OBJECTIVES: To analyse the efficacy and possible adverse effects of folate supplementation (folate occurring naturally in foods, provided as fortified foods or additional supplements such as tablets) in people with sickle cell disease.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also conducted additional searches in both electronic databases and clinical trial registries.Date of last search: 07 December 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, placebo-controlled trials of folate supplementation for sickle cell disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of the included trials and extracted and analysed the data included in the review. We used the standard Cochrane-defined methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS: One trial, undertaken in 1983, was eligible for inclusion in the review. This was a double-blind placebo-controlled quasi-randomised triaI of supplementation of folic acid in people with sickle cell disease. A total of 117 children with homozygous sickle cell (SS) disease aged six months to four years of age participated over a one-year period (analysis was restricted to 115 children).Serum folate measures, obtained after trial entry at six and 12 months, were available in 80 of 115 (70%) participants. There were significant differences between the folic acid and placebo groups with regards to serum folate values above 18 µg/l and values below 5 µg/l. In the folic acid group, values above 18 µg/l were observed in 33 of 41 (81 %) compared to six of 39 (15%) participants in the placebo (calcium lactate) group. Additionally, there were no participants in the folic acid group with serum folate levels below 5 µg/l, whereas in the placebo group, 15 of 39 (39%) participants had levels below this threshold. Haematological indices were measured in 100 of 115 (87%) participants at baseline and at one year. After adjusting for sex and age group, the investigators reported no significant differences between the trial groups with regards to total haemoglobin concentrations, either at baseline or at one year. It is important to note that none of the raw data for the outcomes listed above were available for analysis.The proportions of participants who experienced certain clinical events were analysed in all 115 participants, for which raw data were available. There were no statistically significant differences noted; however, the trial was not powered to investigate differences between the folic acid and placebo groups with regards to: minor infections, risk ratio 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.15); major infections, risk ratio 0.89 (95% confidence interval 0.47 to 1.66); dactylitis, risk ratio 0.67 (95% confidence interval 0.35 to 1.27); acute splenic sequestration, risk ratio 1.07 (95% confidence interval 0.44 to 2.57); or episodes of pain, risk ratio 1.16 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.92). However, the investigators reported a higher proportion of repeat dactylitis episodes in the placebo group, with two or more attacks occurring in 10 of 56 participants compared to two of 59 in the folic acid group (P < 0.05).Growth, determined by height-for-age and weight-for-age, as well as height and growth velocity, was measured in 103 of the 115 participants (90%), for which raw data were not available. The investigators reported no significant differences in growth between the two groups.The trial had a high risk of bias with regards to random sequence generation and incomplete outcome data. There was an unclear risk of bias in relation to allocation concealment, outcome assessment, and selective reporting. Finally, There was a low risk of bias with regards to blinding of participants and personnel. Overall the quality of the evidence in the review was low.There were no trials identified for other eligible comparisons, namely: folate supplementation (fortified foods and physical supplementation with tablets) versus placebo; folate supplementation (naturally occurring in diet) versus placebo; folate supplementation (fortified foods and physical supplementation with tablets) versus folate supplementation (naturally occurring in diet).

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the efficacy and possible adverse effects of folate supplementation (folate occurring naturally in foods, provided as fortified foods or additional supplements such as tablets) in people with SCD.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also conducted additional searches in both electronic databases and clinical trial registries.Date of last search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 17 November 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, placebo-controlled trials of folate supplementation for SCD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors assessed We used the standard Cochrane-defined methodological procedures.Four review authors independently assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of the included trials and extracted and analysed the data included in the review. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS: One trial, undertaken in 1983, was eligible for inclusion in the review. This was a double-blind placebo-controlled quasi-randomised triaI of supplementation of folic acid in people with SCD. A total of 117 children with homozygous sickle cell (SS) disease aged six months to four years of age participated over a one-year period (analysis was restricted to 115 children).Serum folate measures, obtained after trial entry at six and 12 months, were available in 80 of 115 (70%) participants. There were significant differences between the folic acid and placebo groups with regards to serum folate values above 18 µg/L and values below 5 µg/L (low-quality evidence). In the folic acid group, values above 18 µg/L were observed in 33 of 41 (81%) compared to six of 39 (15%) participants in the placebo (calcium lactate) group. Additionally, there were no participants in the folic acid group with serum folate levels below 5 µg/L, whereas in the placebo group, 15 of 39 (39%) participants had levels below this threshold. Haematological indices were measured in 100 of 115 (87%) participants at baseline and at one year. After adjusting for sex and age group, the investigators reported no significant differences between the trial groups with regards to total haemoglobin concentrations, either at baseline or at one year (low-quality evidence). It is important to note that none of the raw data for the outcomes listed above were available for analysis.The proportions of participants who experienced certain clinical events were analysed in all 115 participants, for which raw data were available. There were no statistically significant differences noted; however, the trial was not powered to investigate differences between the folic acid and placebo groups with regards to: minor infections, risk ratio (RR) 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.15) (low-quality evidence); major infections, RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.66) (low-quality evidence); dactylitis, RR 0.67 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.27) (low-quality evidence); acute splenic sequestration, RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.44 to 2.57) (low-quality evidence); or episodes of pain, RR 1.16 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.92) (low-quality evidence). However, the investigators reported a higher proportion of repeat dactylitis episodes in the placebo group, with two or more attacks occurring in 10 of 56 participants compared to two of 59 in the folic acid group (P < 0.05).Growth, determined by height-for-age and weight-for-age, as well as height and growth velocity, was measured in 103 of the 115 participants (90%), for which raw data were not available. The investigators reported no significant differences in growth between the two groups.The trial had a high risk of bias with regards to random sequence generation and incomplete outcome data. There was an unclear risk of bias in relation to allocation concealment, outcome assessment, and selective reporting. Finally, There was a low risk of bias with regards to blinding of participants and personnel. Overall the quality of the evidence in the review was low.There were no trials identified for other eligible comparisons, namely: folate supplementation (fortified foods and physical supplementation with tablets) versus placebo; folate supplementation (naturally occurring in diet) versus placebo; folate supplementation (fortified foods and physical supplementation with tablets) versus folate supplementation (naturally occurring in diet).