Bromantane
N-(2-adamantyl)-N-(para-bromophenyl)amine
Written by Aaron CuhaReviewed Sep 2026
Also known as: Ladasten, Bromantan, Bromontan, ADK-709
The only compound in this batch with randomised placebo-controlled human trials, and every one of them measured fatigue and anxiety rating scales in neurasthenia, not cognition. The entire clinical literature is Russian language, small, and traces to one Moscow research group. It is on the 2026 WADA Prohibited List as a non-specified stimulant, prohibited in-competition.
Overview
Bromantane is the compound in this batch that people actually search for and actually buy, and it is also the one where the English-language internet is least useful, because its clinical record is indexed under two names and published almost entirely in Russian.
Searching PubMed for bromantane alone returns a partial picture. The clinical work appears under ladasten, the name it is registered under in Russia, and the doping literature uses bromantan or bromontan. Searching all of those returns 74 indexed records.
What is in them is more than the usual grey-market compound has, and less than the marketing implies. There are genuine randomised, placebo-controlled trials: a blinded randomised comparison against placebo over 28 days in neurasthenia, and two further randomised placebo-controlled reports analysing patient self-evaluation against EEG alpha rhythm type. There is also a much larger uncontrolled multicentre series across 28 Russian clinical centres, analysed on 728 patients.
And there is a limitation that the size of that 728-patient number tends to obscure. The large study is open label with no placebo arm, and its endpoints are clinician-rated global impression scales in a fatigue syndrome, which is precisely the setting where placebo response is largest. The randomised studies that do have a placebo arm are much smaller, report no sample size or effect size in their abstracts, and come from the same group of investigators in Moscow. There is no registered trial: a ClinicalTrials.gov query for bromantane returns zero studies.
No human pharmacokinetic study was located. No human imaging or receptor-occupancy study was located. And no trial of bromantane, controlled or otherwise, has ever used a cognitive outcome measure.
Mechanism of action
Demonstrated in rats, proposed in humans. It is an adamantane derivative, not a peptide, and it is classed in Russian pharmacology as an actoprotector rather than a stimulant. In rats, a single oral dose differentially regulated tyrosine hydroxylase messenger RNA and protein along with dopamine and L-DOPA content across the ventral tegmental area, nucleus accumbens, hypothalamus, striatum and hippocampus, and in rat hippocampal slices it converted short-term potentiation into a long-lasting form, an effect blocked by the protein synthesis inhibitor anisomycin and attenuated by the D1 and D5 antagonist SCH23390. The proposed human mechanism, that it raises dopamine synthesis capacity rather than forcing release the way amphetamines do, rests entirely on that rat work. Nobody has measured dopamine synthesis or receptor occupancy in a human given bromantane.
Human evidence
Real, randomised, placebo-controlled, and entirely about fatigue and anxiety rating scales in Russian psychiatric outpatients. Not one trial measured cognition.
- Randomised blind placebo-controlled study in neurasthenia, 28 days of monotherapy plus a wash-out and a final placebo week. Reported superiority to placebo on asthenic symptom reduction. No sample size, effect size or p value in the published abstract (PMID 19491814).
- Multicentre open-label series, 28 Russian centres, analysis on 728 patients, 50 to 100 mg per day for 28 days. CGI-S responders 76.0%, CGI-I responders 90.8%, adverse effects 3%, discontinuation 0.8%. No placebo arm (PMID 21322821).
- Two further randomised placebo-controlled reports on patient self-evaluation, which found that the subgroup responding most strongly to ladasten also responded most strongly to placebo (PMID 22834121, PMID 22288153).
- A randomised controlled report in non-motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease (PMID 21434470) and a clinical record in irritable bowel syndrome (PMID 21434378).
- A phase 2 tagged pilot clinical trial from 2006 (PMID 16995430).
- Zero registered trials. A ClinicalTrials.gov query for bromantane returns no studies.
What this does not tell you: Three limits, each of which would be enough on its own. First, the endpoint: every controlled trial measured asthenia, anxiety or global clinical impression, and none measured memory, attention, processing speed or executive function. Second, the source: the randomised work traces overwhelmingly to one investigator group in Moscow, published in Russian, in journals that are not widely read outside Russia, and it has not been independently replicated in any other country. Third, the design of the one big number: the 728-patient study everyone quotes has no control group, and its 90.8% response rate is a clinician global impression in a condition where that measure is most vulnerable to expectation. There is no human pharmacokinetic study, no human imaging study, and no head to head comparison against any established agent.
Reading the research record
Bromantane is a genuinely unusual case, and it deserves to be described accurately rather than either dismissed or oversold.
The dismissal is wrong. English-language nootropic writing frequently states that bromantane has no clinical evidence. That is false. It has randomised, placebo-controlled, blinded trial data, and a multicentre series of a size most grey-market compounds never approach. Anyone who says the evidence does not exist has searched only for bromantane and not for ladasten.
The oversell is also wrong, and it works by moving between two different studies. The impressive number, 728 patients, comes from the study with no control group. The impressive design, randomised and placebo-controlled, comes from studies that report no numbers. Marketing copy tends to quote the design of one and the size of the other.
The deeper problem is the endpoint. Everything measured here is asthenia: subjective fatigue, subjective anxiety, a clinician's overall impression. Those are legitimate endpoints for a drug registered to treat asthenic syndrome, which is what ladasten is in Russia. They are not evidence about cognition, and bromantane is sold in the West as a cognitive enhancer. The trials that would settle that question have not been run.
A cognitive endpoint is a measured one: a validated test of working memory, processing speed, attention, executive function or episodic recall, administered before and after, against a control group who did not know which arm they were in. None of the compounds in this batch has ever been tested that way. Rating scales of fatigue, global clinical impression, anxiety or hyperphagia are not cognitive endpoints, and neither is a hormone level. This matters because the marketing for several of these compounds describes focus, clarity and mental energy, and the underlying studies measured none of those things.
The anti-doping point is separate and it is verifiable. Bromantan is named on the 2026 WADA Prohibited List under S6.A, non-specified stimulants. The S6 class is prohibited in-competition rather than at all times, and substances in S6.A are non-specified substances, which carries harsher sanctioning consequences than the specified stimulants in S6.B. Any tested athlete taking this compound is risking a sanction.
The evidence, charted
Fig. 1 · evidence composition
3of 6 citations (50%) are in people
Counted from the citation list on this page. The Human count is the same number shown in the badge at the top. Both understate any literature larger than the sources we cite.
Fig. 2 · evidence over time
Evidence spans 6 distinct years, 1997 to 2012, counted from the citation list on this page. The newest citation on file is from 2012, more than five years ago; the published record may have gone quiet.
Fig. 3 · legal status at a glance
US
Not approved
UK
Not approved
AU
Not approved
CA
Not approved
Not approved in any of the four jurisdictions shown. A jurisdiction's classification is a regulatory fact, not a verdict on the science; see Legal status below for the full text and any notes.
Fig. 4 · dose response
No human dose response curve exists
We draw this figure where the data supports it. For this compound in humans it does not, so the panel stays empty rather than borrowing an animal curve and implying it transfers.
Key studies & citations
- Human2009
Ladasten, the new drug with psychostimulant and anxiolytic actions in treatment of neurasthenia (results of the comparative clinical study with placebo)
The core randomised placebo-controlled record, and the strongest human evidence bromantane has. A randomised blind study in neurasthenia with a wash-out period, 28 days of monotherapy against placebo, and a final week of placebo in all patients. The authors report that ladasten was superior to placebo in the rate and degree of reduction of the main symptoms of asthenic syndrome, and that no withdrawal syndrome appeared after discontinuation. The abstract gives no sample size, no effect size and no p value, and the endpoints are asthenia rating scales, not cognitive tests. Russian language.
Zhurnal Nevrologii i Psikhiatrii Imeni S.S. Korsakova - Human2010
Treatment of asthenic disorders in patients with psychoautonomic syndrome: results of a multicenter study on efficacy and safety of ladasten
The largest human dataset: 28 Russian clinical centres, analysis on 728 patients with psychoautonomic syndrome and asthenic disorders, 50 to 100 mg per day for 28 days. Responder rates 76.0% on CGI-S and 90.8% on CGI-I, adverse effects in 3%, discontinuation in 0.8%. There is no placebo arm. A 90.8% response rate on an open-label clinician global impression scale in a fatigue syndrome is close to uninterpretable, because that is the exact design in which placebo response peaks. The same study is also indexed at PMID 20559263.
Zhurnal Nevrologii i Psikhiatrii Imeni S.S. Korsakova - Human2012
Ladasten versus placebo effect self-evaluated by neurasthenia patients with different EEG alpha rhythm types
A randomised controlled report from the same Moscow group, and a candid one. It finds that in neurasthenia patients with reduced EEG alpha activity, emotional lability and inertness, the subjective response to ladasten AND to placebo was both larger and higher rated than in patients with prominent alpha rhythm and sthenic traits. In other words, the patient subgroup that responds most strongly to the drug is the same subgroup that responds most strongly to placebo.
Eksperimentalnaia i Klinicheskaia Farmakologiia - Animal2007
The effects of ladasten on dopaminergic neurotransmission and hippocampal synaptic plasticity in rats
Rats, not humans. A single oral 50 mg/kg dose differentially regulated tyrosine hydroxylase messenger RNA and protein and dopamine and L-DOPA content across five brain regions, and in hippocampal slices 10 micromolar ladasten converted short-term potentiation into a long-lasting form, blocked by anisomycin and attenuated by SCH23390. This is the entire mechanistic basis for the dopamine story told about this compound, and it is a rat study.
Neuropharmacology - Animal2002
Toxic effect of single treatment with bromantane on neurological status of experimental animals
A toxicity study in experimental animals reporting a toxic effect of a single treatment on neurological status. Paired with a separate report of an effect on reproductive function in male rats (PMID 16047676), this is the indexed safety literature, and it is animal. No human safety dataset beyond the uncontrolled Russian clinical series exists.
Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine - Review1997
Bromontan, a new doping agent
A 1997 Lancet letter recording the compound's emergence as a doping agent after the 1996 Olympics. This is the origin of its anti-doping status. It remains prohibited: the 2026 WADA Prohibited List names bromantan under S6.A, non-specified stimulants, prohibited in-competition.
The Lancet
Frequently asked questions
Does bromantane actually have clinical trials, or is that marketing?
It has them. There is a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled 28-day study in neurasthenia, two further randomised placebo-controlled reports, and a 28-centre open-label series analysed on 728 patients. That is more human data than almost any other compound sold in the nootropic market. What it is not is evidence about cognition, because none of those trials measured cognition.
Why can I not find the studies on PubMed?
Because you are searching the wrong name. The clinical literature is indexed under ladasten, the Russian registered name. The doping literature uses bromantan or bromontan. Searching bromantane alone misses most of it. Searching all four names together returns 74 indexed records.
Will bromantane make me fail a drug test?
If you are an athlete subject to WADA testing, yes, in-competition. Bromantan is listed on the 2026 WADA Prohibited List under S6.A, non-specified stimulants. S6 is prohibited in-competition rather than at all times, and S6.A substances are non-specified, which means a positive test carries the stiffer end of the sanction framework. This is not a grey area and it is not historical: it is on the current list.
Is it safe?
There is no adequate answer to that. The human safety data come from uncontrolled Russian series that report adverse effects in around 3% of patients and discontinuation in 0.8% over 28 days. That is reassuring as far as it goes and it goes about a month. The indexed animal literature includes a toxicity study reporting a toxic effect of a single treatment on neurological status and a report of an effect on reproductive function in male rats. There is no long-term human safety dataset, and no published human pharmacokinetic study, which means nobody has established what accumulates with daily use.
How does it compare to modafinil or a racetam?
No head to head trial exists against any of them, so any comparison is somebody's opinion rather than a result. What can be said is that bromantane's clinical record is in asthenia, its mechanistic story is built on rat dopamine work, and its controlled trials report symptom scales rather than test performance.
Is the 728-patient study good evidence?
It is good evidence of tolerability and it is weak evidence of efficacy, for one reason: it has no placebo arm. Its headline result is a 90.8% responder rate on a clinician global impression scale in a fatigue disorder. Open-label global impression in fatigue is the single design most inflated by expectation. The trials in this programme that did include a placebo arm are far smaller and report no effect sizes.