Panacea Index Logo

Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

Efficacy of a High-Iron Dietary Intervention in Women with Celiac Disease and Iron Deficiency without Anemia: A Clinical Trial.

Nutrients
January 1, 1970
Alice Scricciolo et al. (8 authors)
Journal ArticleRandomized Controlled TrialHuman StudyClinical
Study Details

Study Goal

The researchers aimed to compare the efficacy of an iron-rich gluten-free diet versus oral iron supplementation in treating iron deficiency without anemia in women with celiac disease.

Results Summary

The study found that an iron-rich diet was not as effective as ferrous sulfate supplementation in improving iron levels but was well-tolerated and increased daily iron intake, suggesting potential long-term benefits for patients intolerant to pharmacological treatment.

Population

Female celiac disease patients of child-bearing age with iron deficiency without anemia.

Effective Dosage

Iron-rich diet (>20 mg/day) versus ferrous sulfate (105 mg/day).

Duration

12 weeks

Interactions

None mentioned

Extracted Claims (4)
InterventionDirectionEndpointPopulationDosageImpactClaim #
iron-rich diet (iron intake >20 mg/die)
no change
efficacy
non-anemic iron-deficient women affected by celiac disease
no significant change
did not support any equivalent efficacy
#1
iron-rich diet (iron intake >20 mg/die)
increase
tolerability
non-anemic iron-deficient women affected by celiac disease
-
appeared a well-tolerated approach
#2
adequate dietary instructions
increase
daily iron consumption
non-anemic iron-deficient women affected by celiac disease
-
could effectively increase
#3
oral iron supplementation with ferrous sulfate (105 mg/day)
no change
efficacy
non-anemic iron-deficient women affected by celiac disease
no significant change
did not support any equivalent efficacy
#4
Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Iron deficiency without anemia (IDWA) is a common finding in celiac disease (CD) and can also persist in case of good compliance and clinical response to a strict gluten-free diet (GFD). This scenario usually presents in CD women of child-bearing age in whom the imbalance between menstrual iron loss and inadequate iron intake from their diet plays the major role. A recommended approach to this condition is yet to be established. This study aimed to compare, in this subset of patients, the efficacy of a dietary approach consisting of an iron-rich diet against the traditional pharmacological oral-replacement therapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between February and December 2016, consecutive CD female patients of child-bearing age as referred to our outpatient center with evidence of IDWA (ferritin <15 ng/mL or 15-20 ng/L with transferrin saturation <15%) were enrolled. After the completion of a 7-day weighed food intake recording to assess the usual iron dietary intake, the patients were randomized in two arms to receive a 12-week iron-rich diet (iron intake >20 mg/die) versus oral iron supplementation with ferrous sulfate (FS) (105 mg/day). Blood tests and dietary assessments were repeated at the end of treatment. The degree of compliance and tolerability to the treatments were assessed every month by means of specific questionnaires and symptoms evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 22 women were enrolled and divided in the diet group ( CONCLUSIONS: These findings did not support any equivalent efficacy of an iron-rich diet compared to a FS supplementation in non-anemic iron-deficient women affected by CD. However, the diet appeared a well-tolerated approach, and adequate dietary instructions could effectively increase the daily iron consumption, suggesting a role in the long-term management of IDWA, especially in patients who do not tolerate pharmacological supplementation.

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
AdultAnemia, Iron-DeficiencyCeliac DiseaseDiet, Gluten-FreeDietary SupplementsFemaleFerritinsFerrous CompoundsHumansIronIron DeficienciesIron, DietaryMiddle AgedNutrition AssessmentNutritional StatusProspective StudiesSurveys and Questionnaires
Study Links
Quality Scores
Safety85
Efficacy60/10
Quality75/10
Citation Metrics
Total Citations11
Citations/Year2.2
Relative Citation Ratio0.98
NIH Percentile49.4%
Research Impact Scores
APT Score0.75
Weight Score1.60
Normalized Score0.73
Related Supplements