Personalised Nutraceutical Treatment Guided by MTHFR Genotype in Mental Health: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background & Aims: One-carbon metabolism plays a central role in neurotransmitter synthesis, methylation capacity, and neurobiological resilience. Variants in the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) gene can reduce enzymatic activity, affecting folate- and methionine-cycle functions and potentially influencing biological pathways relevant to mood and anxiety disorders. Personalised nutraceutical treatment strategies, particularly those addressing methylation capacity through targeted B-vitamin, folate, and adjunctive metabolic interventions are increasingly implemented in integrative clinical practice, yet evidence regarding their clinical outcomes remains limited. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 50 adults attending an integrative general practice clinic for anxiety and/or depression. All received personalised nutraceutical treatment informed by clinical assessment, laboratory testing and, for 37/50 patients, MTHFR genotyping. Psychological distress was measured using the Kessler-10 (K10) scale at baseline and approximately three months later. Secondary analyses evaluated whether outcomes differed by MTHFR genotype, whether specific supplements (e.g., L-methylfolate and SAMe) were associated with greater improvement, whether biomarker changes correlated with symptom change, and the safety/tolerability profile. Results: Across the full cohort, mean K10 scores significantly decreased by four points over the treatment period, with 72% of patients showing clinical improvement. Reductions in psychological distress were seen across all MTHFR genotypes, including individuals with homozygous variant genotypes. Supplement-specific analyses showed improvement among those receiving methylfolate or SAMe, although the differences were not statistically significant. Following nutraceutical treatment, biomarker analyses demonstrated significant increases in serum vitamin B12 and modest reductions in homocysteine, but biomarker shifts did not correlate strongly with K10 change. No serious adverse events or clinically significant abnormalities in liver or renal function were identified. Conclusions: In this real-world primary care cohort, personalised nutraceutical treatment, grounded in one-carbon metabolism support and applied alongside usual care, was associated with clinically meaningful reductions in psychological distress. Outcomes were comparable across MTHFR genotypes when treatments were appropriately tailored, suggesting that genotype and biomarker-informed nutraceutical strategies may mitigate potential metabolic disadvantages. These findings support further controlled research into precision nutraceutical psychiatry for anxiety and depression. Secondary analyses of genotype subgroup, specific supplements, and biomarker–outcome associations are reported alongside Benjamini–Hochberg FDR-adjusted p-values and should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating.