Intravenous versus oral iron for the treatment of anemia in inflammatory bowel disease

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Stefanos Bonovas, Gionata Fiorino, Mariangela Allocca, Theodore Lytras, Argirios Tsantes, Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet, Silvio Danese

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere2308
JournalMedicine (United States)
Volume95
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2016

Fingerprint

Inflammatory Bowel Diseases
Meta-Analysis
Anemia
Iron
Randomized Controlled Trials
Odds Ratio
Therapeutics
Publication Bias
Iron-Deficiency Anemias
Registries
Hemoglobins
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Clinical Trials
Databases

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

@article{d0fbb7741bb14463a36427d29e93a520,
title = "Intravenous versus oral iron for the treatment of anemia in inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Stefanos Bonovas and Gionata Fiorino and Mariangela Allocca and Theodore Lytras and Argirios Tsantes and Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet and Silvio Danese",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/MD.0000000000002308",
language = "English",
volume = "95",
journal = "Medicine; analytical reviews of general medicine, neurology, psychiatry, dermatology, and pediatries",
issn = "0025-7974",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Intravenous versus oral iron for the treatment of anemia in inflammatory bowel disease

T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AU - Bonovas, Stefanos

AU - Fiorino, Gionata

AU - Allocca, Mariangela

AU - Lytras, Theodore

AU - Tsantes, Argirios

AU - Peyrin-Biroulet, Laurent

AU - Danese, Silvio

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84958191413&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84958191413&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MD.0000000000002308

DO - 10.1097/MD.0000000000002308

M3 - Article

VL - 95

JO - Medicine; analytical reviews of general medicine, neurology, psychiatry, dermatology, and pediatries

JF - Medicine; analytical reviews of general medicine, neurology, psychiatry, dermatology, and pediatries

SN - 0025-7974

IS - 2

M1 - e2308

ER -