This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.
What Bromantane does in the body
A Russian anti-fatigue drug that became a doping case before most people had heard of it
Bromantane is a cage-shaped adamantane molecule with a bromophenyl group attached. It is not a classical stimulant: it does not force dopamine out of neurons the way amphetamine does. What it appears to do is increase the brain capacity to make and release dopamine, alongside switching on genes for nerve growth factors and the kinase cascades that carry their signals. The Soviet pharmacological category it belongs to — actoprotectors — was defined as drugs that improve physical performance without increasing oxygen use or heat production, which is a different design goal from a stimulant.
What happened in people
Behavioural stimulation at 30-300 mg/kg reversing to suppression at 600-9,600 mg/kg in a standard rat observational protocol
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The recorded finding that sits closest to something a person would notice. Written into the record, not signed off, and it carries no population or interval.
That rodent actoprotector effects transfer to stamina, focus or heat tolerance in a healthy adult, which no trial has measured
Where it acts
Dopaminergic terminals in the striatum; hypothalamus and hippocampus
Kind of result
The kind of result is not recorded
Supervision
RNAWiki has not recorded a supervision or regulatory status for this substance.
What the registries record it as
The substance registry classes this as chemical.
FDA substance registry · N1ILS53XWK · read 2026-08-29
Its recorded molecular formula is C16H20BrN, weighing 306.24.
PubChem record · 4660557 · read 2026-08-29
Where each sentence above came from
The recorded explanation names an amount, so it does not open this page. The page opens with what it is taken for instead, and the recorded explanation follows below.
Shown as the opening line on this page.
A limit recorded against this substance. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The four opening statements run to 130 words.
Words this page uses
Four words worth knowing first
Chosen from what this page shows, with each one explained before the word it depends on.
Biomarker
A biomarker is a number from a test that stands in for something about health.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A biomarker is like a fuel gauge.
Where that stops being true. A gauge is wired to the tank. Many biomarkers are only loosely tied to health.
What people get wrong. A better number is read as a better life. Several medicines improved a number and helped nobody.
A measurable indicator used as a substitute for a clinical outcome of interest.
Placebo
A placebo is a dummy treatment given so the real one can be compared with it.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A placebo is like a blank control in an experiment.
Where that stops being true. A blank does nothing. People given a placebo often do get better.
What people get wrong. A placebo effect is read as imaginary. The improvement is measured and real.
An inactive intervention matched in appearance to the test intervention, used to control for non-specific effects.
Comparator
A comparator is whatever the treatment was measured against.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like the other runner in a race.
Where that stops being true. A race has one winner. A study can show both arms improved.
What people get wrong. Results are read without asking what the other group got. Beating nothing is not beating a treatment.
The control condition against which the experimental intervention is assessed.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What happened in people
Each card is one study: the exact question it asked, who was in it, and whether it showed what it set out to show.
Behavioural activity, spontaneous motor activity, sensory thresholds, autonomic signs and temperature on the Irwin multi-test protocol
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
Iezhitsa 2002 Irwin observational profile in rats
How many people
0
Study design
Preclinical safety pharmacology, single dose, 30 mg/kg to 9,600 mg/kg
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Stimulation at 30-300 mg/kg and suppression at 600-9,600 mg/kg; mydriasis at all doses; blepharoptosis above 10 g/kg; Kussmaul-like respiration above 5 g/kg; rectal temperature down 0.5-1 degree Celsius after virtually all doses
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No limitation is recorded for this study.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral tablet, 50 mg in the Russian registered product; capsules and powder elsewhere
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Patient self-evaluation of drug effect and tolerability against placebo
✗ The study did not show it
Who was studied
Reutova 2011 single-dose self-evaluation study in neurasthenia
How many people
0
Study design
Clinical, single 15 mg dose versus placebo, published in Russian
Compared against
A dummy treatment
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Self-rated high tolerability of ladasten reported as comparable with that of placebo; no relationship found between self-evaluated single-dose effects and patient personality features
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. Not registered on any trial registry, not replicated outside Russia, and available in English only as an abstract.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral tablet, 50 mg in the Russian registered product; capsules and powder elsewhere
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
RNAWiki holds 3 written-up human studies for this substance, each with the question it asked.
How we know it
Each card names the study, the number of people and what the study set out to measure.
What this does not prove
These summaries were written by a person and have not been signed off as reviewed claims.
Why it matters
A study that failed is as informative as one that worked, and both are here.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim exists, so no exact population, effect size or interval is published yet.
What it changes in the body◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
The path through the body
From what a person takes to what changes. A solid line is a step measured in people. A dashed line is a step nobody has measured that way.
Start
Bromantane
What a person takes: Oral tablet, 50 mg in the Russian registered product; capsules and powder elsewhere.
The measurement behind this step
A conventional oral tablet where it is registered. Elsewhere it is sold as capsules and bulk powder at vendor-chosen doses. The lipophilic adamantane core gives wide distribution and slow elimination, which is why the detection window in doping control is long and why accumulation on repeated dosing is a real rather than theoretical consideration.
Getting in
Taken by mouth as a lipophilic cage molecule
The adamantane cage makes it very fat-soluble, so it is well absorbed and stays in the body a long time.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
The registered Russian tablet is 50 mg. High lipophilicity from the adamantane core gives good oral absorption, wide tissue distribution and a long elimination phase, which is also what gives it a long detection window in doping control.
It crosses into the brain readily and reaches several regions rather than concentrating in one.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Effects have been measured in striatum, hypothalamus and hippocampus after a single dose, consistent with wide central distribution rather than a regionally selective action.
Nobody has found a binding site. What is reported is more dopamine being made and released, rather than dopamine being forced out of storage.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Reported enhancement of dopamine release and metabolism in dorsal striatum with effects on the serotonergic system, and — inferred from the behavioural profile in the Irwin protocol — stimulation of central dopaminergic and suppression of muscarinic and nicotinic cholinergic function. It is classed as an actoprotector rather than a psychostimulant, a category defined by improving performance without raising oxygen consumption or heat production.
A single dose changes the activity of a major signalling kinase and the expression of two nerve growth factor genes.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
A single 50 mg/kg dose altered ERK1/ERK2 content and Thr202/Tyr204 phosphorylation and BDNF and NGF gene expression across striatum, hypothalamus and hippocampus. Related work reports effects on inflammatory cytokine markers and on T lymphocyte subpopulations, consistent with the description of the compound as an immunostimulant with psychostimulating action.
Biphasic in animals, registered in one country, unstudied in healthy people
The effect reverses direction with dose in rats. In people, the evidence is Russian, unregistered, and does not cover the use it is bought for.
──Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The measurement behind this step
Stimulation at 30-300 mg/kg and suppression above 600 mg/kg in the Irwin protocol, with mydriasis at every dose and hypothermia after nearly all. Human evidence consists of unregistered Russian studies in neurasthenia, one of which reports self-rated tolerability comparable with placebo. No registered trial of bromantane exists on any international registry.
No suggested links are held for this record, so nothing is hidden from this path.
What we know
The record describes 5 steps from taking it to an effect in a person.
How we know it
Each step names the study behind it in the technical detail beside it.
What this does not prove
A change inside the body is a reason to look. It is not a result in a person.
Why it matters
A reader can see exactly where the chain stops being measured in people.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim binds any of these steps to a named population.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Were people like you studied?
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it, and where the result stops carrying.
Who was studied
People similar to this profile were included.
In Russia, patients treated for asthenic states. Elsewhere, people buying it as a nootropic supplement, and — historically — athletes, which is how it entered the analytical literature.
Who is missing from the studies
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
Where the result stopped carrying
No clinical trial of bromantane has been registered on any international registry
The compound reached the international literature through doping control rather than through publication of its pharmacology
This is a scope explorer, not a diagnosis engine.
It shows who was studied so you can see whether people similar to you were included.
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Why it might seem to do nothing
A real effect and a noticed effect are different things. These are the recorded reasons the two come apart.
It was studied in different people
The people in the studies were not much like the reader.
On this record: Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
The evidence may simply be wrong
Small early studies often do not hold up.
On this record: RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Other reasons RNAWiki checked and found nothing for (11)
It was studied for a different goal
The studies measured something else entirely. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
A different form was studied
The studied form is not the form on the shelf. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
There was nothing to correct
Where a level is already normal, topping it up may change nothing. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else had to happen too
In the studies it was paired with training, a diet or another treatment. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The change is too small to feel
A real change can still sit below what a person notices. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Day-to-day swing hides it
Sleep, food, stress and time of day move most numbers more than this would. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Not enough time yet
The studies ran longer than the person has waited. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
It was not taken as studied
Missed days change the result, and studies count them. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else changed at the same time
Two changes at once cannot be told apart afterwards. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The product may not be what it says
Contents of a sold product are not always what the label states. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
No recorded reason
RNAWiki has nothing stored that would explain it. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
None of these is a reason to take more. Taking more is not a step this page ever suggests.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What taking it involves
The recorded facts about getting hold of it and using it. Nothing here is a suggestion about what you should do.
How it is supplied
Varies by country
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Read from the recorded approval status.
No source is stored against this line.
Form and route
Oral tablet, 50 mg in the Russian registered product; capsules and powder elsewhere
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form and route recorded on this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
Who oversees it
RNAWiki has not recorded a supervision or regulatory status for this substance.
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
No register row and no identity class settled the question.
No source is stored against this line.
What is in the pack
A conventional oral tablet where it is registered. Elsewhere it is sold as capsules and bulk powder at vendor-chosen doses.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on how this is sold. The rest of the recorded wording: The lipophilic adamantane core gives wide distribution and slow elimination, which is why the detection window in doping control is long and why accumulation on repeated dosing is a real rather than theoretical consideration.
No source is stored against this line.
Where it is registered
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No register entry is recorded.
No source is stored against this line.
Why people stop
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No record of why people stopped taking it is stored for this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What can go wrong
Sorted by where each line came from. A regulator's label and a report somebody sent in are not the same kind of fact.
·Worth asking a clinician aboutWritten into the record from the studies named on this page
No controlled human safety dataset exists outside the Russian registration file. The animal safety pharmacology is unusually detailed for a compound in this file and includes acute toxicity studies, a two-month neurological status study, effects on the cardiovascular and sympathetic-adrenal systems, effects on sexual behaviour and conception, and effects on postnatal development of rat pups. The single most practically relevant finding is the biphasic dose-response: the direction of the behavioural effect reverses between 300 and 600 mg/kg in rats, which makes dose accuracy a safety question and not only an efficacy one.
Nobody counted how many people took this and were fine, so this cannot be turned into a rate.
Over a long time. No completed tested study window is recorded, so long-term effects are not established by the registry record.
Groups the studies covered thinly. Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What is missing or unclear∅Nothing found in the sources checked
Does the exact form matter?
Evidence belongs to the exact thing that was tested. A different salt, a different mixture or a different preparation is a different question.
The form that was studied
Oral tablet, 50 mg in the Russian registered product; capsules and powder elsewhere
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form used in the studies cited on this page.
No source is stored against this line.
What is sold
Elsewhere it is sold as capsules and bulk powder at vendor-chosen doses.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on which forms are sold. The rest of the recorded wording: The lipophilic adamantane core gives wide distribution and slow elimination, which is why the detection window in doping control is long and why accumulation on repeated dosing is a real rather than theoretical consideration.
No source is stored against this line.
Evidence carries across two names for one substance. It does not carry across a salt, a mirror form or a mixture.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What you could measure
This one is decided with a clinician, so this section holds questions to ask rather than a plan to run.
RNAWiki could not confidently classify this substance, so no self-experiment plan is offered.
Questions worth asking
Which of the trials of Bromantane studied people like me?
What was measured, and for how long?
Was the result a laboratory value or a health outcome?
What would we watch for, and when would we stop?
Tracking can show whether something changed for you. It cannot show what caused it.
RNAWiki records evidence. It does not say whether this substance is right for you.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Claims that go past the evidence
Things said about this substance that sound reasonable, and the exact step that is missing between the evidence and the claim.
✗Goes past the evidence
That rodent actoprotector effects transfer to stamina, focus or heat tolerance in a healthy adult, which no trial has measured
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That the Russian neurasthenia studies establish efficacy, when they are unregistered, unreplicated and in one case report tolerability comparable with placebo
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That the absence of a stimulant classification means an absence of stimulant-like risk, when the behavioural profile is attributed to central dopaminergic stimulation
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That a vendor-chosen capsule dose is safe, in a compound whose direction of effect reverses across the dose range in animals
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What nobody knows yet
Open questions, each with why it is open and what would close it.
Missing populations
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing long-term data
No completed tested study window is recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
No reviewed conclusion
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing interaction studies
No interaction was found in the registers checked. Not finding one is not the same as showing there is none.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Formulation uncertainty
Several salts, forms or products of Bromantane are recorded. Results from one form may not transfer to another.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Mechanism not reviewed
No reviewed mechanism story exists for this substance.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Check any of this yourself
Every line above traced back to the study it came from. This is the technical layer, and the vocabulary changes here.
Every line above can be traced to the study named beside it. Follow the link and read it.
The dose-response reverses: stimulating low, suppressing high
In plain words
In a systematic rat study, bromantane increased activity at 30 to 300 mg/kg and suppressed it above 600 mg/kg, with pupil dilation at every dose and a drop in body temperature after nearly all of them.
What was measured
Behavioural activity, spontaneous motor activity, pain threshold, pupil size, respiration and temperature across doses from 30 mg/kg to 9,600 mg/kg
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Iezhitsa et al. profiled bromantane in rats using S. Irwin multi-test observational protocol. At 30-300 mg/kg the drug stimulated behavioural activity; at 600-9,600 mg/kg it suppressed it. Spontaneous motor activity rose after 30-300 mg/kg, was unchanged at 600 mg/kg, and was inhibited above 600 mg/kg. At 300-600 mg/kg it reduced the pain sensitivity threshold, while above 600 mg/kg it raised the pain threshold and tactile sensitivity and the reaction to knock. Mydriasis occurred at every dose studied, blepharoptosis above 10 g/kg, and Kussmaul-like changes in respiration rate and depth above 5 g/kg; some animals showed regurgitation, diarrhoea and polyuria at high doses. Rectal temperature fell by 0.5 to 1 degree Celsius after virtually all doses. The authors attribute the behavioural effects at 30 and 600 mg/kg to stimulation of central dopamine and suppression of muscarinic and nicotinic cholinergic function, with the nicotinic effect more pronounced at the lower dose.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
It entered the medical literature as a doping agent
In plain words
The compound became internationally known when it turned up in athlete drug tests, and the first English-language report on it was a 1997 Lancet letter titled "Bromontan, a new doping agent".
What was measured
That a compound familiar from a prohibited list has a correspondingly familiar and accessible pharmacological dossier
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Burnat et al. published "Bromontan, a new doping agent" in the Lancet in September 1997. For most laboratories outside the former Soviet Union this was the introduction to the compound: a substance appearing in doping control samples that the existing analytical methods had not been built to find, with a pharmacology described in journals most of those laboratories did not read. It has been prohibited in sport since that period. The sequence is worth stating plainly because it inverts the usual order: normally a drug is characterised, then approved, then abused, then added to a prohibited list. Here the prohibited-list entry and the analytical characterisation arrived in the West before any accessible account of what the drug does.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
It raises dopamine without behaving like a classical stimulant
In plain words
Studies in rat brain report increased dopamine release and metabolism, but the compound was classed as an actoprotector rather than a stimulant — a category defined by improving performance without raising oxygen use or heat production.
What was measured
Dopamine release and metabolism in dorsal striatum, and operant conditioning against a classical psychostimulant comparator
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Kudrin et al. and Grekhova et al. reported effects of bromantane on the dopaminergic and serotonergic systems of rat brain and on dopamine release and metabolism in the dorsal striatum, describing it as an immunostimulant with psychostimulating action. Morozov et al. compared bromantane with sidnocarb, a classical Soviet psychostimulant, on long-term operant conditioning and its autonomic correlates, and separately examined the mechanisms of its neurotropic action. Oliynyk and Oh, reviewing the actoprotector class in English, define these agents as preparations that enhance body stability against physical loads without increasing oxygen consumption or heat production, and treat bemitil and bromantane as the two main representatives. The distinction between raising dopamine and being a stimulant is a real pharmacological one and it rests, for this compound, on Russian-language primary work.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
A single dose changes neurotrophin and kinase signalling
In plain words
One 50 mg/kg dose in rats altered the activity of a key signalling kinase and the expression of the genes for two nerve growth factors, across three brain regions.
What was measured
ERK1/ERK2 content and Thr202/Tyr204 phosphorylation, and BDNF and NGF gene expression, in three rat brain regions after a single 50 mg/kg dose
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Salimgareeva et al. at the Institute of Biochemistry and Genetics, Ufa, studied the effect of a single 50 mg/kg dose of ladasten on the content of the mitogen-activated cascade effector kinases ERK1 and ERK2, on phospho-ERK1/ERK2 activity at Thr202/Tyr204, and on expression of the genes for the neurotrophic factors BDNF and NGF in rat striatum, hypothalamus and hippocampus. Related work from the same group examined effects on cytokine markers of inflammation and behaviour in mice with experimental depression-like states, and on T lymphocyte subpopulation composition in C57BL/6 mice. Together these describe a compound acting on growth factor and immune signalling rather than purely on a neurotransmitter, which is consistent with the actoprotector framing and is not the same as demonstrating a clinical effect.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The clinical evidence is Russian, unregistered, and partly self-rated
In plain words
The trials in neurasthenia are published in Russian, not registered anywhere, and one of them reports that patients rated the drug about as tolerable as placebo.
What was measured
That Russian-language self-evaluation studies in neurasthenia establish clinical efficacy, when one of them reports tolerability comparable with placebo and neither is registered or replicated
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Reutova et al. studied self-evaluation of a single 15 mg dose of ladasten against placebo in patients diagnosed with neurasthenia, at the Zakusov Institute. Their reported finding is that the self-rated high tolerability of ladasten treatment is comparable with that of placebo, that no relationship was found between self-evaluated single-dose effects and patient personality features, and that correlations existed between self-estimations and pre-treatment psychopathological and psychophysiological parameters — while the self-evaluation of the placebo effect was related to personality features. A companion paper examined ladasten against placebo in neurasthenia patients grouped by EEG alpha rhythm type. Neither is registered on any trial registry, neither has been replicated outside Russia, and neither is available in English beyond an abstract.
Source
Reutova MA et al., Eksp Klin Farmakol 2011;74:6-13 (PMID 22288153); Siuniakov SA et al., Eksp Klin Farmakol 2012;75:7-13 (PMID 22834121)
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
caution
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
No human trial of the thing it is bought for
In plain words
People take bromantane for energy, focus and heat tolerance. No controlled trial has measured any of those in a healthy person.
What was measured
That an actoprotector effect demonstrated in rodents and claimed in Russian clinical practice transfers to stamina or focus in a healthy adult
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
The registered indication is asthenia in patients. The claims made in the supplement market — physical stamina, mental energy, tolerance of heat and of altitude — have no randomised placebo-controlled evidence in healthy volunteers in the indexed literature and no registered trial anywhere. Related Russian work has examined pharmacological correction of adaptive reactions during short-term movement between latitudes, which is the nearest published approximation and is not a controlled efficacy trial. The rodent literature meanwhile documents effects on sexual behaviour and conception, on postnatal development of rat pups, on the cardiovascular and sympathetic-adrenal systems, and an acute toxicity profile — a body of safety pharmacology that exists precisely because these questions were asked in animals and not in people.
Source
Kuzubova EA et al. The effect of bromantan on sexual behavior and conception in rats. Eksp Klin Farmakol 2004;67:34-37; bromantane acute toxicity and postnatal development studies, Eksp Klin Farmakol 1999-2000; absence of any registered human trial
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
caution
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Where else this substance is registered
FDA substance identifier (UNII)
N1ILS53XWK
CAS registry number
87913-26-6
PubChem compound
4660557
EMA substance identifier
100000164659
Checks this page had to pass
✓ Passed
Identity resolved
no open identity hold
✓ Passed
No unresolved merge across substance families
no quarantine open
✓ Passed
Every public sentence names a source
The opening statement carries the origin: Written into the record, not signed off.
✗ Not passed
Trial roles classified for highlighted evidence
No registered study is classified as testing this substance.
✓ Passed
No internal keys in reader text
enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
✗ Not passed
Safety mode resolved
No register row and no identity class settled the question.
✓ Passed
Canonical metadata present
slug and display name present
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What to learn next
Ordered by what would most change how you read this page, starting with what is easiest to misunderstand.
This order is fixed in code and does not count clicks or time on the page.
What is not here
8 questions this page could not answer
These sections were prepared and left out because there was nothing to put in them. They are listed rather than hidden, so the gaps in this record are visible.
What was measured, goal by goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
How close this is to real life — found nothing in the sources checked.
Felt, measured, or meaningful — found nothing in the sources checked.
How long anything takes — found nothing in the sources checked.
What it may clash with — found nothing in the sources checked.
Other ways to the same goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
How this medicine reached us — found nothing in the sources checked.
What changed on this page — found nothing in the sources checked.
The record as stored
The full record, for auditing
Everything above is built from what is below. This layer keeps the technical vocabulary, record identifiers and every stored row, so a reader who wants to check the page can.
The older medicine-wide conclusion held in this record
Written for a clinical reader, and about the medicine as a whole rather than about one indication, population and set of trials. RNAWiki does not treat it as a programme conclusion and no reviewer has signed it off in that form. It is here word for word because it is what the record holds.
An adamantane derivative that raises brain dopamine, stimulates behaviour at 30-300 mg/kg and suppresses it above 600 mg/kg in the same rat protocol, entered the medical literature through a 1997 Lancet report as a new doping agent, and is registered as a medicine only in Russia.
Recorded evidence blocks (0)
Where it is registeredIdentifiers, relations and other names
✗ required summary fields resolved: 4 required field(s) not terminal: Why people use it, Best-supported result, Biggest unanswered question, Human evidence
✓ public claims reviewed: 0 reviewed claim(s); drafts are never rendered
✓ source coverage passed: 1 source rows
✓ no critical contamination: no quarantine open
✓ canonical metadata passed: slug and display name present
✓ no raw internal fields: enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
This is a record of evidence. It is not medical advice, and it does not say this substance suits you. Nothing here says any substance on RNAWiki is appropriate for a child.