Back

The Efficacy and Safety of Daily Low-Dose Iron Supplementation in Adults with Dietary Iron Deficiency: a Double-Blind, Randomized, Single-Center Study

Kravos, A.; Dolenc, B.; Fartek, N.; Locatelli, I.; Cebron Lipovec, N.; Rogelj Meljo, N.; Kos, M.; Dobovsek, T.; Panter, G.

2026-02-26 hematology
10.64898/2026.02.24.26346946 medRxiv
Show abstract

Iron deficiency (ID) is the most common nutritional deficiency worldwide, often caused by insufficient dietary intakes. Oral supplementation is one of the means to improve iron status. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of two low-dose iron supplements - >Your< Iron Forte Capsules (YIFC) and Ferrous Sulfate Capsules (FSC) - in individuals with dietary ID. One hundred and one participants (mean age 30.6 years; 98% women) with low iron stores (mean serum ferritin 16.1 {micro}g/L) were randomized to receive either YIFC or FSC once daily for 12 weeks. Changes in blood indices and iron-related parameters were assessed at four and 12 weeks of intervention relative to baseline. The primary outcome was the change in hemoglobin (Hb) after 12 weeks. Eighty-seven participants completed the study. Both supplements significantly increased Hb at 12 weeks (YIFC: mean 6.52 g/L, p<0.001; FSC: mean 5.71 g/L, p<0.001). Product-related adverse events (AEs) were few (17% of all AEs) and of mild to moderate intensity only. One participant receiving FSC withdrew due to a probable product-related AE. The frequencies of product-related AEs were similar between study arms, however, statistically significantly more AEs judged to be definitely related to the product occurred in in the FSC arm. While product-related AEs were confined to the gastrointestinal tract in the YIFC arm, they affected multiple organ systems in the FSC arm. Supplementation with either YIFC or FSC proved as an effective, well-tolerated, and safe strategy for improving iron status in non-anemic dietary iron deficiency. In terms of the AE profile, supplementation with YIFC may offer advantages over supplementation with FSC.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.0%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 10%
17.9%
3
Nutrients
64 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.6%
50% of probability mass above
4
The Journal of Nutrition
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
5
Current Developments in Nutrition
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.7%
6
Atherosclerosis
29 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.3%
7
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.8%
8
Physiological Reports
35 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
9
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
19 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
10
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 52%
1.9%
11
Frontiers in Nutrition
23 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.9%
12
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
13
JCI Insight
241 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
14
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
15
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.9%
16
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
218 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.8%
17
American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology
32 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
18
Frontiers in Microbiology
375 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.8%
19
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
20
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 59%
0.7%
21
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
22
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
23
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
24
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
25
Journal of Proteome Research
215 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
26
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.5%
27
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
167 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
28
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%