Tzang · Nutrition & diabetes 2024 · systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials · n=1024 participants (25 trials)

Taurine reduces the risk for metabolic syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Cited 34 times in the scientific literature.

Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PubMed 38755142 · doi:10.1038/s41387-024-00289-z · record verified 2026-08-27

What was done

A systematic review and meta-analysis searched databases including Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to December 1, 2023. The authors synthesized 25 randomized controlled trials encompassing 1,024 participants evaluating taurine supplementation (0.5 to 6 g/day for 5 to 365 days) compared to control groups on metabolic syndrome parameters: systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), fasting blood glucose (FBG), triglycerides (TG), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), alongside dose-response meta-regressions.

What was found

Taurine significantly reduced SBP (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -3.999 mmHg, 95% CI: -7.293 to -0.706, p = 0.017), DBP (WMD = -1.509 mmHg, 95% CI: -2.479 to -0.539, p = 0.002), FBG (WMD = -5.882 mg/dL, 95% CI: -10.747 to -1.018, p = 0.018), and TG (WMD = -18.315 mg/dL, 95% CI: -25.628 to -11.002, p < 0.001). HDL-C was not significantly altered (WMD = 0.644 mg/dL, 95% CI: -0.244 to 1.532, p = 0.155). Meta-regression revealed dose-dependent reductions in DBP (-0.0108 mmHg per g, p = 0.0297) and FBG (-0.0445 mg/dL per g, p = 0.0273). Adverse effects were comparable to controls.

Why it matters

This review shows that oral taurine produces modest, concurrent improvements in blood pressure, glycemic control, and lipid profiles, supporting its potential role as a dietary adjunct for metabolic risk reduction.

Limits

The total sample was spread across 25 trials (averaging ~41 participants per study), and study durations varied substantially from 5 days to one year. The abstract provides no data on study quality, risk of bias, between-study heterogeneity, or specific participant baseline clinical characteristics, and hard cardiovascular outcomes were not evaluated.

Cited by