4.7 Article

Randomised clinical trial: intravenous vs oral iron for the treatment of anaemia after acute gastrointestinal bleeding

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 50, 期 3, 页码 258-268

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apt.15327

关键词

-

资金

  1. Vifor Pharma España Funding Source: Medline
  2. Walter Fürst Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Acute gastrointestinal bleeding is prevalent condition and iron deficiency anaemia is a common comorbidity, yet anaemia treatment guidelines for affected patients are lacking. Aim To compare efficacy and safety of intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) and oral ferrous sulphate (FeSulf) in patients with anaemia secondary to non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding Methods A prospective 42-day study randomised 61 patients with haemoglobin <10 g/dL upon discharge (Day 0) to receive FCM (n = 29; Day 0: 1000 mg, Day 7: 500 or 1000 mg; per label) or FeSulf (n = 32; 325 mg/12 hours for 6 weeks). Outcome measures were assessed on Days 0 (baseline), 7, 21 and 42. The primary outcome was complete response (haemoglobin >= 12 g/dL [women], >= 13 g/dL [men]) after 6 weeks. Results A higher proportion of complete response was observed in the FCM vs the FeSulf group at Days 21 (85.7% vs 45.2%; P = 0.001) and 42 (100% vs 61.3%; P < 0.001). Additionally, the percentage of patients with partial response (haemoglobin increment >= 2 g/dL from baseline) was significantly higher in the FCM vs the FeSulf group (Day 21:100% vs 67.7%; P = 0.001, Day 42:100% vs 74.2%; P = 0.003). At Day 42, normalisation of transferrin saturation to 25% or greater was observed in 76.9% of FCM vs 24.1% of FeSulf-treated patients (P < 0.001). No patient in the FCM group reported any adverse event vs 10 patients in the FeSulf group. Conclusion FCM provided greater and faster Hb increase and iron repletion, and was better tolerated than FeSulf in patients with iron deficiency anaemia secondary to non-variceal acute gastrointestinal bleeding.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据