RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder affecting more than 1% of children. It is characterized by social communication deficits and repetitive behaviors/restricted interests. In the absence of any medications known to improve core symptom domains, parents often use complementary alternative treatments, including omega-3 fatty acid supplements. METHODS: We conducted a 6-month, randomized, placebo controlled trial of omega-3 fatty acid supplements (1.5 g) vs placebo in children 2 to 5 years of age with ASD. Primary outcome measures included the autism composite score of the Pervasive Developmental Disorders Behavioral Inventory (PDDBI) and the externalizing problems score of the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC-2). Secondary outcome measures included clinical global improvement (Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I)), adaptive function (Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale (VABS-II)), and language gains (Preschool Language Scale (PLS-4)), as well as safety. Exploratory analysis investigated potential correlations between changes in cytokine profiles and treatment response. RESULTS: Thirty-eight participants were randomized in a 1:1 fashion. There was no significant difference between groups on the 0- to 24-week change in PDDBI autism composite scores (p = 0.5). There was a significant group by week interaction on the BASC-2 externalizing problem score, with participants randomized to the treatment group demonstrating worsening scores (p = 0.02). There was no statistically significant week by group effect on either adaptive function (p = 0.09) or language (p = 0.6). Omega-3s were relatively well tolerated. Changes in cytokines during the study did not significantly correlate with treatment response. CONCLUSIONS: This study does not support high dose supplementation of omega-3 fatty acids in young children with ASD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01248728. Registered 22 November 2010.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in periconceptional iron supplementation in developing countries by researchers and policy makers; however, there are no randomized controlled trials that examine the effectiveness of this strategy in decreasing anemia during pregnancy. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to determine whether periconceptional iron supplementation reduces anemia during pregnancy. DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial was conducted in rural Bangladesh. Married, nulliparous women were randomly assigned to receive daily iron and folic acid (IFA; 60 mg ferrous fumarate and 400 microg folic acid) (n = 134) or folic acid (FA; 400 microg) (n = 138) in the form of a powdered supplement added to food. Women were followed until pregnancy or the end of 9 mo. Primary outcomes included hemoglobin, plasma ferritin, and plasma transferrin receptor concentrations. RESULTS: Among 88 pregnant women, periconceptional IFA in comparison with FA did not affect anemia or iron status at 15 wk gestation. However, each 1% increase in adherence was associated with a 10-g/L increase in change in hemoglobin from baseline (P = 0.03), and those who initiated supplementation at a mean (+/-SD) time of 72.9 +/- 57.8 d before conception showed a 7.3-g/L increase in change in hemoglobin from baseline compared with those who initiated supplementation at 26.3 +/- 12.3 d after conception (P = 0.01). Among 146 nonpregnant women, IFA decreased anemia (odds ratio: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.95) and improved iron stores (P = 0.001) more than did FA. CONCLUSION: Good adherence and initiation of supplementation before conception are needed to reduce anemia during early pregnancy. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00953134.