Narrative review evaluates berberine's effects on multiple sclerosis, suggesting its role in enhancing treatment outcomes.
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a debilitating autoimmune disorder characterized by inflammatory demyelination and progressive neurodegeneration within the central nervous system (CNS). Despite advances in disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), current treatments primarily mitigate relapses and slow disease progression but fall short in comprehensively addressing cumulative disability or neurodegeneration. Berberine (BBR), a naturally occurring isoquinoline alkaloid, has emerged as a promising therapeutic candidate due to its potent immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, and neuroprotective properties. In this narrative review, we synthesize the molecular mechanisms underpinning BBR's effects on MS pathology and evaluate preclinical evidence from MS-relevant animal models. Studies in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) —the primary MS model—and the cuprizone (CPZ) -induced demyelination model demonstrate that BBR (typically 5–300mg/kg in preclinical protocols) reduces pro-inflammatory cytokines, modulates immune responses, and promotes remyelination—processes critical for counteracting MS-associated neurodegeneration. BBR modulates key signaling pathways, including JAK/STAT and SPHK1/S1P, which are pivotal in attenuating immune-mediated damage and preserving blood-brain barrier (BBB) integrity. Despite its therapeutic potential, challenges such as poor bioavailability and suboptimal pharmacokinetics have spurred investigations into advanced delivery systems. Nanoformulations, particularly BBR-loaded iron oxide nanoparticles (BBR-IONP), have shown superior efficacy in preclinical models by enhancing CNS delivery and improving remyelination outcomes. By highlighting BBR's multifaceted bioactivities, this review underscores its promise as a complementary or alternative approach to address unmet needs in MS management, while acknowledging the critical need for clinical trials to validate these preclinical findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chahardehi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: