Dataset Information

Oral vs intravenous iron therapy for postpartum anemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To perform a systematic review of randomized trials comparing oral vs intravenous (IV) iron therapy to treat postpartum anemia. DATA SOURCES:Data sources were as follows: PubMed (1972-2017); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL (1972-2017); CINAHL (1972-2017); Web of Science; Excerpta Medica Database, and EMBASE (1972-2017). STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:We included randomized trials comparing oral vs IV iron monotherapy to treat postpartum anemia (classified as a hemoglobin <12 g/dL). STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS:Study quality was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. The primary outcome was hemoglobin concentration at 6 weeks postpartum. Secondary outcomes included hemoglobin concentration at 1-5 weeks postpartum, ferritin concentration at 1-6 weeks postpartum, and maternal adverse outcomes. For meta-analysis, mean differences and odds ratios using a random effects model were calculated. Risk of heterogeneity was reported as I2. RESULTS:A total of 15 randomized trials met our inclusion criteria (n = 1001 and 1 181 women receiving oral iron and IV iron, respectively); 4 studies reported data for our primary outcome. We observed higher postpartum week 6 hemoglobin concentrations in the IV iron group compared to the oral iron group (mean difference, 0.9 g/dL; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.4-1.3; P = .0003). Compared to oral iron, women receiving IV iron had higher hemoglobin concentrations at postpartum weeks 1, 2, and 3; higher ferritin concentrations at postpartum weeks 1, 2, 4, and 6; an increased likelihood of skin flushing (odds ratio [OR], 6.95; 95% CI, 1.56-31.03; P = .01; I2 = 0%); and a decreased likelihood of constipation (OR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.03-0.21; P < .00001, I2 = 27%) and dyspepsia (OR, 0.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.42; P = .004; I2 = 0%). The reported event rate for anaphylaxis among women receiving IV iron was 0.6%. CONCLUSION:In this systematic review, among women with postpartum anemia, hemoglobin concentrations at 6 weeks postpartum were almost 1 g/dL higher in women who received IV iron compared to oral iron. The safety profile of IV iron was also reassuring. Given the weaker hemoglobin response and higher risk of gastrointestinal side effects with oral iron use, our findings suggest that IV iron be considered as a viable treatment option for postpartum iron deficiency anemia.

SUBMITTER: Sultan P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7060493 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Oral vs intravenous iron therapy for postpartum anemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sultan Pervez P Bampoe Sohail S Shah Raj R Guo Nan N Estes Jaclyn J Stave Christopher C Goodnough Lawrence Tim LT Halpern Stephen S Butwick Alex James AJ

American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 20181219 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To perform a systematic review of randomized trials comparing oral vs intravenous (IV) iron therapy to treat postpartum anemia.<h4>Data sources</h4>Data sources were as follows: PubMed (1972-2017); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL (1972-2017); CINAHL (1972-2017); Web of Science; Excerpta Medica Database, and EMBASE (1972-2017).<h4>Study eligibility criteria</h4>We included randomized trials comparing oral vs IV iron monotherapy to treat postpartum anemia ...[more]

PMID: 30578747

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPreoperative anemia is a common comorbidity that often necessitates allogeneic blood transfusion (ABT). As there is a risk associated with blood transfusions, preoperative intravenous iron (IV) has been proposed to increase the hemoglobin to reduce perioperative transfusion; however, randomized controlled trials (RCT) investigating this efficacy for IV iron are small, limited, and inconclusive. Consequently, a meta-analysis that pools these studies may provide new and clinically useful information.Methods/designDatabases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews; Cochrane-controlled trial registry; Scopus; registries of health technology assessment and clinical trials; Web of Science; ProQuest Dissertations and Theses; Clinicaltrials.gov; and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) were searched. Also, we screened all the retrieved reference lists.Selection criteriaTitles and abstracts were screened for relevance (i.e., relevant, irrelevant, or potentially relevant). Then, we screened full texts of those citations identified as potentially applicable.ResultsOur search found 3195 citations and ten RCTs (1039 participants) that met our inclusion criteria. Preoperative IV iron supplementation significantly decreases ABT by 16% (risk ratio (RR): 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71, 0.99, p = 0.04). In addition, preoperatively, hemoglobin levels increased after receiving IV iron (mean difference [MD] between the study groups: 7.15 g/L, 95% CI: 2.26, 12.04 g/L, p = 0.004) and at follow-up > 4 weeks postoperatively (MD: 6.46 g/L, 95% CI: 3.10, 9.81, p = 0.0002). Iron injection was not associated with increased incidence of non-serious or serious adverse effects across groups (RR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.78, 1.65, p = 0.52) and (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.44, 2.10, p = 0.92) respectively.ConclusionsWith moderate certainty, due to the high risk of bias in some studies in one or two domains, we found intravenous iron supplementation is associated with a significant decrease in the blood transfusions rate, and modest hemoglobin concentrations rise when injected pre-surgery compared with placebo or oral iron supplementation. However, further full-scale randomized controlled trials with robust methodology are required. In particular, the safety, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness of different intravenous iron preparations require further evaluation.

Project description:Anemia is the most prevalent extraintestinal complication of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Our aim was to evaluate the comparative efficacy and harm of intravenous (IV) versus oral iron supplementation for correcting anemia in adult IBD patients.We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to integrate evidence from randomized controlled trials having enrolled adults with IBD, and comparing IV versus oral iron (head-to-head) for correcting iron-deficiency anemia. Medline, Embase, Scopus, and the Web of Science database were searched through July 2015. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the ClinicalTrials.gov, and international conference proceedings were also investigated. Two reviewers independently abstracted study data and outcomes, and rated each trial's risk-of-bias. Pooled odds ratio (OR) estimates with their 95% CIs were calculated using fixed- and random-effects models.Five eligible studies, including 694 IBD patients, were identified. In meta-analysis, IV iron demonstrated a higher efficacy in achieving a hemoglobin rise of ?2.0?g/dL as compared to oral iron (OR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.13, 2.18). Treatment discontinuation rates, due to adverse events or intolerance, were lower in the IV iron groups (OR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.59). Similarly, the occurrence of gastrointestinal adverse events was consistently lower in the IV iron groups. On the contrary, serious adverse events (SAEs) were more frequently reported among patients receiving IV iron preparations (OR: 4.57, 95% CI: 1.11, 18.8); however, the majority of the reported SAEs were judged as unrelated or unlikely to be related to the study medication. We found no evidence of publication bias, or between-study heterogeneity, across all analyses. Risk of bias was high across primary studies, because patients and personnel were not blinded to the intervention.IV iron appears to be more effective and better tolerated than oral iron for the treatment of IBD-associated anemia.

Project description:Perioperative anemia frequently occurs in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of perioperative intravenous iron therapy (IVIT) on transfusion and recovery profiles during orthopedic surgery. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar for eligible clinical trials (randomized controlled trials, RCTs; case-control studies, CCSs) in comparing IVIT and no iron therapy, up to September 2018. Primary outcomes were the effects of IVIT on the proportion of patients transfused and units of red blood cells (RBCs) transfused perioperatively. Secondary outcomes were the effects of IVIT on recovery profiles, such as length of hospital stay (LOS), post-operative infection, and mortality. Subgroup analysis was performed based on iron dose (low: ≤ 300 mg, high: > 400 mg), IVIT period (pre-operative, post-operative, perioperative), and study design. We identified 12 clinical trials (4 RCTs with 616 patients and 8 CCSs with 1,253 patients). IVIT significantly reduced the proportion of patients transfused by 31% (RR, 0.69; P = 0.0002), and units of RBCs transfused by 0.34 units/person (MD, -0.34; P = 0.0007). For subgroup analysis by iron dose, low- or high-dose IVIT significantly reduced the proportion of patients transfused (RR, 0.73, P = 0.005; RR, 0.68, P = 0.008), and RBC units transfused (MD, -0.47, P < 0.0001; MD, -0.28, P = 0.04). For subgroup analysis by period, IVIT administered post-operatively significantly reduced the proportion of patients transfused (post-operative: RR, 0.60, P = 0.002; pre-operative: RR, 0.74, P = 0.06) and RBC units transfused (post-operative: MD, -0.44, P <0.00001; pre-operative: MD, -0.29, P = 0.06). For subgroup analysis by study design, IVIT decreased the proportion of patients transfused and RBC units transfused in the group of CCSs, but IVIT in the group of RCTs did not. IVIT significantly shortened LOS by 1.6 days (P = 0.0006) and reduced post-operative infections by 33% (P = 0.01). IVIT did not change mortality. Perioperative IVIT during orthopedic surgery, especially post-operatively, appears to reduce the proportion of patients transfused and units of RBCs transfused, with shorter LOS and decreased infection rate, but no change in mortality rate. These were only found in CCSs and not in RCTs due to the relatively small number of RCTs with low to high risk of bias.

Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:The safety of intravenous iron dosing in dialysis is uncertain. Higher-dose intravenous iron may be associated with a higher risk of infections, cardiovascular events, hospitalizations, and mortality. This systematic review aimed to determine the safety of higher-dose versus lower-dose intravenous iron, oral iron, or no iron supplementation in adult patients treated with dialysis. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS:We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and CINAHL from inception to January 6, 2017 for randomized, controlled trials and observational studies comparing higher-dose intravenous iron with lower-dose intravenous iron, oral iron, or no iron in patients treated with dialysis that had all-cause mortality, infection, cardiovascular events, or hospitalizations as outcomes. RESULTS:Of the 2231 eligible studies, seven randomized, controlled trials and 15 observational studies met inclusion criteria. The randomized, controlled trials showed no association between higher-dose intravenous iron (>400 mg/mo for most studies) and mortality (six studies; n=970; pooled relative risk, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.47 to 1.84; follow-up ranging from 35 days to 26 months) or infection (four studies; n=743; relative risk, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.74 to 1.41). The observational studies showed no association between higher-dose intravenous iron (>200 mg/mo for most studies) and mortality (eight studies; n=241,408; hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.98 to 1.21; follow-up ranging from 3 to 24 months), infection (eight studies; n=135,532; pooled hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.99 to 1.28), cardiovascular events (seven studies; n=135,675; hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.90 to 1.56), or hospitalizations (five studies; n=134,324; hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.19). CONCLUSIONS:Higher-dose intravenous iron does not seem to be associated with higher risk of mortality, infection, cardiovascular events, or hospitalizations in adult patients on dialysis. Strength of this finding is limited by small numbers of participants and events in the randomized, controlled trials and statistical heterogeneity in observational studies.

Project description:IntroductionIron deficiency anemia (IDA) is common among obstetric and gynecologic patients. This systematic review aimed to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of commonly used intravenous (IV) iron formulations, ferric carboxymaltose (FCM), and iron sucrose (IS) in the treatment of IDA in obstetric and gynecologic patients.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IV iron replacement using FCM and IS up to October 2019. The primary outcome was to compare the efficacy of FCM and IS, assessed by measuring serum hemoglobin (Hb) and ferritin levels before and after iron replacement. The secondary outcome was to compare the safety of FCM and IS, assessed by the incidence of adverse events during iron replacement. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3.ResultsWe identified 9 RCTs with 910 patients (FCM group, n = 456; IS group, n = 454). Before iron replacement, FCM and IS group patients had similar baseline Hb (mean difference [MD], 0.04 g/dL; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.07 to 015; I2 = 0%; P = 0.48) and ferritin levels (MD, -0.42 ng/mL; 95% CI, -1.61 to 0.78; I2 = 45%; P = 0.49). Following iron replacement, patients who received FCM had higher Hb (MD, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.25-1.08; I2 = 92%; P = 0.002) and ferritin levels (MD, 24.41; 95% CI, 12.06-36.76; I2 = 75%; P = 0.0001) than patients who received IS. FCM group showed a lower incidence of adverse events following iron replacement than IS group (risk ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35-0.80; I2 = 0%; P = 0.003). Serious adverse events were not reported in any group.ConclusionFCM group showed better efficacy in increasing Hb and ferritin levels and a favorable safety profile with fewer adverse events compared with IS group for IDA treatment among obstetric and gynecologic patients. However, this meta-analysis was limited by the small number of RCTs and high heterogeneity.Trial registrationThe review was prospectively registered with the International Prospective Registry of Systematic Reviews (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, registration number CRD42019148905).

Dataset Information

Oral vs intravenous iron therapy for postpartum anemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Oral vs intravenous iron therapy for postpartum anemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure