 RCTs across ≥7 countries)

Countries: Greece, Indonesia, USA, Iran, Germany, Malaysia, Norway

Sample Size: 834

Analysis: Random-effects meta-analysis (DerSimonian–Laird); mean differences with 95% CIs; heterogeneity by I² and Cochran Q; leave-one-out sensitivity; publication bias by Egger's test for outcomes with ≥5 studies; PRISMA 2020; Cochrane RoB 2.


Inclusion Criteria

  • Adults ≥18 years with diabetic peripheral neuropathy (type 1 or type 2 diabetes)
  • DPN diagnosis confirmed by validated clinical scales (NDS, MNSI, TSS), nerve conduction studies, or explicit author-defined criteria
  • Intervention: any vitamin B (thiamine/B1, benfotiamine, pyridoxine/B6, cobalamin/B12, folate/B9, or combinations) at any dose, route (oral, IM, IV), or duration; monotherapy or added to standard care
  • Comparator: placebo, no treatment/standard care alone, or active comparator where the vitamin B effect could be isolated
  • Reported ≥1 extractable quantitative outcome: pain intensity (VAS/NRS), neuropathy clinical score (NDS, NSS, TSS, MNSI), or nerve conduction parameters (motor/sensory NCV, amplitude, latency)
  • Study design: parallel-group RCT, adequately washed-out crossover RCT, or cluster-randomized trial
  • No language restrictions

Exclusion Criteria

  • Non-randomized designs (observational studies, case series, case reports, reviews, commentaries, letters, protocols)
  • Non-diabetic peripheral neuropathy (alcoholic, hereditary, toxic) or mixed populations without extractable DPN-specific data
  • Vitamin B used as a minor add-on in a complex multi-agent intervention primarily testing another therapeutic class
  • Inadequate control group (no placebo or standard care alone)
  • Insufficient numerical data for meta-analysis (qualitative statements only or graphs without numbers, and authors unresponsive)
  • Duplicate publications (only most complete report retained)
  • Animal or in vitro studies
  • No full text available after reasonable retrieval attempts

Baseline Characteristics

Overall:

  • Included RCTs: 13
  • Total participants: 834 (intervention 414, control 420)
  • Individual trial sample size range: 14–214
  • Publication years: 1981–2026
  • Countries represented: Greece, Indonesia, USA, Iran, Germany, Malaysia, Norway
  • Diabetes type: Mixed — 1 trial exclusively T1DM (Fraser 2012), others T2DM or mixed
  • Interventions: B12 mono (oral 0.5–1 mg/d or IV 0.5 mg); benfotiamine 120–600 mg/d; pyridoxine 150 mg/d; folate 1 mg/d; various combinations
  • Treatment duration range: 0.28 months (9 days) to 24 months
  • Comparators: Placebo, no treatment/standard care, or active (amitriptyline, nortriptyline, acetyl-L-carnitine)
  • Risk of bias (RoB 2): Low 6 (46.1%), some concerns 5 (38.5%), high 2 (15.4%)
  • Baseline B-vitamin status reported: Only 2 of 13 trials reported baseline B12; none stratified by deficiency status

Arms

FieldVitamin B supplementationControl
InterventionAny B vitamin (B1/thiamine or benfotiamine or sulbutiamine; B6/pyridoxine; B9/folate or L-methylfolate; B12/cobalamin or methylcobalamin) as monotherapy (9 trials) or combination (4 trials); oral or parenteralPlacebo, no treatment / standard care alone, or active comparator (amitriptyline, nortriptyline, acetyl-L-carnitine)
Duration0.28–24 months across trialsMatched to intervention arm

Outcomes

OutcomeTypeControlInterventionHR / OR / RRP-value
MNSI Examination score (5 studies, n=284) — clinical neuropathy examinationPrimaryReference groupVitamin B supplementationsignificant (favors vitamin B; I²=0%)
MNSI Questionnaire (4 studies, n=233)SecondaryReferenceVitamin Bsignificant favoring vitamin B
Pain intensity NRS/VAS (4 studies, n=321)SecondaryReferenceVitamin Bnot significant (random-effects); heterogeneity driven by Purwata 2021 outlier
Disease-specific pain scale / Pain Detect Questionnaire (2 studies, n=175)SecondaryReferenceVitamin Bsignificant favoring vitamin B — requires independent replication
Sural nerve conduction velocity (5 studies, n=329)SecondaryReferenceVitamin Bsignificant favoring vitamin B
Sural nerve amplitude (5 studies, n=360)SecondaryReferenceVitamin Bsignificant favoring vitamin B
Peroneal nerve conduction velocity (6 studies, n=226)SecondaryReferenceVitamin Bnot significant; extreme heterogeneity
Peroneal nerve amplitude (4 studies, n=208)SecondaryReferenceVitamin Bnot significant
Tibial nerve conduction velocity (4 studies, n=229)SecondaryReferenceVitamin Bsignificant favoring CONTROL; driven by Fraser 2012 benfotiamine trial in T1DM
Tibial nerve amplitude (3 studies, n=178)SecondaryReferenceVitamin Bnot significant
Subgroup: combination vs monotherapy (interaction test)SecondaryNote: Numerical trend favoring combinations across outcomes; interaction significant only for peroneal NCV (p=0.039); non-significant for MNSIE, MNSIQ, sural NCV
ReportingAdverseOnly 4 of 13 trials reported adverse events
Serious AEs attributable to vitamin BAdverseNone reported in any trial
Overall tolerabilityAdverseOral and IV B-vitamin supplementation generally well tolerated in included populations
Formal safety meta-analysisAdverseNot feasible due to insufficient AE data

Subgroup Analysis

Prespecified subgroup analyses planned by vitamin subtype, dose, duration, route, baseline vitamin status, and study quality; only monotherapy vs combination had sufficient studies (≥2 per subgroup). Combination consistently trended larger numerically; interaction test significant only for peroneal NCV (p=0.039). Leave-one-out sensitivity: MNSIE robust across all 5 exclusions (range -0.33 to -0.44); MNSIQ maintained significance in 3/4; sural NCV robust (range 1.28 to 2.84); sural amplitude maintained in 4/5; NRS pain effect disappears if Purwata 2021 excluded.


Criticisms

  • Substantial heterogeneity for key outcomes: pain I²=84.5%, peroneal NCV I²=87.6%; pooled estimates presented narratively rather than as reliable summary estimates.
  • Only 13 RCTs and most outcomes informed by 4–6 studies, limiting power for subgroup analyses and publication bias testing.
  • 11 of 13 trials did not measure baseline B-vitamin status and no trial stratified randomization or reported effects by deficiency status — likely dilutes true treatment effect and is the most critical evidence gap.
  • Two trials (Didangelos 2020, Farvid 2011) evaluated multi-component interventions containing non-B agents (superoxide dismutase, alpha-lipoic acid, acetyl-L-carnitine, minerals, vitamins C/E), preventing isolation of the vitamin B effect.
  • Significant Pain Detect Questionnaire result derives from two studies by the same research group at the same institution using the same protocol — cannot be considered independently replicated.
  • MNSIE improvement, while statistically significant, did not meet the established MCID of 0.5 points; MCIDs for other outcomes are either absent or not met.
  • Unexpected tibial NCV result favoring control is entirely driven by one large precise study (Fraser 2012, 24-month benfotiamine monotherapy in T1DM) with zero heterogeneity.
  • Prespecified subgroup analyses by dose, duration, route, and baseline status could not be performed due to insufficient studies per subgroup.
  • 2 of 13 trials had high risk of bias and 5 had some concerns, potentially inflating effect estimates.
  • Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus not searched due to institutional access limitations (search limited to PubMed, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov plus reference screening of 8 systematic reviews).

Funding

No external funding. Authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Based on: Vitamin B DPN Meta-Analysis (Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2026)

Authors: Mandra EV, Parfenov VA, Stupin VA, Silina EV

Citation: J Clin Med. 2026;15(13):5156. doi:10.3390/jcm15135156

Content summarized and formatted by NeuroTrials.ai.