| Literature DB >> 34836314 |
Roser Granero1,2,3, Alfred Pardo-Garrido1, Ivonne Lorena Carpio-Toro4,5, Andrés Alexis Ramírez-Coronel4,6, Pedro Carlos Martínez-Suárez4,6, Geovanny Genaro Reivan-Ortiz3,4.
Abstract
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder common from childhood to adulthood, affecting 5% to 12% among the general population in developed countries. Potential etiological factors have been identified, including genetic causes, environmental elements and epigenetic components. Nutrition is currently considered an influencing factor, and several studies have explored the contribution of restriction and dietary supplements in ADHD treatments. Iron is an essential cofactor required for a number of functions, such as transport of oxygen, immune function, cellular respiration, neurotransmitter metabolism (dopamine production), and DNA synthesis. Zinc is also an essential trace element, required for cellular functions related to the metabolism of neurotransmitters, melatonin, and prostaglandins. Epidemiological studies have found that iron and zinc deficiencies are common nutritional deficits worldwide, with important roles on neurologic functions (poor memory, inattentiveness, and impulsiveness), finicky appetite, and mood changes (sadness and irritability). Altered levels of iron and zinc have been related with the aggravation and progression of ADHD.Entities:
Keywords: ADHD; children; iron; treatment; zinc
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34836314 PMCID: PMC8618748 DOI: 10.3390/nu13114059
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Search flow-chart.
Randomized controlled trials of supplements with iron and zinc for ADHD.
| Study | Refer. |
| Supp. | Dose | Age (Years) | Sex | Duration | Measures for ADHD | Results | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Noorazar et al. (2020) | [ | 60 | Zinc | 10 mg zinc/day | Range = 7–12 | 20% Women | 6 weeks | ● Conners Parent’s Questionnaire. | Zinc related with improvement, but only in the inattention factor |
| 2. | Zamora et al. (2011) | [ | 40 | Zinc | 10 mg zinc/day | Range = 7–14 | 22.5% Women | 6 weeks | ● Conners Rating Scales-Revised. | Improvement in the Conner’s score, but only for the teacher version |
| 3. | Arnold et al. (2011) | [ | 52 | Zinc | 15 mg zinc/day | Range = 6–14 | 17.3% Women | 13 weeks | ● Childen’s Interview for Psychiatric Syndromes (parent version). | Equivocal results for most measures. Only neuropsychological measures mostly favored zinc |
| 4. | Akhondzadeh et al. (2004) | [ | 44 | Zinc | 15 mg zinc/day | Range = 5–11 | 40.9% Women | 6 weeks | ● ADH Rating Scale (ADHD-RS) | Parent and Teacher rating scale scores improved with zinc |
| 5. | Bilici et al. (2004) | [ | 400 | Zinc | 40 mg zinc/day | Range = 6–14 | 18% Women | 12 weeks | ● Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Scale (ADHDS) | Zinc related with improvements in hyperactive, impulsive and socialization symptoms. No impact of zinc was observed for the attention deficit levels. A moderator effect with age and BMI was observed |
| 6. | Konofal et al. (2008) | [ | 22 | Iron | 80 mg/day (ferrous sulfate, Tardyferon) | Range = 5–8 | 21.7% Women | 12 weeks | ● Conners’ Parent Rating Scale | Iron related to improvement on the ADHD RS scale and the CGI-S score. Iron did not achieved improvements on the Conner’s tests |
| 7. | Panahandeh et al. (2017) | [ | 42 | Iron | 5 mg/kg/day (ferrous sulfate) | Range = 5–15 | 9.5% Women | 8 weeks | ● Child Symptom Inventory-4 (CSI-4). | Iron related with higher decreases on the CSI-4 total and factor scores |
| 8. | Rucklidge et al. (2018) | [ | 93 | Zinc- | Zinc (3.2 mg/capsule) | Range = 5–15 | 23.7% Women | 10 weeks | ● Conners’ Parent Rating Scale (CPRS-R) | Supplements related with improvements in inattentive levels. No contribution were observed on hyperactive-impulsive symptoms. |
| 9. | Rucklidge et al. (2021) | [ | 38 | Zinc- | Zinc (3.2 mg/capsule) | Range = 7–13 | 21% Women | 10 weeks | ● ADH Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV). | Differences in the ferritin levels achieved an interaction role for improving the ADHD severity levels. |
Note: N = sample size. Supplem: supplement administered in the experimental Group. Refer: cite of the study. Dose: dosage for the supplement (zinc and iron). Results: related with the supplement (zinc and iron).
Assessment of the studies’ quality based on the CONSORT checklist.
| Title: Includes Design Type | Abstract: Structured-Complete | Introduction: Background | Introduction: Objectives-Hypothesis | Methods: Design Described | Methods: Participants | Methods: Interventions | Methods: Outcomes | Methods: Sample-Size Calculation—Power | Methods: Randomization | Methods: Implementation | Methods: Statistical Procedure | Results: participants Flow | Results: Numbers Analyzed | Results: Outcomes-Estimates | Discussion: Limitations | Discussion: Generalization | Discussion: Interpretation | Other Registration-Protocol-Funding | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Noorazar et al. (2020) | [ | (+) | (+) | (+) | (P) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (P) | (+) | (P) | (+) | (+) | |
| 2. | Zamora et al. (2011) | [ | (+) | (+) | (+) | (P) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (P) | (?) | (P) | (+) | (+) | |
| 3. | Arnold et al. (2011) | [ | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (P) | (+) | (+) | |
| 4. | Akhondzadeh et al. (2004) | [ | (+) | (+) | (+) | (P) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (P) | (+) | (+) | |
| 5. | Bilici et al. (2004) | [ | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (P) | (P) | (?) | (P) | (+) | (+) | |
| 6. | Konofal et al. (2008) | [ | (?) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (P) | (+) | (+) | |
| 7. | Panahandeh et al. (2017) | [ | (?) | (+) | (+) | (P) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (P) | (+) | (+) | |
| 8. | Rucklidge et al. (2018) | [ | (+) | (+) | (+) | (P) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (P) | (+) | (+) | |
| 9. | Rucklidge et al. (2021) | [ | (?) | (+) | (+) | (P) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (P) | (+) | (+) |
Note. (+) Green color cell: presented-reported. (P) Grey color cell: partially presented or reported with some limitations. (?) White color cell: not present or not reported.
Assessment of the studies’ quality based on the NICE checklist.
| A1. Adequate Randomization Method | A2. Adequate Concealment of Allocation | A3. Groups Comparable at Baseline | B1. Comparison Groups Received Same Care | B2. Participants Receiving Care Blind to Treatment | B3. Individuals Administering Care Blind to Allocation | C1. All Groups Followed Up for Equal Length of Time | C2a. How Many Participants Did Not Complete Treatment | C2b. Groups Comparable for Treatment Completion | C3. Participants in Each Were No Outcome Data Available | C3b. Groups Comparable Respect Availability of Outcome Data | D1. Adequate Length of Follow-Up | D2. Precise Definition of Outcome | D3. Reliable Method Used to Determine the Outcome | D4. Investigators Kept Blind to Participants Exposure | D5. Investigators Were Kept Blind to Confounding-Predictors | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Noorazar et al. (2020) | [ | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (?) | (?) |
| 2. | Zamora et al. (2011) | [ | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (?) | (?) |
| 3. | Arnold et al. (2011) | [ | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (?) | (?) |
| 4. | Akhondzadeh et al. (2004) | [ | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (?) | (?) |
| 5. | Bilici et al. (2004) | [ | (+) | (+) | (?) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (?) | (?) |
| 6. | Konofal et al. (2008) | [ | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (?) | (?) |
| 7. | Panahandeh et al. (2017) | [ | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (?) | (?) |
| 8. | Rucklidge et al. (2018) | [ | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (?) | (?) |
| 9. | Rucklidge et al. (2021) | [ | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (?) | (?) |
Note. (+) Green color cell: presented-reported. (?) White color cell: not present or not reported. Items A1 to A3: selection bias (systematic differences between the comparison groups). Items B1 to B3: performance bias (systematic differences between groups in the care provided, apart from the intervention under investigation). Items C1 to C3b: Attrition bias (systematic differences between the comparison groups with respect to loss of participants). Items D1 to D5: Detection bias (bias in how outcomes are ascertained, diagnosed or verified).
Assessment of the studies’ quality based on the CASP checklist.
| A1.Clearly Focused Question | A2. Use of Randomization Method | A3. Participants Accounted for | B4. Use of “Blinded” Methods | B5. Groups Similar at the Start of Randomization | B6. Each Study Group Received the Same Care | C7. Effects of Intervention Adequately Reported | C8. Precision Estimates Reported (CI or Other Effect Sizes) | C9. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Was Done | D10. Applicability of the Results | D11. Intervention Provides Value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Noorazar et al. (2020) | [ | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (?) | (?) | (+) | (+) |
| 2. | Zamora et al. (2011) | [ | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (?) | (?) | (+) | (+) |
| 3. | Arnold et al. (2011) | [ | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (?) | (+) | (+) |
| 4. | Akhondzadeh et al. (2004) | [ | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (?) | (?) | (+) | (+) |
| 5. | Bilici et al. (2004) | [ | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (?) | (+) | (?) | (?) | (+) | (+) |
| 6. | Konofal et al. (2008) | [ | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (?) | (+) | (+) |
| 7. | Panahandeh et al. (2017) | [ | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (?) | (?) | (+) | (+) |
| 8. | Rucklidge et al. (2018) | [ | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (?) | (+) | (+) |
| 9. | Rucklidge et al. (2021) | [ | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (?) | (+) | (+) |
Note. (+) Green color cell: present-reported; (?) White color cell: not present or not reported. Items A1 to A3: the study design is valid for a randomized controlled trial. Items B4 to B6: the study methodology is sound. Items C7 to C9: the results are adequately reported. Items D10 to D11: the interpretation of the results is helpful.
Assessment of the risk of bias based on the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 checklist.
| Randomization | Deviations from the Intended Intervention/s | Missing Outcome Data | Outcome Measurements | Selective Reporting | Incomplete Reporting | Study Power Calculation/Sample Size Justification | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Noorazar et al. (2020) | [ | (?) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (−) |
| 2. | Zamora et al. (2011) | [ | (?) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (−) |
| 3. | Arnold et al. (2011) | [ | (?) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (−) |
| 4. | Akhondzadeh et al. (2004) | [ | (?) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (−) |
| 5. | Bilici et al. (2004) | [ | (?) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (−) |
| 6. | Konofal et al. (2008) | [ | (?) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (−) |
| 7. | Panahandeh et al. (2017) | [ | (?) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (−) |
| 8. | Rucklidge et al. (2018) | [ | (?) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (−) |
| 9. | Rucklidge et al. (2021) | [ | (?) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (−) |
Note. (+) Green color cell: low risk of bias. (?) Grey color cell: moderate risk of bias (unclear reporting or partially reported). (−) Brown color cell: high risk of bias (non-reported). Randomization: low bias judged if both a method of randomization and concealing allocation was clearly described, along with no clear obvious baseline differences between groups. Deviation: low bias judged if study participants did not change between groups. Missing outcome: low bias judged if less than 20% of participants were lost between the beginning and the end of the treatment. Outcome measurement: low bias judged if validated tools were used for the main results (e.g., standardized questionnaires). Selective reporting: low bias judged if outcomes were pre-specified. Incomplete reporting: low bias judged if measurement methods, procedure, analysis and outcomes were specified in advance to the results section. Power calculation/sample size justification: low bias judged if this was performed in advance and attained in the study.