Dataset Information

Hepcidin-guided screen-and-treat interventions against iron-deficiency anaemia in pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial in The Gambia.

ABSTRACT:

Background

WHO recommends daily iron supplementation for pregnant women, but adherence is poor because of side-effects, effectiveness is low, and there are concerns about possible harm. The iron-regulatory hormone hepcidin can signal when an individual is ready-and-safe to receive iron. We tested whether a hepcidin-guided screen-and-treat approach to combat iron-deficiency anaemia could achieve equivalent efficacy to universal administration, but with lower exposure to iron.

Methods

We did a three-arm, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial in 19 rural communities in the Jarra West and Kiang East districts of The Gambia. Eligible participants were pregnant women aged 18-45 years at between 14 weeks and 22 weeks of gestation. We randomly allocated women to either WHO's recommended regimen (ie, a daily UN University, UNICEF, and WHO international multiple-micronutrient preparation [UNIMMAP] containing 60 mg iron), a 60 mg screen-and-treat approach (ie, daily UNIMMAP containing 60 mg iron for 7 days if weekly hepcidin was <2·5 μg/L or UNIMMAP without iron if hepcidin was ≥2·5 μg/L), or a 30 mg screen-and-treat approach (ie, daily UNIMMAP containing 30 mg iron for 7 days if weekly hepcidin was <2·5 μg/L or UNIMMAP without iron if hepcidin was ≥2·5 μg/L). We used a block design stratified by amount of haemoglobin at enrolment (above and below the median amount of haemoglobin on every enrolment day) and stage of gestation (14-18 weeks vs 19-22 weeks). Participants and investigators were unaware of the random allocation. The primary outcome was the amount of haemoglobin at day 84 and was measured as the difference in haemoglobin in each screen-and-treat group compared with WHO's recommended regimen; the non-inferiority margin was set at -5·0 g/L. The primary outcome was assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all women who completed the study. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN21955180.

Findings

Between June 16, 2014, and March 3, 2016, 498 participants were randomised, of whom 167 were allocated to WHO's recommended regimen, 166 were allocated to the 60 mg per day screen-and-treat approach, and 165 were allocated to the 30 mg per day screen-and-treat approach. 78 participants were withdrawn or lost to follow-up during the study; thus, the per-protocol population comprised 140 women assigned to WHO's recommended regimen, 133 allocated to the 60 mg screen-and-treat approach, and 147 allocated to the 30 mg screen-and-treat approach. The screen-and-treat approaches did not exceed the non-inferiority margin. Compared with WHO's recommended regimen, the difference in the amount of haemoglobin at day 84 was -2·2 g/L (95% CI -4·6 to 0·1) with the 60 mg screen-and-treat approach and -2·7 g/L (-5·0 to -0·5) with the 30 mg screen-and-treat approach. Adherence, reported side-effects, and adverse events were similar between the three groups. The most frequent side-effect was stomachache, which was similar in the 60 mg screen-and-treat group (82 cases per 1906 person-weeks) and with WHO's recommended regimen (81 cases per 1974 person-weeks; effect 1·0, 95% CI 0·7 to 1·6); in the 30 mg screen-and-treat group the frequency of stomachache was slightly lower than with WHO's recommended regimen (58 cases per 2009 person-weeks; effect 0·7, 95% CI 0·5 to 1·1). No participants died during the study.

Interpretation

The hepcidin-guided screen-and-treat approaches had no advantages over WHO's recommended regimen in terms of adherence, side-effects, or safety outcomes. Our results suggest that the current WHO policy for iron administration to pregnant women should remain unchanged while more effective approaches continue to be sought.

Funding

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the UK Medical Research Council.

SUBMITTER: Bah A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7109523 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Anaemia is a common presenting feature among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and it is associated with poor clinical outcomes and quality of life. It is not clear if growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15) or hepcidin are useful as early markers of iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) among non-dialysis CKD patients. We therefore evaluated the diagnostic validity of GDF-15 and hepcidin as biomarkers of IDA among non-dialysis CKD patients in Johannesburg, South Africa. Method An analytic cross-sectional study was conducted among non-dialysis CKD patients (n?=?312) and apparently healthy controls (n?=?184) from June to December 2016 at an Academic Hospital, in Johannesburg, South Africa. An interviewer administered proforma was used to obtain the socio-biological and clinical characteristics of the participants. Serum levels of GDF-15 and hepcidin were determined. Predictive logistic regression models were built and post estimation receiver operator characteristics were determined to evaluate diagnostic validity of hepcidin and GDF-15 for absolute and functional iron deficiency anaemia. Results About half (50.6%) of the participants were female while the participants’ mean age was 49.7?±?15.8?years. The predictive value of diagnosing absolute IDA among CKD patients using GDF-15 was 74.02% (95% CI: 67.62–80.42%) while the predictive value of diagnosing functional IDA among CKD patients using hepcidin was 70.1% (95% CI: 62.79–77.49%).There was a weak negative correlation between hepcidin levels and GFR (r?=???0.19, p?=?0.04) in anaemic CKD patients, and between serum GDF-15 and haemoglobin (r?=???0.34, p?=?0.001). Serum ferritin (??=?0.00389, P-value<?0.001), was a predictor of log hepcidin. MCHC (??=???0.0220, P-value 0.005) and CKD stage (??=?0.4761, P-value <?0.001), race (??=?0.3429, P-value?=?0.018) were predictors of log GDF-15. Both GDF-15 (adj OR: 1.0003, 95%CI: 1.0001–1.0005, P?=?0.017) and hepcidin (adj OR: 1.003, 95%CI: 1.0004–1.0055, P?=?0.023) were associated with iron deficiency anaemia after multiple linear regression modelling. Conclusion Serum GDF-15 is a potential biomarker of absolute IDA, while hepcidin levels can predict functional IDA among CKD patients.

Project description:Introduction:The burden of iron deficiency anaemia during pregnancy and post-partum continues to remain high especially in India. Challenges to treatment include gastrointestinal side effects and non compliance to oral iron therapy. Newer parenteral formulations need to be explored as alternatives. Methods:Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published between years 2011 and 2018 comparing anaemic pregnant and post-partum women treated with intravenous iron sucrose versus oral iron was performed. The primary outcomes were mean maternal haemoglobin, serum ferritin and haematocrit at the end of 1st, 2nd, 4th and 6th weeks and comparison of adverse effects. Results:Eighteen studies including 1633 antenatal women were randomly assigned to intravenous iron sucrose (n?=?821) or oral iron [ferrous sulphate, ferrous ascorbate or fumarate] group (n?=?812) in ten trials . Another eight studies compared iron sucrose infusion with oral iron in 713 post-partum women who were randomly assigned to intravenous iron sucrose group (n?=?351) or oral iron group (n?=?362). Cumulative analysis of all the time points indicates that the estimated mean values of Hb in the intravenous iron sucrose and oral iron groups were 10.11 g/dl and 9.33 g/dl, respectively, in antenatal group, while it was 10.57 g/dl and 9.74 g/dl in post-partum. The estimated mean ferritin level from first week to six weeks was 63.1 ?g/l and 28.6 ?g/l, respectively, in intravenous and oral iron groups. Cumulative estimate of haematocrit in the intravenous sucrose and oral iron over 6 weeks showed that the mean values in the respective groups were 30.5% and 29.5% in antenatal and 33.8% and 31.6%, respectively, in post-partum groups. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the reliability and consistency of the results. Oral iron was associated with significant gastrointestinal side effects. There was no significant difference in birthweight between the groups. Conclusion:This meta-analysis demonstrates that intravenous iron sucrose is more effective than oral iron therapy for pregnant and post-partum women with iron deficiency anaemia. It is an effective and safe alternative to address the problem of iron deficiency especially in those who require rapid replacement of iron stores though medical personnel for intravenous administration of drug is required.Trial registration CRD42015024343.

Project description:BackgroundNumerous iron preparations are available for the treatment of iron deficiency anaemia in pregnancy. We aimed to provide a summary of the effectiveness and safety of iron preparations used in this setting.MethodsWe did a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registers, and grey literature for trials published in any language from Jan 1, 2011, to Feb 28, 2021. We included trials including pregnant women with iron deficiency anaemia and evaluating iron preparations, irrespective of administration route, with at least 60 mg of elemental iron, in comparison with another iron or non-iron preparation. Three authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and did a risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane tool (version 1.0). The primary outcome was the effectiveness of iron preparations, evaluated by changes in haemoglobin concentration at 4 weeks from baseline. The secondary outcomes were change in serum ferritin concentration at 4 weeks from baseline and treatment-related severe and non-severe adverse events. We did random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses. Side-effects were reported descriptively for each trial. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018100822.FindingsAmong 3037 records screened, 128 full-text articles were further assessed for eligibility. Of the 53 eligible trials (reporting on 9145 women), 30 (15 interventions; 3243 women) contributed data to the network meta-analysis for haemoglobin and 15 (nine interventions; 1396 women) for serum ferritin. The risk of bias varied across the trials contributing to network meta-analysis, with 22 of 30 trials in the network meta-analysis for haemoglobin judged to have a high or medium global risk of bias. Compared with oral ferrous sulfate, intravenous iron sucrose improved both haemoglobin (mean difference 7·17 g/L, 95% CI 2·62-11·73; seven trials) and serum ferritin (mean difference 49·66 μg/L, 13·63-85·69; four trials), and intravenous ferric carboxymaltose improved haemoglobin (mean difference 8·52 g/L, 0·51-16·53; one trial). The evidence for other interventions compared with ferrous sulfate was insufficient. The most common side-effects with oral iron preparations were gastrointestinal effects (nausea, vomiting, and altered bowel movements). Side-effects were less common with parenteral iron preparations, although these included local pain, skin irratation, and, on rare occasions, allergic reactions.InterpretationIron preparations for treatment of iron deficiency anaemia in pregnancy vary in effectiveness, with good evidence of benefit for intravenous iron sucrose and some evidence for intravenous ferric carboxymaltose. Clinicians and policy makers should consider the effectiveness of individual preparations before administration, to ensure effective treatment.FundingNone.