Nutrafol and Viviscal for Pattern Hair Loss: 2022 Evidence Review Research Summary

Last verified: Apr 2026Hair SupplementsAnecdotal / no trial evidence

This is a plain-language summary of the original published research. We do not add conclusions or opinions of our own. This is not medical advice — consult a certified healthcare practitioner before making any decision.

Original research published in PMC (open access), 2022

Nutrafol and Viviscal for Pattern Hair Loss

Read original →

Study conclusion

Narrative review summarised clinical evidence for Nutrafol and Viviscal in men and women with pattern hair loss. Both showed modest but statistically significant hair growth compared to placebo in their respective clinical studies. Most evidence was funded by the manufacturers. The review concluded both are best used as adjuncts to pharmaceutical treatments.

Strength of evidence

Strength of evidence
Anecdotal / no trial evidence · 3/10

This was a narrative review — it describes and summarises existing studies without statistical pooling. The score is very limited because most underlying studies were industry-funded by the respective supplement manufacturers, sample sizes were small, and independent replication is absent for both products.

Who it applies to

Who was studied

Adults with pattern hair loss from clinical studies of Nutrafol and Viviscal branded supplements.

Who was NOT studied

People using unprescribed generic ingredients rather than branded formulations. People with other types of hair loss.

What to look for when shopping

Both Nutrafol and Viviscal are branded multi-ingredient supplements available without prescription. Neither is FDA-approved for hair loss. Clinical evidence is primarily from industry-funded studies.

What research cannot help you decide

Whether generic ingredients produce the same benefit as the branded formulations. Whether either supplement works as well as minoxidil or finasteride.

Key findings

  • Both Nutrafol and Viviscal showed modest but statistically significant hair growth vs placebo in industry-funded clinical studies
  • The review concluded both supplements are best used as adjuncts to pharmaceutical treatments, not replacements
  • Most clinical evidence for both products was funded by their manufacturers
  • Neither product is FDA-approved for hair loss
  • Independent replication of results for either product is limited

What they did

Researchers reviewed published clinical evidence for Nutrafol and Viviscal. Studies were identified and summarised narratively without statistical pooling. The review covered both the ingredient rationale and clinical outcomes from available studies.

What they found

ComparisonResultSignificant?
Nutrafol vs placebo — hair densitySignificant improvement in industry-funded studiesYes
Viviscal vs placebo — terminal hair countSignificant improvement in industry-funded studiesYes
Both supplements vs FDA-approved treatmentsNot directly comparedNo

What this study does not show

  1. 1.Whether either supplement would show the same benefit in a large independently-funded trial.
  2. 2.How either supplement compares to FDA-approved treatments like minoxidil.
  3. 3.Whether the active ingredients in each formulation are individually responsible for the observed effects.

Limitations

  1. 1.Narrative review without statistical pooling
  2. 2.Most underlying studies were industry-funded by the respective supplement manufacturers
  3. 3.Small study samples for both products
  4. 4.No independent large-scale replication for either product
  5. 5.Neither product is FDA-approved for hair loss

Who funded it

No separate funding for this review declared. Most underlying studies reviewed were industry-funded.

Used in these articles

Links added as fact-checks and articles citing this study are published.