Supplements for OCD: What Does the Evidence Show? NAC, Inositol, Nutrients, and Safety

Supplements are one of the most searched-for alternatives and add-ons for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), but the evidence is much thinner than the internet marketplace makes it appear. The clearest overall conclusion in 2026 is that no vitamin, mineral, amino acid, antioxidant, or herbal product has an evidence base comparable with established OCD treatment. N-acetylcysteine (NAC) has the largest modern research signal, yet its trials conflict. Inositol has intriguing but extremely small older studies. Zinc and selenium each have small preliminary trials. Several other products have negative or inconclusive randomized evidence.

That distinction matters because OCD is a clinical disorder defined by obsessions, compulsions, distress, time consumption, or impairment—not by a nutrient level or by whether a supplement changes anxiety for a few days. A supplement can be biologically plausible without being an effective OCD treatment, and a lower blood level of a nutrient in a group of people with OCD does not show that replacing that nutrient will reduce obsessions or compulsions.

This article reviews what randomized trials, systematic reviews, current clinical guidance, and authoritative safety sources actually show. It also separates treatment evidence from deficiency correction, explains why trial doses should not be copied into self-treatment, and identifies the points at which supplement use can interfere with medication, create toxicity, or become another form of compulsive monitoring and reassurance seeking.

The short answer: do supplements help OCD?

Some supplements have produced positive signals in small studies, but none is an established first-line treatment for OCD. NICE guidance continues to place cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) with exposure and response prevention (ERP) and serotonin-reuptake-inhibiting medication at the center of evidence-based care. Our OCD treatment guide explains the treatment sequence, and our ERP guide explains the behavioral treatment in detail.

Among supplements, NAC deserves the most serious discussion because multiple randomized trials and meta-analyses exist. The problem is consistency: a 2024 meta-analysis found a modest signal at five to eight weeks, a comparatively large 20-week phase III trial found no advantage over placebo, and a small 2026 randomized trial found greater improvement when NAC was added to sertraline. Those results justify continued research, not a claim that NAC is proven standard care.

Inositol is supported by one very small placebo-controlled crossover study as monotherapy and a second very small randomized crossover study that found no benefit when inositol was added to an ongoing serotonin reuptake inhibitor. Zinc and selenium each have small adjunctive studies that need replication. Omega-3 EPA failed in a small placebo-controlled OCD study. St. John’s wort failed in a larger placebo-controlled OCD trial and has clinically important drug-interaction risks.

For vitamins such as B12, C, D, E, and folate, the most important evidence problem is category confusion. Observational studies can ask whether blood levels differ between people with and without OCD. They cannot show that vitamin supplementation treats OCD. A documented deficiency should be assessed and treated for its medical significance, but that is a different clinical question from using a vitamin as an anti-OCD intervention.

Where supplements fit in evidence-based OCD care

The practical role of supplements becomes clearer when they are placed inside the actual OCD treatment hierarchy. Current guidance supports CBT that includes ERP, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and—when indicated—other specialist pharmacologic strategies. For adults with inadequate response, NICE describes sequential trials and combined treatment before specialist review and more advanced augmentation strategies. The NICE recommendations do not position nutritional supplements as replacements for that sequence.

This does not make every supplement irrelevant. An adjunct can still be worth studying if it adds benefit to a treatment that is already being delivered adequately, improves tolerability, addresses a confirmed deficiency, or eventually proves useful for a specific subgroup. The scientific question is whether it changes OCD outcomes beyond placebo and beyond the improvement expected from the underlying treatment.

For people whose symptoms remain severe, the higher-yield clinical step is usually to review diagnosis, adherence, ERP quality and dose, medication dose and duration, comorbidities, and the reason treatment has stalled. Evidence-supported options can include clomipramine and, in selected treatment-resistant cases under specialist care, antipsychotic augmentation. Supplements should not become a detour that postpones that review.

How to read supplement evidence for OCD

Supplement research is unusually easy to overinterpret because several different types of evidence are often mixed together. Mechanistic studies ask whether a compound affects glutamate, oxidative stress, inflammation, or a signaling pathway. Observational studies ask whether people with OCD have different nutrient levels. Open-label studies ask what happens when everyone knows they are receiving the intervention. Randomized placebo-controlled trials test whether the intervention outperforms an inactive comparison. Meta-analyses pool trials, but their result is only as stable as the trials they combine.

For OCD, the most useful outcome is usually change on a validated clinician-rated symptom measure such as the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS), together with response, functioning, adverse effects, and dropout. A statistically significant change can still be clinically modest. A tiny trial can also produce an unstable estimate that disappears in a larger study.

Adjunctive and monotherapy evidence also answer different questions. A supplement tested on top of an SSRI cannot automatically be described as a stand-alone treatment. Conversely, an old monotherapy signal in a dozen participants does not establish that adding the same compound to contemporary treatment will help. This distinction is central to the inositol literature and important for NAC as well.

N-acetylcysteine (NAC) for OCD

Why NAC has attracted attention

N-acetylcysteine is a precursor involved in glutathione synthesis and has effects on redox biology and glutamatergic signaling. Because glutamate-related mechanisms have been investigated in OCD, NAC became a plausible candidate for augmentation. Plausibility, however, is the beginning of a treatment hypothesis rather than evidence that the treatment works.

The broader literature has been encouraging enough to sustain research. A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis of so-called mitochondrial modulators across OCD and obsessive-compulsive-related disorders found a pooled symptom benefit for NAC, but the NAC subgroup showed high heterogeneity and evidence of possible small-study effects. The authors themselves emphasized the need for larger samples and longer studies. Read the 2022 meta-analysis.

What the 2024 NAC meta-analysis found

A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis focused on NAC augmentation in adults with moderate to severe OCD and included six randomized controlled trials with 195 participants. The pooled analysis found a statistically borderline improvement in total Y-BOCS score for studies lasting five to eight weeks: mean difference −2.95 points, 95% confidence interval −5.87 to −0.04, p = .05. It did not find a significant advantage at four weeks or less or at durations longer than 12 weeks, and the obsession and compulsion subscale analyses were not significantly different. Adverse-event rates were not significantly different between groups. Read the 2024 meta-analysis.

That pattern is not what a mature, consistently effective treatment literature looks like. A duration-specific signal based on a small number of trials can be real, but it can also be sensitive to study selection, sample size, concurrent medication, and random variation. The meta-analysis is therefore evidence of potential, not a clinical guarantee.

The negative 20-week phase III trial

The strongest caution comes from a 20-week, multisite, double-blind randomized phase III trial published in 2022. Ninety-eight participants with DSM-5 OCD were recruited, and 89 attended at least one follow-up. NAC was used as an adjunct at 2 to 4 g/day. At week 20, the mean difference in Y-BOCS score was 0.53 points, with a 95% interval from −2.18 to 3.23 and p = .70, favoring neither a clinically meaningful NAC benefit nor the positive signal suggested by smaller studies. Anxiety, depression, quality of life, functioning, and global impressions also did not improve relative to placebo. Gastrointestinal adverse events were generally mild. Read the phase III trial.

This trial matters because it was longer and larger than many earlier studies. One negative large trial does not erase every positive trial, but it materially lowers confidence in claims that NAC reliably improves OCD when added to usual treatment.

The positive 2026 trial

A newer 12-week double-blind randomized trial published in June 2026 again produced a positive signal. Thirty-five adults with moderate to severe OCD received sertraline 200 mg/day plus either NAC 2,400 mg/day or placebo. The NAC group showed a greater reduction in total Y-BOCS over time, with the strongest difference on the obsession subscale; compulsion-subscale improvement was comparable between groups. Adverse events were mild and similar. Read the 2026 trial.

The result is scientifically important because it used standardized high-dose sertraline in both groups. It is also preliminary because the sample was only 35 participants, and the reported response rates were unusually high in both arms—100% in the NAC group and 92.6% in the placebo group using a 35% Y-BOCS reduction threshold. Replication in larger, independent, multicenter trials is needed before this changes routine practice.

So, does NAC work for OCD?

The best 2026 answer is that NAC has mixed, preliminary adjunctive evidence. There is enough signal to justify continued study and enough inconsistency to prevent a confident treatment recommendation. Positive pooled results coexist with a substantial negative phase III trial and a small new positive trial. The evidence does not establish NAC as equivalent to ERP, an SSRI, clomipramine, or other guideline-based treatment.

This is also why trial doses should not be converted into personal dosing advice. Published OCD studies have used gram-level daily doses, but the optimal dose, duration, target subgroup, formulation, and medication context are not established. A clinician or pharmacist should review the person’s medications, medical conditions, pregnancy or breastfeeding status, age, and the specific product before use. “Used in a trial” is not the same thing as “appropriate for me.”

Inositol for OCD

Inositol is frequently promoted online for anxiety and OCD, but the OCD evidence rests on tiny studies from the 1990s. In a 1996 double-blind crossover trial, 13 people with OCD completed six weeks of 18 g/day inositol and six weeks of placebo. Y-BOCS scores were significantly lower during inositol treatment. Read the 1996 trial.

A later randomized double-blind crossover study asked a more clinically relevant augmentation question: would 18 g/day of inositol add benefit for people already taking a serotonin reuptake inhibitor? Ten patients completed six weeks of inositol and six weeks of placebo, and there was no significant difference between the phases. Read the 1999 augmentation trial.

Taken together, these studies are interesting but far too small to establish effectiveness. They also point in different directions depending on whether inositol was used alone or as an add-on. There is no robust modern replicated trial program showing that inositol should be a routine OCD treatment. High gram amounts used in research should not be treated as an over-the-counter dosing instruction.

Vitamins, homocysteine, and the difference between association and treatment

Vitamin findings are often presented online as if they show a nutritional cause of OCD. The evidence is more limited. A 2021 systematic review and meta-analysis found lower group-level levels of vitamin B12, vitamin E, and vitamin C and higher homocysteine in people with OCD than in controls; folate and vitamin D differences were not statistically significant in that analysis. The vitamin C estimate was highly heterogeneous, and the studies were observational. Read the 2021 meta-analysis.

A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis of five case-control studies, totaling 309 participants, also found lower B12 and higher homocysteine in OCD, while folate was not significantly different. Read the 2022 meta-analysis.

These findings do not show that low B12 causes OCD or that B12 supplementation treats obsessions and compulsions. Nutrient levels can differ because of diet, absorption, medication, illness, socioeconomic factors, sun exposure, supplement use, or many other variables. Cross-sectional associations cannot determine direction of causality.

The medically appropriate response to a suspected deficiency is to assess the deficiency on its own terms. If B12, iron, folate, vitamin D, or another nutrient is genuinely deficient, correction may be important for neurologic, hematologic, skeletal, metabolic, or general health. That medical treatment should not be marketed as a proven OCD therapy unless randomized OCD treatment trials demonstrate an anti-obsessional effect.

Zinc for OCD

Zinc has one small adjunctive randomized study that is often overextended in online summaries. In an eight-week double-blind trial, 12 patients received fluoxetine plus zinc sulfate and 11 received fluoxetine plus placebo. The zinc group had lower Y-BOCS scores at weeks two and eight. Read the zinc trial.

The study is a preliminary signal, not a basis for routine zinc treatment. It had only 23 completers and has not produced a large replicated OCD evidence base. It is also important not to misread the study’s reported 440 mg/day of zinc sulfate as 440 mg of elemental zinc or as a safe consumer target. Supplement labels and research papers may describe salts and elemental mineral content differently.

Excess zinc can cause nausea and other gastrointestinal symptoms, and sustained high intake can impair copper absorption and reduce immune function. The U.S. adult tolerable upper intake level is 40 mg/day of elemental zinc from food and supplements for generally healthy people, with different limits for children; medically supervised treatment of deficiency is a separate situation. NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: zinc safety.

Selenium for OCD

Selenium also has a small positive pilot study. A 2018 randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial enrolled 32 people described as having treatment-resistant OCD. Participants continued their SSRI, while the intervention group received 200 micrograms/day selenium and the control group received placebo for six weeks. The study reported greater Y-BOCS improvement with selenium and no significant difference in side effects. Read the selenium pilot trial.

The limitations are substantial: a single small, short trial cannot establish a dependable treatment effect, and the specific treatment-resistant population makes generalization difficult. Selenium therefore remains experimental as an OCD adjunct.

Selenium is also a good example of why “nutrient” does not mean “risk-free.” Chronic excessive intake can cause selenosis, with hair loss, nail changes, gastrointestinal symptoms, fatigue, metallic taste, garlic-like breath odor, and neurologic abnormalities. The U.S. adult tolerable upper intake level is 400 micrograms/day; the European Food Safety Authority adopted a lower adult upper limit of 255 micrograms/day in 2023. NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: selenium safety.

Omega-3 fatty acids: an OCD trial was negative

Omega-3 supplements have a broad mental-health reputation, but evidence should be diagnosis-specific. In a small placebo-controlled crossover trial, 11 people with OCD who were already taking a stable maximally tolerated SSRI received 2 g/day eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) or placebo for six weeks in each phase. EPA did not improve OCD symptoms beyond placebo. Read the EPA trial.

That study was small, so it does not settle every possible formulation, population, or nutritional indication. It does show why benefits suggested in depression, cardiovascular disease, or other conditions cannot simply be transferred to OCD. A supplement can have legitimate uses and still lack evidence as an OCD treatment.

Glycine: biologically interesting, clinically impractical evidence

Glycine has been studied because of its effects at the NMDA glutamate receptor. In a randomized adjunctive trial, 24 adults with OCD were enrolled and glycine was titrated toward 60 g/day. Taste, nausea, and nonadherence were major problems, leaving only 14 participants evaluable under the study’s criteria. The difference in Y-BOCS trajectory narrowly missed conventional statistical significance, with p = .053. Read the glycine trial.

An underpowered trial with major adherence problems is not a usable treatment recommendation. The study is better understood as a mechanistic research clue than as evidence that people should take large quantities of glycine on their own.

St. John’s wort: negative OCD evidence and important interactions

St. John’s wort is especially important to discuss because it is widely perceived as a “natural antidepressant.” In OCD, a 12-week double-blind placebo-controlled trial randomized 60 participants to St. John’s wort or placebo. Mean Y-BOCS improvement was 3.43 points with St. John’s wort and 3.60 with placebo, with no significant difference. Read the OCD trial.

Its safety profile also makes casual combination with psychiatric medication a poor assumption. The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health warns that St. John’s wort can interact dangerously with many medicines, can reduce the effectiveness of drugs including oral contraceptives and some anticoagulants, and can increase serious serotonin-related adverse effects when combined with certain antidepressants. NCCIH: St. John’s wort safety and interactions.

For a person taking an SSRI, clomipramine, or other serotonergic medication, this is exactly the kind of supplement that requires medication-specific professional review rather than trial-and-error self-combination.

Milk thistle and other herbal products

A small 2010 double-blind randomized pilot study compared milk thistle extract (Silybum marianum) with fluoxetine in 35 adults with OCD and reported no significant difference between the active treatment groups. Read the milk thistle trial. The study did not include a placebo group, so “no difference from fluoxetine” cannot establish equivalence or prove that milk thistle was effective; small active-comparator studies are particularly vulnerable to that mistake.

A broader 2020 review identified research on NAC, inositol, vitamins, trace elements, glycine, St. John’s wort, milk thistle, valerian, curcumin, borage, and other approaches, but concluded that the effectiveness of nutritional and herbal supplements in OCD required more conclusive evidence. Read the 2020 review. The evidence base has grown since then—especially for NAC—but it has not produced a supplement that can be treated as established OCD therapy.

Why a nutrient abnormality does not prove a supplement will treat OCD

This is the most important reasoning step in the entire topic. Suppose a study finds that people with OCD have lower average B12 than controls. At least four distinct hypotheses remain possible: low B12 contributes to symptoms; OCD-related eating patterns or comorbid illness contribute to low B12; a third factor affects both; or the association is partly due to sampling and confounding. Only an intervention study can test whether changing B12 changes OCD symptoms.

The same distinction applies to inflammatory markers, oxidative-stress measures, minerals, amino acids, microbiome findings, and genetic associations. A biomarker can help generate a treatment hypothesis without becoming a treatment. In evidence-based care, the path from mechanism to recommendation requires reproducible clinical outcomes.

Supplement safety: the evidence problem is not only “does it work?”

Dietary supplements can have pharmacologic effects. The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health emphasizes two major safety issues: interactions with medications and variability or contamination in products. In the United States, manufacturers generally do not have to prove a dietary supplement’s safety and effectiveness before it reaches the market in the way prescription drugs must demonstrate efficacy before approval. NCCIH supplement safety overview.

A research paper also tests a specific preparation, dose, schedule, and population. A retail product with the same ingredient name may differ in formulation, purity, excipients, or actual content. Evidence for one studied preparation is not automatically evidence for every product sold under that ingredient name.

Risk depends on the compound and the person. Relevant factors can include prescription and over-the-counter medicines, kidney or liver disease, bleeding risk, pregnancy and breastfeeding, age, surgery, allergies, gastrointestinal vulnerability, and other supplements taken at the same time. Children and adolescents require particular caution because adult evidence and adult safety thresholds cannot simply be scaled down informally.

Can supplement use become part of the OCD cycle?

For some people, the supplement itself is neutral while the way it is used becomes entangled with OCD. A person with contamination, health, responsibility, or “just-right” concerns may begin repeatedly researching ingredients, checking bodily sensations, changing doses to obtain certainty, asking others to confirm that a product is safe, or attributing every normal fluctuation in anxiety to the last capsule taken.

That pattern matters clinically because reassurance seeking, checking, avoidance, and repeated attempts to eliminate uncertainty can function as compulsions. The answer is not to label every health decision as compulsive. It is to notice whether the decision is being made once on the basis of evidence and medical context or repeated endlessly in pursuit of impossible certainty. ERP targets the compulsive process, including mental and digital checking, rather than demanding certainty about every bodily sensation.

How to evaluate an OCD supplement claim

• Ask whether the evidence is OCD-specific. A result in depression, generalized anxiety, trichotillomania, or an animal model does not establish efficacy for OCD.

• Ask whether the study was randomized and placebo-controlled. Open-label improvement can reflect expectancy, regression to the mean, concurrent treatment, or natural fluctuation.

• Look at sample size and replication. A positive study with 12 or 20 participants is a signal to replicate, not a stable treatment effect.

• Separate monotherapy from augmentation. A compound added to an SSRI has not thereby been proven to work alone.

• Check the outcome. Improvement in stress, sleep, a laboratory marker, or cognition does not necessarily mean obsessions and compulsions improved.

• Check safety and interactions using the exact product and full medication list. “Natural” is a source description, not a safety classification.

• Ask what happened in larger or later trials. Supplement claims often keep circulating after a negative replication.

Applied to NAC, this framework produces a balanced answer: multiple randomized studies exist; meta-analysis suggests a possible symptom signal; a larger phase III trial was negative; a new small standardized-sertraline trial was positive; adverse effects in trials were generally mild; and replication is still required. Applied to inositol, the answer is even less certain because the participant numbers are tiny and the positive monotherapy result was not matched by the augmentation study.

If you are considering a supplement while taking OCD medication

Bring the exact product label—not only the ingredient name—to a physician or pharmacist. Include prescription medicines, over-the-counter drugs, vitamins, herbal products, energy products, and substances used only occasionally. This matters because interactions can depend on formulation, dose, liver-enzyme effects, serotonergic activity, bleeding effects, minerals that bind other drugs in the gut, and overlapping adverse effects.

Do not stop, reduce, or increase an SSRI, clomipramine, or another psychiatric medication solely to “make room” for a supplement. Medication changes can produce withdrawal effects, symptom recurrence, or new adverse effects and should be planned with the prescriber. Likewise, a supplement that appears to help for several days should not be treated as proof that the underlying treatment is unnecessary.

If the goal is to address a possible deficiency, ask a separate question: is there a clinical reason to test for that deficiency? Testing should be driven by symptoms, diet, medical history, medications, risk factors, and clinical judgment rather than by an assumption that every case of OCD reflects a nutritional problem.

What the evidence supports in 2026

The evidence hierarchy is clearer than the supplement marketplace. ERP and established pharmacologic treatments have the strongest clinical foundation. NAC is the most developed supplement candidate but remains an investigational adjunct because results are mixed. Inositol, zinc, and selenium have small preliminary signals that require replication. Omega-3 EPA has a small negative OCD trial. St. John’s wort has a negative placebo-controlled OCD trial plus substantial interaction concerns. Glycine is inconclusive and difficult to tolerate at the studied dose. Vitamin and homocysteine associations are scientifically interesting but do not establish vitamin therapy for OCD.

That leaves room for individualized medical care. Treating a genuine deficiency, choosing a supplement for another established health indication, or participating in a clinical trial are different decisions from using a supplement as an OCD treatment. Keeping those decisions separate is one of the simplest ways to avoid overstating the evidence.

Frequently asked questions

What is the best supplement for OCD?

There is no supplement with enough evidence to be called the best established treatment for OCD. NAC has the largest modern research base among commonly discussed supplements, but the findings are mixed and include a negative phase III trial. Evidence-based OCD treatment still centers on ERP and established medication strategies.

Does NAC help OCD?

Possibly for some people as an adjunct, but the evidence is inconsistent. A 2024 meta-analysis found a modest time-limited signal, a 2022 20-week phase III trial found no benefit over placebo, and a small 2026 trial found greater improvement when NAC was added to sertraline. That pattern supports further research rather than a universal recommendation.

What dose of NAC is used for OCD?

OCD trials have studied gram-level daily NAC regimens, including 2–4 g/day in the 2022 phase III trial and 2.4 g/day in the 2026 sertraline-augmentation trial. These are study protocols, not personal dosing recommendations. There is no universally established NAC dose for treating OCD, and product, medical, and medication factors matter.

Does inositol work for OCD?

The evidence is very limited. A 13-person 1996 crossover study found improvement with inositol compared with placebo, while a 10-person 1999 study found no benefit when inositol was added to an ongoing serotonin reuptake inhibitor. Modern larger replication is lacking.

Are vitamin B12 or vitamin D treatments for OCD?

Not on current evidence. Meta-analyses have reported lower B12 and higher homocysteine in OCD groups, while vitamin D findings have not been consistent. These are association studies, not proof that supplementation reduces OCD symptoms. A confirmed deficiency can and should be addressed for its medical importance according to clinical guidance.

Can zinc or selenium help OCD?

Each has a small positive adjunctive trial, which makes them research signals rather than established treatments. Both minerals can also cause harm when taken in excessive amounts. Trial doses and salt formulations should not be copied from an abstract into self-treatment.

Does fish oil or omega-3 help OCD?

A small placebo-controlled crossover trial of adjunctive EPA in 11 people with OCD found no benefit over placebo. Evidence from other diagnoses should not be assumed to apply to OCD.

Is St. John’s wort useful for OCD?

A 60-person randomized placebo-controlled OCD trial found no benefit. It also has a high interaction burden and can cause serious serotonin-related adverse effects when combined with certain antidepressants, so it is particularly unsuitable for casual self-combination with psychiatric medication.

Can I take supplements with an SSRI for OCD?

Sometimes, but safety depends on the exact supplement, the specific SSRI, dose, other medications, and medical conditions. Some supplements alter drug metabolism or add serotonergic or other pharmacologic effects. A physician or pharmacist should review the complete product and medication list before combining them.

Should I test vitamin or mineral levels because I have OCD?

OCD by itself does not prove a vitamin or mineral deficiency. Testing is most useful when there is a clinical reason based on symptoms, diet, medical history, medication effects, pregnancy, malabsorption risk, or other factors. A clinician can decide which tests are appropriate rather than ordering broad panels to search for certainty.

Bottom line

Supplements for OCD are a research area, not a substitute treatment system. NAC has the strongest supplement-specific evidence but remains mixed and preliminary. Inositol, zinc, and selenium have small signals that need replication. Several other products have negative or inconclusive OCD trials. Nutrient-level differences do not prove supplementation will treat OCD, and supplement safety depends on dose, product quality, interactions, and the individual using it.

For someone deciding what to do next, the highest-value question is usually not “Which supplement should I try?” but “Have I received an adequate course of evidence-based OCD treatment, and is there a specific medical reason for this supplement?” That framing keeps experimental adjuncts in their proper place while leaving room for new evidence as the field develops.

References

Askari, S., Eghdami, S., Tavasoli, M., et al. (2026). Clinical symptoms and cognitive functioning following adjunctive N-acetylcysteine in obsessive-compulsive disorder: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Communications Medicine. DOI / source

Balandeh, E., Karimian, M., Behjati, M., & Mohammadi, A. H. (2021). Serum vitamins and homocysteine levels in obsessive-compulsive disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuropsychobiology, 80(6), 502–515. DOI / source

Eghdami, S., Eissazade, N., Heidari Mokarar, M., et al. (2024). The safety and efficacy of N-acetylcysteine as an augmentation in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 15, 1421150. DOI / source

Fux, M., Benjamin, J., & Belmaker, R. H. (1996). Inositol treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 153(9), 1219. DOI / source

Fux, M., Benjamin, J., & Belmaker, R. H. (1999). Inositol versus placebo augmentation of serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder: A double-blind cross-over study. International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology, 2(3), 193–195. DOI / source

Fux, M., Benjamin, J., & Nemets, B. (2004). A placebo-controlled cross-over trial of adjunctive EPA in OCD. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 38(3), 323–325. DOI / source

Greenberg, W. M., Benedict, M. M., Doerfer, J., et al. (2009). Adjunctive glycine in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder in adults. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43(6), 664–670. DOI / source

Kishi, T., Sakuma, K., & Iwata, N. (2022). Mitochondrial modulators for obsessive-compulsive and related disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Translational Psychiatry, 12, 263. DOI / source

Kobak, K. A., Taylor, L. V. H., Bystritsky, A., et al. (2005). St John’s wort versus placebo in obsessive-compulsive disorder: Results from a double-blind study. International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 20(6), 299–304. DOI / source

Kuygun Karcı, C., & Gül Celik, G. (2020). Nutritional and herbal supplements in the treatment of obsessive compulsive disorder. General Psychiatry, 33(2), e100159. DOI / source

National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. Safe use of complementary health products and practices. DOI / source

National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. St. John’s wort: Usefulness and safety. DOI / source

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Obsessive-compulsive disorder and body dysmorphic disorder: Treatment—Recommendations (CG31). DOI / source

National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements. Selenium: Fact sheet for health professionals. DOI / source

National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements. Zinc: Fact sheet for health professionals. DOI / source

Sarris, J., Byrne, G., Castle, D., et al. (2022). N-acetyl cysteine (NAC) augmentation in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder: A phase III, 20-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 117, 110550. DOI / source

Sayyah, M., Andishmand, M., & Ganji, R. (2018). Effect of selenium as an adjunctive therapy in patients with treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder: A pilot randomized double blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. Archives of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, 20(4), 57–65. DOI / source

Sayyah, M., Boostani, H., Pakseresht, S., & Malayeri, A. (2010). Comparison of Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertn. with fluoxetine in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 34(2), 362–365. DOI / source

Sayyah, M., Olapour, A., Saeedabad, Y. S., Parast, R. Y., & Malayeri, A. (2012). Evaluation of oral zinc sulfate effect on obsessive-compulsive disorder: A randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial. Nutrition, 28(9), 892–895. DOI / source

Yan, X., Liu, M., Yu, Y., Han, D., & Du, Y. (2022). Changes of serum homocysteine and vitamin B12, but not folate are correlated with obsessive-compulsive disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control studies. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, 754165. DOI / source