Shatavari Trial Reports Early Gains in Women’s Sexual Function

On October 26, 2026, NutraIngredients reported on a trial of SRI-81 shatavari root extract that found improvements in selected sexual-function measures compared with placebo. Published in the International Journal of Women’s Health in 2026, the study also tested SRI-81 combined with KSM-66 ashwagandha.

A broad view of sexual wellbeing remains the starting point

Midlife sexual wellbeing calls for a wider lens than desire alone. Utah State University Extension’s guidance describes possible contributions from vaginal dryness or discomfort and from sleep, mood and stress. It also includes overall wellbeing and relationship factors, with advice to discuss persistent or quality-of-life-affecting concerns with a healthcare provider.

That is the care framework this research sits alongside. The study tests an ingredient-based approach within a much larger subject, rather than announcing a replacement for individual assessment. A broader understanding of midlife intimacy remains relevant when reading its results.

The trial reported gains on selected measures

The researchers tested specific extracts against placebo

Nutritional Outlook’s account provides the study details:

• The trial used a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design. It enrolled 135 women ages 18 to 55 at two sites. There were 90 participants in India and 45 in the United States. The efficacy analysis included 127 participants after eight were lost to follow-up.
• The study compared three groups over eight weeks. Participants received 300 mg daily of SRI-81 alone, the same SRI-81 amount combined with 250 mg daily of KSM-66, or placebo. These quantities identify the research intervention rather than provide instructions for personal use.
• The primary outcome was change in total Female Sexual Function Index score. This measure is abbreviated as FSFI. Secondary measures included sexual distress and satisfying sexual events. The researchers also tracked mood, happiness, sleep and safety markers.

This design gives the findings a comparison beyond whether participants felt better after taking an extract. The relevant question is how each active group performed against placebo, followed by whether the active formulations differed from each other.

Sexual-function results differed between the active groups

The reports describe several positive findings, but not a uniform improvement across every outcome:

• Shatavari alone improved selected measures compared with placebo. Nutritional Outlook reports statistically significant improvements at week eight in total FSFI score and satisfaction. It also reports an improvement in Female Sexual Distress Scale scores. These are distinct outcomes rather than interchangeable descriptions of increased desire.
• Total FSFI increased in the placebo group too. The reported change from baseline was 34.1% with shatavari alone and 19.6% with placebo. These figures describe changes in group scores from their starting values. They are not the percentage of women who benefited and do not predict an individual result.
• The combination showed a different pattern of findings. Compared with placebo, the SRI-81 and KSM-66 group improved in total FSFI score and in the arousal, lubrication and orgasm domains. Participants in this group also reported more intercourse than those receiving placebo. Frequency is a recorded outcome here, not a universal definition of a satisfying sexual life.
• Adding ashwagandha did not significantly improve the overall score beyond shatavari alone. Nutritional Outlook reports no statistically significant difference between the active groups for total FSFI score, with p=0.862. An improvement against placebo in each group does not establish that the combination is better than the single extract.

That last distinction matters when reading claims about combined products. A formulation containing more than one studied ingredient should not be described as more effective simply because both ingredients appear in a positive trial.

Sexual distress deserves its own reading

Sexual function and sexual distress were assessed separately in this study. Keeping them separate allows the findings to be read without treating a change in activity or function as the whole story.

• Both active groups reported reductions in distress. The reports give changes from baseline of 29% with shatavari alone and 44% with the combination. The corresponding reduction with placebo was 9%.
• Those percentages do not establish a ranking between the extracts. They describe the reported changes within each group. The larger numerical reduction in the combination group should not, by itself, become a claim that adding ashwagandha was superior for distress.

For readers, this is a useful distinction between an outcome that researchers measured and a conclusion that marketing might draw. The results support reporting a signal in sexual distress without turning that signal into a promise about how a particular woman will feel.

Safety findings and supplier involvement belong in the account

The reports also describe the trial’s safety observations and the source of its extracts:

• Reported adverse events were mild. Nutritional Outlook says they occurred in all three groups and resolved without intervention. NutraIngredients also reports that there were no serious adverse events.
• The trial had an ingredient-supplier connection. According to Nutritional Outlook, Ixoreal supplied the extracts. The paper stated that the company had no role in study design, analysis or interpretation. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

These details belong alongside the efficacy results. Reporting the supplier’s involvement does not require dismissing the findings, but leaving it out would give an incomplete account of how the study was supported.

The evidence has several clear boundaries

The researchers and the reports identify limits that should be read together:

• The study was modest in size and short in duration. The authors also noted its reliance on self-reported outcomes. The safety observations and improvements recorded during the trial do not settle questions about longer-term use. NutraIngredients reports that the researchers called for larger, longer and well-powered studies to confirm the observations and determine their clinical significance.
• This was not a menopause-specific trial. Nutritional Outlook notes that menstrual status was not controlled. Including women up to age 55 does not establish a benefit specifically for perimenopause or postmenopause. The findings should not be repackaged as evidence that the extracts treat menopause-related sexual concerns.
• The secondary findings require particular restraint. Nutritional Outlook reports that no correction was applied for multiple secondary comparisons. Individual secondary results are therefore better treated as leads for further research than as separate confirmations of benefit.
• The findings concern the formulations actually studied. They do not establish that other shatavari products or different formulations will produce the same effects. An ingredient name on a label is not enough to make another product equivalent to the trial intervention.

Together, these boundaries place the study in the category of preliminary clinical research. They also explain why a statistically positive result is not the same announcement as a new treatment standard.

The practical discussion starts with the concern itself

For readers, the useful starting point is to identify what has changed rather than choose an ingredient first. Utah State University Extension’s guidance supports discussing persistent concerns or those affecting quality of life with a healthcare provider. That conversation can centre on comfort, desire or distress without assuming that each has the same explanation.

Questions grounded in that broader guidance include:

• What has changed in physical comfort or desire?
• Are sleep, mood or stress also part of the picture?
• How is the concern affecting quality of life or relationships?

These questions keep attention on the experience that needs support. They also leave room for several contributors rather than treating a supplement result as an explanation for every sexual change in midlife.

A focused discussion of recurring discomfort is a different task from deciding whether a research result sounds promising. Access to respectful, personalised sexual healthcare matters when symptoms or distress need individual attention.

The study can be part of an informed conversation without becoming its centre. Comfort, intimacy and sexual confidence remain legitimate concerns whether or not an herbal extract becomes relevant to a woman’s care.

Clinical practice still needs confirmatory evidence

Going forward, this trial belongs in evidence discussions about sexual wellbeing, not as the basis for a new menopause supplement protocol.

How Refemina helps

Herbal sexual-wellness findings deserve attention without making a supplement the centre of an intimate concern. Refemina connects evidence about desire and comfort with the physical and personal changes women experience during midlife, giving questions about intimacy and sexual confidence thoughtful context rather than sensational treatment claims.

Explore Resources

Sources

1. Shatavari root extract may support women's sexual wellness: RCT
2. Study of SRI-81 Shatavari Reports Sexual Function Gains ...
3. Sexual Satisfaction and Midlife Changes