TUDCA and NAC for Liver Protection: What the Evidence Says

Every bodybuilding forum has the same advice for running oral steroids: "Just take TUDCA and NAC and your liver will be fine." It sounds simple. Buy two bottles, take them alongside your Dianabol or Anadrol cycle, and your ALT stays in range. Problem solved.

Except the evidence behind that advice is more complicated than the forums suggest. TUDCA and NAC are real pharmaceuticals with real mechanisms. They are not snake oil. But the clinical trials that support them were conducted on patients with cirrhosis, hepatitis, and acute liver failure, not on healthy athletes taking 17-alpha alkylated steroids. That gap matters.

This article breaks down what TUDCA, NAC, milk thistle, and other popular liver supplements actually do at the cellular level, what the clinical evidence supports, where it falls short, and how to use them intelligently if you choose to run hepatotoxic compounds.

How oral steroids damage the liver

Before evaluating liver support supplements, you need to understand what they are protecting against. The damage mechanism determines which supplements have a logical basis and which are wishful thinking.

C17-alpha alkylated oral steroids (Dianabol, Anadrol, Winstrol, Anavar, and others) survive first-pass hepatic metabolism because the alkyl group blocks the enzyme that would normally deactivate them. The cost is that these compounds accumulate in hepatocytes at high concentrations and resist clearance.

The damage happens through two distinct pathways, and most bodybuilders only think about one of them.

Hepatocellular injury (the one everyone monitors)

Oral steroids generate reactive oxygen species (ROS) inside hepatocytes, causing oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction. This damages cell membranes and causes the liver enzymes ALT and AST to leak into the bloodstream (Bond et al., 2016). This is what you see when your transaminases spike on cycle. It is real damage, but it also tends to resolve within weeks of stopping the compound.

Cholestatic injury (the one that catches people off guard)

The more dangerous mechanism is bile flow obstruction. C17-alpha alkylated steroids directly inhibit the bile salt export pump (BSEP/ABCB11) and other canalicular transporters, blocking bile from flowing out of hepatocytes into the bile ducts (Stieger et al., 2000). Toxic bile acids accumulate inside liver cells, causing further damage.

This is why the largest case series of bodybuilding supplement-induced liver injury found that 100% of patients presented with jaundice (elevated bilirubin), while many had only modestly elevated transaminases (Stolz et al., 2019). If you are only watching ALT and AST, cholestasis can sneak up on you.

This distinction matters because different supplements target different damage pathways. A supplement that reduces oxidative stress (NAC) may not help with bile flow obstruction. A supplement that supports bile flow (TUDCA) may not address oxidative damage. Knowing the mechanism tells you which tool to reach for.

TUDCA: the strongest mechanistic case

Tauroursodeoxycholic acid (TUDCA) is not a supplement in the traditional sense. It is a naturally occurring bile acid, the taurine conjugate of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), found in small quantities in human bile and in much larger amounts in bear bile (which is how it entered traditional Chinese medicine centuries before anyone understood hepatology).

Mechanism

TUDCA operates through several interconnected mechanisms that are directly relevant to oral steroid hepatotoxicity.

Bile acid displacement. The liver's bile acid pool normally contains a mix of hydrophilic (water-soluble, protective) and hydrophobic (fat-soluble, toxic) bile acids. When C17-aa steroids block bile transporters, hydrophobic bile acids accumulate and damage hepatocyte membranes. TUDCA is highly hydrophilic. Oral supplementation shifts the bile acid pool toward a less toxic composition by physically displacing hydrophobic bile acids from hepatocyte membranes (Kusaczuk, 2019).

Bile transporter upregulation. TUDCA activates nuclear receptors (FXR and PXR) that upregulate expression of the very bile transporters that oral steroids suppress. In animal models, TUDCA restored BSEP function and bile flow even during concurrent exposure to cholestatic agents (Song et al., 2023).

Endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress reduction. Accumulated bile acids trigger ER stress in hepatocytes, activating the unfolded protein response (UPR), which can lead to apoptosis if unresolved. TUDCA acts as a chemical chaperone that stabilises protein folding and reduces ER stress signalling. This mechanism has been validated in multiple disease models beyond liver disease, including neurodegenerative conditions and diabetes (Vang et al., 2014).

Anti-apoptotic signalling. TUDCA inhibits the mitochondrial pathway of apoptosis by preventing translocation of the pro-apoptotic protein Bax to the mitochondrial membrane. In hepatocytes exposed to toxic bile acids, UDCA (from which TUDCA is derived) inhibited apoptotic changes by 50 to 100% in vitro (Rodrigues et al., 1998).

Clinical evidence

The clinical evidence for TUDCA is real but comes from populations different from steroid-using bodybuilders.

Liver cirrhosis. A double-blind RCT randomised 23 patients with liver cirrhosis to TUDCA (750 mg/day) or UDCA for six months. The TUDCA group showed significant reductions from baseline in ALT (p<0.05), AST (p<0.05), and ALP (p<0.05). GGT also improved. The trial was small (18 completers), but the effect was consistent across all liver enzymes (Pan et al., 2013).

Primary biliary cholangitis. UDCA (the parent compound of TUDCA) is the first-line treatment for primary biliary cholangitis, a chronic autoimmune cholestatic disease. Multiple large trials confirm it slows disease progression and improves liver biochemistry (Poupon et al., 1991). TUDCA shows equivalent or superior efficacy in head-to-head comparisons with better gastrointestinal tolerability (Invernizzi et al., 1999).

Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy. UDCA is the standard treatment for ICP, reducing serum bile acids, improving pruritus, and reducing the risk of adverse fetal outcomes. A meta-analysis of 12 RCTs confirmed efficacy (Kong et al., 2016). The mechanism (cholestasis from hormonal changes) has clear parallels to AAS-induced cholestasis.

Drug-induced liver injury. A retrospective study of 15 patients with severe drug-induced cholestatic liver injury found that adding UDCA to corticosteroid therapy improved biochemical outcomes (Wree et al., 2011).

Where the evidence falls short

No clinical trial has ever tested TUDCA specifically during anabolic steroid use. The mechanistic logic is strong: oral steroids cause cholestasis by inhibiting bile transporters, and TUDCA restores bile flow and displaces toxic bile acids. The clinical trials in other cholestatic diseases support this logic. But the direct applicability remains extrapolated, not proven.

That is not a reason to dismiss TUDCA. It is a reason to set your expectations appropriately. TUDCA is the strongest available option for a problem that has never been formally studied.

Dosing

Clinical trials used 500 to 1,500 mg/day. The cirrhosis RCT used 750 mg/day. Most bodybuilding protocols recommend 500 to 1,000 mg/day for mild to moderate oral cycles and up to 1,500 mg/day for compounds like Anadrol or Superdrol.

Take TUDCA with meals that contain fat, as bile acids are absorbed more efficiently with dietary fat. Split dosing (e.g., 500 mg twice daily) may provide more consistent bile acid pool support than a single daily dose, though no head-to-head trial has compared split versus single dosing.

NAC: the glutathione pathway

N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is a different tool targeting a different problem. Where TUDCA addresses bile flow, NAC targets oxidative stress. In emergency medicine, NAC is the established antidote for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose and has been used in hospitals for decades.

Mechanism

Glutathione precursor. NAC is a prodrug of L-cysteine, the rate-limiting amino acid for glutathione synthesis. Glutathione is the liver's primary endogenous antioxidant. When hepatocytes are exposed to oxidative stress from drugs, toxins, or reactive metabolites, glutathione gets consumed neutralising free radicals. NAC replenishes this supply (Rushworth & Megson, 2014).

Direct free radical scavenging. NAC also has direct antioxidant properties through its thiol (-SH) group, which can scavenge reactive oxygen species independently of glutathione conversion. This provides a secondary line of defence while glutathione stores are being rebuilt.

Anti-inflammatory modulation. NAC inhibits NF-kB activation and reduces production of pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNF-alpha, IL-6, IL-1beta). In the context of drug-induced liver injury, this dampens the inflammatory cascade that amplifies initial hepatocyte damage.

Clinical evidence

Acetaminophen overdose. NAC is the gold standard treatment for paracetamol poisoning, reducing mortality from over 5% to under 1% when administered within 8 to 10 hours of ingestion. This is Level 1 evidence in emergency medicine. The mechanism is straightforward: paracetamol's toxic metabolite (NAPQI) depletes glutathione, and NAC restores it.

Non-acetaminophen acute liver failure. A 173-patient multicentre RCT tested intravenous NAC versus placebo in non-acetaminophen acute liver failure. NAC improved transplant-free survival (40% vs 27%, p=0.043) in patients with early-stage liver failure (coma grades I-II) (Lee et al., 2009). This is the best evidence that NAC has hepatoprotective effects beyond paracetamol poisoning.

Drug-induced liver injury. A systematic review of NAC in non-acetaminophen drug-induced liver injury found limited but promising evidence. The best available trial data (from the Lee et al. RCT above) showed improved transplant-free survival, and multiple case series support NAC as an adjunct therapy for DILI (Chughlay et al., 2016). The benefit appears strongest in hepatocellular (not cholestatic) injury patterns.

NAFLD. A pilot study of oral NAC (1,200 mg/day) in NAFLD patients found improvements in ALT and AST, supporting the role of oxidative stress in fatty liver disease and suggesting NAC may have hepatoprotective effects in metabolic liver conditions (Khoshbaten et al., 2010).

Where the evidence falls short

The same gap applies here: no trial has tested oral NAC during AAS cycles. Two additional caveats are worth noting.

First, the strongest clinical evidence (acute liver failure, paracetamol overdose) used intravenous NAC, not oral capsules. Oral NAC has substantially lower bioavailability (6 to 10%) due to extensive first-pass metabolism. Whether oral NAC at typical supplement doses (600 to 1,200 mg/day) provides enough cysteine delivery to meaningfully boost hepatic glutathione during ongoing drug-induced oxidative stress is genuinely uncertain (Ntamo et al., 2021).

Second, NAC primarily targets oxidative/hepatocellular damage, not cholestasis. Since C17-aa steroid injury is predominantly cholestatic, NAC may be addressing the secondary problem (oxidative stress) rather than the primary one (bile flow obstruction). This does not make it useless; it makes TUDCA the higher-priority supplement for this specific application.

Dosing

Clinical protocols use 600 to 1,800 mg/day orally. Most bodybuilding protocols use 600 to 1,200 mg/day. Take NAC on an empty stomach or between meals for optimal absorption, as food can reduce cysteine bioavailability.

Higher doses (above 1,800 mg/day) are not necessarily better. One concern is that very high chronic NAC supplementation may paradoxically suppress the body's endogenous antioxidant enzyme upregulation by keeping glutathione artificially high. This is theoretical but worth considering during long cycles.

Milk thistle: popular but weak

Silymarin (the active extract of milk thistle, Silybum marianum) is the most widely used liver supplement in bodybuilding and has been taken for liver ailments for over 2,000 years. It also has the most disappointing clinical trial results.

Mechanism

Silymarin is a complex of flavonolignans (silybin A, silybin B, isosilybin A, isosilybin B, silychristin, silydianin). Silybin makes up 50 to 70% of the extract and is the primary active component.

The proposed mechanisms include antioxidant activity via ROS scavenging, membrane stabilisation of hepatocytes (reducing enzyme leakage), stimulation of ribosomal RNA polymerase to promote hepatocyte protein synthesis and regeneration, and inhibition of NF-kB-mediated inflammatory signalling (Abenavoli et al., 2010).

In isolation, these mechanisms sound comprehensive. The problem is translating them into clinical outcomes.

Clinical evidence

The trial results are underwhelming, particularly from the two largest, best-designed studies.

SyNCH Trial. A multicentre, double-blind RCT randomised 78 patients with NASH across three arms: placebo, silymarin 420 mg three times daily, or silymarin 700 mg three times daily for 48 weeks. The primary endpoint (a 2-point decline in NAFLD Activity Score) was not met. ALT declined in both groups with no significant difference. Silymarin did produce a significant improvement in fibrosis scores (22.4% vs 6.0%, p=0.023), but this was a secondary endpoint in a trial that missed its primary (Navarro et al., 2019).

Malaysian silymarin trial. Another 48-week double-blind RCT of 99 NASH patients similarly failed to meet its primary endpoint (improvement in NAFLD Activity Score), though it found a significant improvement in fibrosis and steatosis on secondary analysis (Chan Wah Kheong et al., 2017).

Meta-analyses. A 2024 meta-analysis pooling 26 RCTs with 2,375 NAFLD/NASH patients found statistically significant but modest reductions in ALT (WMD -6.81 U/L, p<0.01) and AST (WMD -4.61 U/L, p<0.01) (Li et al., 2024). To put that in perspective: a 6.8 U/L reduction in ALT is barely noticeable on a lab report. It is statistically significant across thousands of pooled patients but clinically marginal for an individual.

The core problem

Silymarin has poor oral bioavailability (20 to 50%) and rapid hepatic metabolism. Most of what you swallow never reaches therapeutic concentrations in the liver. Higher doses and phytosome-complexed formulations (silymarin bound to phosphatidylcholine) have been developed to improve absorption, but the clinical trials using these higher doses still produced modest results.

No trial of any design has tested silymarin in drug-induced cholestasis, which is the primary injury pattern from oral steroids. Silymarin's antioxidant mechanism might offer mild benefit for hepatocellular injury, but it has no known effect on bile transporter function or bile acid metabolism.

Bottom line

Milk thistle is safe, inexpensive, and has a long history of use. It is not harmful. But if you are choosing between supplements for liver protection on cycle, TUDCA has a far stronger mechanistic and clinical case. Using milk thistle as your primary liver support while running Dianabol is like using a bucket while ignoring the fire hose.

Other supplements: ALA, BPC-157, and glutathione

Several other supplements appear in bodybuilding liver support discussions. Here is what the evidence says about each.

Alpha-lipoic acid (ALA)

ALA is a potent antioxidant that recycles both glutathione and vitamin C and crosses cell membranes freely. Animal studies show hepatoprotective effects against various toxins. A case series of three hepatitis C patients treated with a triple antioxidant protocol (ALA, silymarin, selenium) showed recovery of liver function (Berkson, 1999).

Human evidence for ALA in drug-induced liver injury is limited to case reports and animal models. No RCT has tested ALA for prevention of drug-induced hepatotoxicity. It is reasonable as an adjunct antioxidant at 300 to 600 mg/day, but it should not replace TUDCA as your primary liver support.

One practical note: ALA can lower blood glucose levels, and some users (particularly those also taking MK-677 or other GH secretagogues) report noticeable hypoglycaemia when stacking ALA with compounds that affect glucose metabolism. Monitor accordingly.

BPC-157

Body Protection Compound 157 is a synthetic peptide derived from a gastric pentadecapeptide. It has generated significant interest in the bodybuilding community for tissue repair, including liver repair. Animal studies show BPC-157 protects against NSAID-induced liver damage, reduces hepatic oxidative stress, and promotes angiogenesis in liver tissue (Seiwerth et al., 2018).

The problem is that BPC-157 has zero published human trials for any indication. Every positive result comes from animal models. The peptide is also unstable orally and typically administered by injection, adding complexity and infection risk. Until human pharmacokinetic and efficacy data exist, BPC-157 for liver protection is speculative. It is not a substitute for supplements that have at least been tested in humans.

Oral glutathione

Taking glutathione directly seems logical: if the liver needs glutathione, why not just supplement it? Unfortunately, oral glutathione is extensively degraded in the gastrointestinal tract by the enzyme gamma-glutamyltransferase. A classic pharmacokinetic study found that a single oral dose of 3,000 mg did not significantly increase plasma glutathione levels (Witschi et al., 1992).

Liposomal glutathione formulations have shown better absorption in recent studies, with one small RCT demonstrating increased body stores of glutathione after 1 and 3 months of supplementation at 500 to 1,000 mg/day (Sinha et al., 2018). Even with improved delivery, NAC (which provides the rate-limiting precursor for endogenous glutathione synthesis) remains a more cost-effective approach.

UDCA vs TUDCA

You will sometimes see plain ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) sold as a cheaper alternative to TUDCA. Both are hydrophilic bile acids, and UDCA is actually the first-line prescription treatment for primary biliary cholangitis. TUDCA has several advantages over UDCA, though: it is more hydrophilic, it remains soluble at lower pH (important for absorption), and it causes fewer gastrointestinal side effects (particularly diarrhoea). In a head-to-head comparison in primary biliary cholangitis, TUDCA was as effective as UDCA with better tolerability (Invernizzi et al., 1999).

If you can afford TUDCA, it is the better choice. If cost is a limiting factor, UDCA at equivalent doses (10 to 15 mg/kg/day) is a reasonable alternative with strong clinical evidence in cholestatic disease.

A practical liver support protocol

Based on the evidence above, here is how to structure liver support if you choose to run oral compounds. This is a framework, not a prescription. Adjust based on your specific compound, dose, cycle length, and bloodwork.

Tier 1: strong mechanistic and clinical support

TUDCA (500 to 1,000 mg/day). Start 2 to 3 days before the oral cycle, continue throughout, and maintain for 2 weeks after discontinuation. Use the higher end of the range (1,000 to 1,500 mg/day) for the most hepatotoxic compounds: Anadrol, Superdrol, Dianabol at high doses.

NAC (600 to 1,200 mg/day). Take on an empty stomach, split into two doses. NAC complements TUDCA by targeting the oxidative stress pathway rather than bile flow.

Tier 2: reasonable adjuncts with weaker evidence

Alpha-lipoic acid (300 to 600 mg/day). Additional antioxidant support, most useful when stacking multiple compounds or running longer cycles.

Silymarin (500 to 1,000 mg/day, phytosome-complexed if available). The evidence is modest, but it is safe and inexpensive. Think of it as additive, not primary.

What does not belong in the protocol

Alcohol. This is not a supplement, but eliminating it is more impactful than any supplement. Alcohol is metabolised through the same hepatic pathways that are already stressed by C17-aa steroids. Even moderate drinking during an oral cycle compounds the hepatotoxic burden. Zero alcohol during oral cycles is the single most effective liver-protective behaviour available to you.

Paracetamol/acetaminophen. Same logic. Paracetamol generates NAPQI, which depletes hepatic glutathione. Taking it while running an oral steroid is double-stressing the same antioxidant system that NAC is trying to support.

All OTC painkillers, really. Switching from paracetamol to aspirin or ibuprofen is not a free pass. NSAIDs avoid the glutathione depletion problem, but they inhibit platelet aggregation (increased bleeding risk, particularly concerning if liver function is already compromised and clotting factor production is affected) and can cause nephrotoxicity. If your creatinine is already creeping up alongside liver stress, adding an NSAID compounds the kidney burden. Aspirin is the strongest antiplatelet of the group and carries the highest bleeding risk. If you genuinely need pain relief on cycle, ibuprofen at the lowest effective dose for the shortest duration is the least bad option, but minimising all OTC painkillers is the smarter approach.

Interpreting your bloodwork on liver support

GGT is your most important monitoring marker when using liver support supplements:

• ALT/AST elevated but GGT, bilirubin, and ALP all normal: almost certainly muscle damage from training, not liver stress. Confirm with CK (creatine kinase), which will also be elevated if the source is skeletal muscle. No liver support adjustment needed.
• GGT and transaminases both improving: the protocol is working (or the damage was resolving anyway; hard to distinguish without a control group)
• Transaminases improving but GGT still climbing: the oxidative stress is managed (NAC) but cholestasis is progressing. Increase TUDCA or reduce the oral compound dose
• All markers worsening despite liver support: the hepatotoxic load exceeds what supplementation can manage. Reduce dose or discontinue the oral compound

Does liver support actually prevent damage?

This is the question that matters most, and it deserves an honest answer: we do not know.

No study has ever randomised steroid-using bodybuilders to TUDCA versus placebo and measured liver outcomes. The closest evidence comes from drug-induced cholestasis treatment studies, where UDCA/TUDCA improved biochemical recovery time. But treatment after injury is different from prevention during exposure.

What we can say with confidence:

1. TUDCA has a strong mechanistic rationale for AAS-induced cholestasis. It targets the exact pathway that oral steroids damage.
2. NAC supports the glutathione system that oral steroids deplete. The oxidative stress component of AAS hepatotoxicity is real.
3. Neither supplement makes hepatotoxic compounds "safe." They may reduce the magnitude of injury, speed recovery, or raise the threshold before clinical symptoms appear. They do not eliminate the risk.
4. Monitoring your bloodwork is the only way to know whether your liver is actually under stress. Supplements without monitoring is guessing. Monitoring without supplements is still informative. The combination is better than either alone.

The practical takeaway: use TUDCA and NAC because the mechanistic logic is sound and the safety profile is excellent. Do not use them as a licence to run higher doses or longer cycles of hepatotoxic compounds. And test your ALT, AST, GGT, and bilirubin on the schedule described in our liver enzymes guide, because the blood test is the only thing that tells you what is actually happening inside your liver.

Key takeaways

• TUDCA has the strongest evidence for AAS-related liver protection. It directly addresses cholestasis by displacing toxic bile acids and supporting bile transporter function. Dose: 500 to 1,500 mg/day depending on compound hepatotoxicity.
• NAC supports the glutathione antioxidant system that oral steroids deplete. It has strong clinical evidence in acute liver failure but has never been tested during AAS use. Dose: 600 to 1,200 mg/day.
• Milk thistle is safe and widely used but has the weakest clinical evidence of the three. It failed primary endpoints in the two largest NASH RCTs and has never been tested in drug-induced cholestasis.
• No liver support supplement has been validated specifically for bodybuilders on oral steroids. Every recommendation is extrapolated from other liver diseases.
• TUDCA and NAC complement each other because they target different damage pathways (cholestasis vs oxidative stress). Using both is more logical than using either alone.
• Bloodwork monitoring matters more than any supplement. GGT tells you whether elevated transaminases are from muscle damage or real liver stress. Bilirubin catches cholestasis that transaminases miss.
• Eliminating alcohol and paracetamol during oral cycles is free and more impactful than any supplement.

---

References

1. Bond, P., Llewellyn, W., & Van Mol, P. (2016). Anabolic androgenic steroid-induced hepatotoxicity. Medical Hypotheses, 93, 150-153. PubMed

2. Stieger, B., Fattinger, K., Madon, J., Kullak-Ublick, G. A., & Meier, P. J. (2000). Drug- and estrogen-induced cholestasis through inhibition of the hepatocellular bile salt export pump (Bsep) of rat liver. Gastroenterology, 118(2), 422-430. PubMed

3. Stolz, A., Navarro, V., Hayashi, P. H., Fontana, R. J., Barnhart, H. X., Gu, J., ... & Hoofnagle, J. H. (2019). Severe and protracted cholestasis in 44 young men taking bodybuilding supplements: assessment of genetic, clinical and chemical risk factors. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 49(9), 1195-1204. PubMed

4. Kusaczuk, M. (2019). Tauroursodeoxycholate-bile acid with chaperoning activity: molecular and cellular effects and therapeutic perspectives. Cells, 8(12), 1471. PubMed

5. Song, G., Weng, F., Zou, B., et al. (2023). Potential therapeutic action of tauroursodeoxycholic acid against cholestatic liver injury via hepatic Fxr/Nrf2 and CHOP-DR5-caspase-8 pathway. Clinical Science (London), 137(7), 561-577. PubMed

6. Vang, S., Longley, K., Steer, C. J., & Low, W. C. (2014). The unexpected uses of urso- and tauroursodeoxycholic acid in the treatment of non-liver diseases. Global Advances in Health and Medicine, 3(3), 58-69. PubMed

7. Rodrigues, C. M., Fan, G., Ma, X., Kren, B. T., & Steer, C. J. (1998). A novel role for ursodeoxycholic acid in inhibiting apoptosis by modulating mitochondrial membrane perturbation. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 101(12), 2790-2799. PubMed

8. Pan, X. L., Zhao, L., Li, L., et al. (2013). Efficacy and safety of tauroursodeoxycholic acid in the treatment of liver cirrhosis: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology Medical Sciences, 33(2), 189-194. PubMed

9. Poupon, R. E., Balkau, B., Eschwège, E., Poupon, R., & the UDCA-PBC Study Group. (1991). A multicenter, controlled trial of ursodiol for the treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis. New England Journal of Medicine, 324(22), 1548-1554. PubMed

10. Invernizzi, P., Setchell, K. D., Crosignani, A., et al. (1999). Differences in the metabolism and disposition of ursodeoxycholic acid and of its taurine-conjugated species in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. Hepatology, 29(2), 320-327. PubMed

11. Kong, X., Kong, Y., Zhang, F., Wang, T., & Yan, J. (2016). Evaluating the effectiveness and safety of ursodeoxycholic acid in treatment of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy: a meta-analysis. Medicine, 95(40), e4949. PubMed

12. Wree, A., Dechêne, A., Herzer, K., et al. (2011). Steroid and ursodesoxycholic acid combination therapy in severe drug-induced liver injury. Digestion, 84(3), 194-201. PubMed

13. Rushworth, G. F., & Megson, I. L. (2014). Existing and potential therapeutic uses for N-acetylcysteine: the need for conversion to intracellular glutathione for antioxidant benefits. Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 141(2), 150-159. PubMed

14. Lee, W. M., Hynan, L. S., Rossaro, L., et al. (2009). Intravenous N-acetylcysteine improves transplant-free survival in early stage non-acetaminophen acute liver failure. Gastroenterology, 137(3), 856-864. PubMed

15. Chughlay, M. F., Kramer, N., Werfalli, M., & Cohen, K. (2016). N-acetylcysteine for non-paracetamol drug-induced liver injury: a systematic review. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 81(6), 1021-1029. PubMed

16. Khoshbaten, M., Aliasgarzadeh, A., Masnadi, K., et al. (2010). N-acetylcysteine improves liver function in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatitis Monthly, 10(1), 12-16. PubMed

17. Ntamo, Y., Ziqubu, K., Chellan, N., et al. (2021). Drug-induced liver injury: clinical evidence of N-acetyl cysteine protective effects. Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity, 2021, 3320325. PubMed

18. Abenavoli, L., Capasso, R., Milic, N., & Capasso, F. (2010). Milk thistle in liver diseases: past, present, future. Phytotherapy Research, 24(10), 1423-1432. PubMed

19. Chan Wah Kheong, C., Nik Mustapha, N. R., & Mahadeva, S. (2017). A randomized trial of silymarin for the treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 15(12), 1940-1949.e8. PubMed

20. Navarro, V. J., Belle, S. H., D'Amato, M., et al. (2019). Silymarin in non-cirrhotics with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial. PLoS One, 14(9), e0221683. PubMed

21. Li, S., Duan, F., Li, S., & Lu, B. (2024). Administration of silymarin in NAFLD/NASH: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Hepatology, 29(2), 101174. PubMed

22. Berkson, B. M. (1999). A conservative triple antioxidant approach to the treatment of hepatitis C: combination of alpha lipoic acid (thioctic acid), silymarin, and selenium: three case histories. Medizinische Klinik, 94(Suppl 3), 84-89. PubMed

23. Seiwerth, S., Rucman, R., Turkovic, B., et al. (2018). BPC 157 and standard angiogenic growth factors. Gastrointestinal tract healing, lessons from tendon, ligament, muscle and bone healing. Current Pharmaceutical Design, 24(18), 1972-1989. PubMed

24. Witschi, A., Reddy, S., Stofer, B., & Lauterburg, B. H. (1992). The systemic availability of oral glutathione. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 43(6), 667-669. PubMed

25. Sinha, R., Sinha, I., Calcagnotto, A., et al. (2018). Oral supplementation with liposomal glutathione elevates body stores of glutathione and markers of immune function. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 72(1), 105-111. PubMed