Journal articles: 'Oral iron'

1

Cappellini, Maria Domenica, and Paolo Pattoneri. "Oral Iron Chelators." Annual Review of Medicine 60, no. 1 (February 2009): 25–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.med.60.041807.123243.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

Hansen, Christine M. "Oral Iron Supplements." American Pharmacy 34, no. 3 (March 1994): 66–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0160-3450(15)30485-2.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Kwiatkowski, Janet L. "Oral Iron Chelators." Pediatric Clinics of North America 55, no. 2 (April 2008): 461–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pcl.2008.01.005.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Kwiatkowski, Janet L. "Oral Iron Chelators." Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America 24, no. 1 (February 2010): 229–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hoc.2009.11.001.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Dunea, G., M. A. Swagel, U. Bodiwala, and J. A. L. Arruda. "Intradialytic Oral Iron Therapy." International Journal of Artificial Organs 17, no. 5 (May 1994): 261–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/039139889401700503.

Full text

Abstract:

In order to test the limits of what can be achieved with oral iron therapy and eliminate the factor of noncompliance, we conducted a series of observational studies in an 140-patient inner city dialysis unit. In these studies the patients received supervised iron therapy as 3-4 ferrous sulfate (325 mg) tablets during each dialysis. Acceptance and tolerance was high, less than 10% refusing to take the tablets. In two separate observational studies oral intradialytic iron yielded a hematocrit 28% in 69% of patients and 30% in 42-52%. There was no correlation between the final hematocrit and serum ferritin or transferrin saturation. The response to iron therapy could frequently not be predicted by the ferritin levels or transferrin saturation. We conclude that in view of the known hazards of intravenous iron dextran, oral intradialityc therapy should be tried first and that a good response can be expected in one half to two thirds of hemodialysis patients.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

Forman, Edwin. "Goodbye oral iron therapy?" Pediatric Blood & Cancer 60, no. 11 (July 30, 2013): 1731. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pbc.24710.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Littlewood, Tim J. "Intravenous or oral iron?" American Journal of Hematology 87, no. 2 (December 3, 2011): 134–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajh.22249.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

Arzoo, Shabera, Shereen Yousof, Jahanara Rahman, and Sameena Chowdhury. "Iron Deficiency Anemia in Pregnancy: Intravenous Iron Sucrose versus Oral Iron Sulfate." Bangladesh Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 33, no. 1 (July 3, 2020): 40–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/bjog.v33i1.43541.

Full text

Abstract:

Introduction: Injectable iron sucrose and oral ferrous sulfate both are used for the correctionof anaemia in second and third trimester of pregnancy. But injectable iron is supposed to bemore effective than oral iron, as it needs less time for correction of anaemia and efficacy ismore. Oral iron is cost effective but more time consuming.The objective of the study was to compare the safety of intravenous iron sucrose complex inthe treatment of iron deficiency anemia in third trimester of pregnancy. To compare theefficacy of intravenous iron with oral iron. Method: A randomised controlled trial was conducted in which pregnant women with irondeficiency were sequentially selected from the pregnant women attended antenatal clinic ofOPD of Institute of Child and Maternal Health (ICMH) and assigned either to injectable or tooral ferrous sulfate by random number table. Each study patient was given the total calculatedamount of injectable iron sucrose {Hb deficit (gm/l) × body weight (kg) × 0.24+ storage ironmg } in divided dose 200 mg in 200 ml normal saline intravenously over 1 hour everyalternate day . Each patient of the control group was given ferrous sulfate 200mg orally threetimes a day for 4 weeks. Pregnant women follow up at 4 weeks and 8 weeks after gettreatment by oral and injectable iron. During follow up monitored for adverse effects, clinicaland laboratory response and haemoglobin percentage were observed. Result: There were 75 patients in injectable group and 75 patients in oral group. Injectablegroup achieved a significantly higher Hb level (11.49 ± 0.39) than oral group Hb level (10.39± 0.75) after 8 weeks of treatment. Injectable group showed no major side effects, only twopatient had complains .One patient complain of epigastic pain and one patient complain oftachycardia while in oral group complain of nausea and vomiting, epigastic pain, constipation,allergic reaction was found in 42.0%, 39.3%,35.7% and 3.6% respectively. Conclusion: Iron sucrose complex appears to be a safe and effective in the treatment ofiron deficiency anemia. Bangladesh J Obstet Gynaecol, 2018; Vol. 33(1) : 40-44

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

Garg, Apurva, Manju Agarwal, Uma Shankar, and Shrikant Shetty. "Comparative study of oral iron and intravenous iron sucrose for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia in pregnancy." International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology 6, no. 1 (December 20, 2016): 172. http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20164652.

Full text

Abstract:

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of iron sucrose with oral iron in the treatment of iron deficiency anemia of pregnancy.Methods: An interventional comparative study was conducted at Jhalawar Medical College, Jhalawar involving 80 pregnant women with iron deficiency anemia from March 2016 to August 2016. Inclusion criteria were gestational age between 24-32 weeks with established iron deficiency anemia, with hemoglobin between 7-10g/dl. Target Hemoglobin was 11 g/dl. In intravenous iron sucrose group iron sucrose dose was calculated from following formula: total iron dose required (mg) = 2.4 x body weight in Kg x (target Hb – Patient’s Hb g/dl) + 500. In oral iron, group patient received ferrous-sulphate 335 mg daily BD. Hb level were reviewed at 2, 4, 6 weeks.Results: Change in Hemoglobin level from baseline significantly higher in IV iron group than oral iron group. In IV iron, group mean value of baseline Hb was 8.07±0.610 g/dl and in oral iron group was 8.48±0.741 g/dl. At the end of 6-week mean hemoglobin in IV iron sucrose was 10.66±0.743 g/dl and in oral iron group was 10.08±0.860 g/dl.Conclusions: Intravenous iron sucrose elevates more Hb than oral iron, with less adverse effects.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

DeLoughery, Thomas G. "Safety of Oral and Intravenous Iron." Acta Haematologica 142, no. 1 (2019): 8–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000496966.

Full text

Abstract:

As the adverse effects of iron deficiency are better recognized, the use of oral and intravenous iron has increased dramatically. Oral iron is often poorly tolerated, with up to 70% or more of patients noting gastrointestinal issues; this may affect adherence to therapy. In addition, many patients will not respond to oral iron due to their underlying illness. Intravenous iron is being used more frequently to replete iron stores. True anaphylaxis is very rare, but complement-mediated infusion reactions may be seen in up to 1 in every 200 patients. Previous concerns about intravenous iron increasing the risk of infection or cardiovascular disease are unfounded.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

11

G., Suganya, and D. Vimala. "A comparative study of oral iron and intravenous iron in iron deficient antenatal mothers." International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology 7, no. 5 (April 28, 2018): 1848. http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20181916.

Full text

Abstract:

Background: The aim of the study is to compare the efficacy, tolerance and compliance between oral iron and intravenous infusion of iron in iron deficient antenatal mother.Methods: This is a prospective randomised clinical and interventional study in the department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in Vinayaka Mission Kirupananda Variyar Medical College and Hospital. The antenatal women attending the antenatal op were screened for Hb status. Those antenatal women of gestational age 16-34 weeks with Hb level between 7-10g% and diagnosed to have iron deficiency anemia by peripheral smear and serum ferritin were included in this study after getting informed consent. The total numbers of 100 mothers were allotted into two major groups, group A and group B of 50 subjects each. Group A: 50 pregnant women given oral iron supplementation (carbonyl iron 100 mg twice a day). Group B: 50 pregnant women given intravenous iron sucrose therapy after calculating the total iron requirement. The rise in hemoglobin in both the groups were comparedResults: In this study the mean rise of hemoglobin in carbonyl iron was 0.914±0.20 gm% whereas in iron sucrose group was 2.43±0.20gm%. This showed that iron sucrose (i.v) had better rise in Hb than carbonyl iron (oral).Conclusions: The present study revealed that intravenous iron sucrose therapy was bettertolerated with higher increase in mean haemoglobin compared to oral iron therapy. There were no serious side effects with intravenous iron sucrose therapy. Intravenous iron sucrose is a good substitute to oral iron therapy in moderate anaemia.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

12

Diav-Citrin, Orna, and Gideon Koren. "ORAL IRON CHELATION WITH DEFERIPRONE." Pediatric Clinics of North America 44, no. 1 (February 1997): 235–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0031-3955(05)70471-5.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

13

GRADY, R., A. SALBE, M. HILGARTNER, and P. GIARDINA. "Oral iron chelation with HBED." Netherlands Journal of Medicine 47, no. 5 (November 1995): A56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0300-2977(96)80107-0.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

14

Kontoghiorghes, G. J. "Oral iron chelation is here." BMJ 303, no. 6813 (November 23, 1991): 1279–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.303.6813.1279.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

15

O'Connor, N. T. "Oral iron chelation is here." BMJ 303, no. 6816 (December 14, 1991): 1545–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.303.6816.1545-c.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

16

Agarwal, M. B., Chandra Viswanathan, J. Ramanathan, DavidE Massil, Samir Shah, S. S. Gupte, Deepa Vasandani, and R. R. Puniyani. "Oral iron chelation with L1." Lancet 335, no. 8689 (March 1990): 601. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(90)90380-n.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

17

Dittrich, Elisabeth, Heidi Puttinger, Barbara Schneider, Walter H. Hörl, Marianne Haag–Weber, and Andreas Vychytil. "Is Absorption of High-Dose Oral Iron Sufficient in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients?" Peritoneal Dialysis International: Journal of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis 20, no. 6 (November 2000): 667–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089686080002000615.

Full text

Abstract:

Objective Iron supplementation plays a major role in erythropoietin-treated end-stage renal disease patients. For peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients, oral iron substitution is more convenient than intravenous therapy. However, disturbed iron absorption and adverse effects may be limiting factors for oral treatment. Nevertheless, we compared the response to a high-dose and low-dose oral iron absorption test between PD patients and healthy control subjects. Patients and Interventions In 34 PD patients and 15 healthy control subjects, blood samples were taken at baseline as well as 2, 4, and 8 hours after oral intake of 4 tablets iron sulfate (105 mg elemental iron per tablet). In a subgroup of 6 PD patients and 6 control subjects, the oral iron absorption test was repeated using 1 tablet iron sulfate. Results There was no significant difference in the increase in serum iron during the test between the two groups. As known for healthy subjects, iron absorption was significantly better in PD patients with absolute iron deficiency compared to those with functional iron deficiency. Iron-repleted PD patients showed the lowest iron absorption, indicating that a high dose of oral iron did not overwhelm the ability of the bowel tract to reject unneeded iron. Increasing the oral iron dose from 1 to 4 tablets was followed by a better response in a small subgroup of PD patients compared to control subjects. Side effects such as nausea and vomiting occurred more frequently during high-dose oral iron in control subjects than in PD patients (20% vs 8.8%). Conclusion High-dose oral iron is well absorbed in iron-depleted PD patients. This kind of oral iron therapy should be considered in some subgroups of PD patients with iron deficiency, particularly in those patients with poor vascularization of arm veins or intolerance to intravenous iron preparations.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

18

Svoboda, Martin, and Karolína Píšťková. "Oral iron administration in suckling piglets – a review." Acta Veterinaria Brno 87, no. 1 (2018): 77–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.2754/avb201887010077.

Full text

Abstract:

Iron deficiency is presently a serious problem in suckling piglets on pig farms. The most often used method of anaemia prevention in piglets is parenteral administration of iron dextran. Oral iron represents an alternative to this method. The goal of this article is to review current knowledge on oral iron administration in suckling piglets. The substances that can be used for this purpose include iron dextran, iron salts, iron chelates, carbonyl iron, an iron polymaltose complex and iron microparticles. The different methods of oral iron administration in piglets are discussed.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

19

Gómez-Ramírez, Susana, Elisa Brilli, Germano Tarantino, and Manuel Muñoz. "Sucrosomial® Iron: A New Generation Iron for Improving Oral Supplementation." Pharmaceuticals 11, no. 4 (October 4, 2018): 97. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ph11040097.

Full text

Abstract:

Iron deficiency (ID) is usually treated with oral iron salts, but up to 50% of patients complain of gastrointestinal side effects, leading to reduced treatment compliance. Intravenous (IV) iron formulations are increasingly safer, but there is still a risk of infusion and hypersensitivity reactions and the need for a venous access and infusion monitoring. Sucrosomial® iron (SI) is an innovative oral iron formulation in which ferric pyrophosphate is protected by a phospholipid bilayer plus a sucrester matrix (sucrosome), which is absorbed through para-cellular and trans-cellular routes (M cells). This confers SI unique structural, physicochemical and pharmacokinetic characteristics, together with high iron bioavailability and excellent gastrointestinal tolerance. The analysis of available evidence supports oral SI iron as a valid option for ID treatment, which is more efficacious and better tolerated than oral iron salts. SI has also demonstrated similar effectiveness, with lower risks, in patients usually receiving IV iron (e.g., chronic kidney disease, cancer, bariatric surgery). Thus, oral SI emerges as a most valuable first option for treating ID, even more for subjects with intolerance to or inefficacy of iron salts. Moreover, SI should be also considered as an alternative to IV iron for initial and/or maintenance treatment in different patient populations.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

20

Lachowicz, J. I., V. M. Nurchi, D. Fanni, C. Gerosa, M. Peana, and M. A. Zoroddu. "Nutritional Iron Deficiency: The Role of Oral Iron Supplementation." Current Medicinal Chemistry 21, no. 33 (July 6, 2014): 3775–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/0929867321666140706143925.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

21

Cherry, Katy. "Intravenous versus oral iron supplementation for iron-deficiency anemia." Nature Clinical Practice Gastroenterology & Hepatology 3, no. 2 (February 2006): 63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncpgasthep0375.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

22

Rai, Lavanya, Syal Neeru, and NSreekumaran Nair. "Iron Sucrose Versus Oral Iron Therapy in Pregnancy Anemia." Indian Journal of Community Medicine 37, no. 4 (2012): 214. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0970-0218.103467.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

23

Bulbul, Ajaz, Emilio Araujo Mino, Vyas Dake, Adriana Bautista, Lisa Lentkowski, and Masoud Khorsand-Sahbaie. "Alternate Day Oral Iron Dosing in Iron Deficiency Anemia." Blood 132, Supplement 1 (November 29, 2018): 4891. http://dx.doi.org/10.1182/blood-2018-99-112341.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract Introduction Practice guidelines for Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) suggest taking ferrous iron in divided doses. Recent studies suggest that split daily dosing may increase serum hepcidin which reduces iron bioavailability. Adherence to oral iron supplementation (OIS) can also be a barrier to treatment. In practice iron dosing varies significantly with unclear evidence of benefit from a particular dosing regimen. Methods This is a retrospective study evaluating outcomes of different schedules of OIS in 146 patients with IDA (Hb <12.2 and/or ferritin of < 30 ng/mL) treated between June 2017-June 2018. Patients with multifactorial anemia were excluded. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square were used for analysis. Results The mean age was 66.8 ± 1.3; women constituted 70% of the cohort (M/F 44/102). Mean Hb was 11.59 ± 0.12; Median ferritin was 22 ng/ml (IQR 10-63). Four different schedules of OIS evaluated were every other day (QOD) 60% (88/146), daily (QD)15% (22/146), twice daily (BID) 12%(18/146) and three times a day (TID) 12% (18/146). After one month of OIS a mean increase in Hb was (0.44 mg/dl + 0.04). GI toxicity occurred in 10.2% (15/146), therapy discontinuation in 4.8% (7/146) and IV iron was required in 9.6 % (14/146) of all cases. Among patients without GI toxicity 65% (85/131) were on QOD vs other schedules (X² 11.7 p=0.008), 63% (87/139) were compliant on QOD (X² 9.05 p=0.029). Salvage IV iron was not required in 64% (84/132) of QOD patients (X² 22.7 p=<0.001). One month post therapy, patients on QOD schedule had ≥1 g/dl improvement in 38% (10/26) (X² 9.18 p= 0.027) and increase of >0.5g/dl in 68% (69/102) of cases (X² 9.63 p= 0.022). Conclusions Alternate day iron dosing may optimize iron absorption and is possibly a better tolerated regimen. Larger prospective studies need to confirm these findings Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

24

Ferguson, William S. "Iron deficiency: a new alternative when oral iron fails." Journal of Pediatrics 180 (January 2017): 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.11.025.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

25

Phipps, Oliver, Hafid O. Al-Hassi, Mohammed N. Quraishi, Edward A. Dickson, Jonathan Segal, Helen Steed, Aditi Kumar, Austin G. Acheson, Andrew D. Beggs, and Matthew J. Brookes. "Oral and Intravenous Iron Therapy Differentially Alter the On- and Off-Tumor Microbiota in Anemic Colorectal Cancer Patients." Cancers 13, no. 6 (March 16, 2021): 1341. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers13061341.

Full text

Abstract:

Iron deficiency anemia is a common complication of colorectal cancer and may require iron therapy. Oral iron can increase the iron available to gut bacteria and may alter the colonic microbiota. We performed an intervention study to compare oral and intravenous iron therapy on the colonic tumor-associated (on-tumor) and paired non-tumor-associated adjacent (off-tumor) microbiota. Anemic patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma received either oral ferrous sulphate (n = 16) or intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (n = 24). On- and off-tumor biopsies were obtained post-surgery and microbial profiling was performed using 16S ribosomal RNA analysis. Off-tumor α- and β-diversity were significantly different between iron treatment groups. No differences in on-tumor diversity were observed. Off-tumor microbiota of oral iron-treated patients showed higher abundances of the orders Clostridiales, Cytophagales, and Anaeroplasmatales compared to intravenous iron-treated patients. The on-tumor microbiota was enriched with the orders Lactobacillales and Alteromonadales in the oral and intravenous iron groups, respectively. The on- and off-tumor microbiota associated with intravenous iron-treated patients infers increased abundances of enzymes involved in iron sequestration and anti-inflammatory/oncogenic metabolite production, compared to oral iron-treated patients. Collectively, this suggests that intravenous iron may be a more appropriate therapy to limit adverse microbial outcomes compared to oral iron.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

26

Johnson, David W. "Intravenous versus Oral Iron Supplementation in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients." Peritoneal Dialysis International: Journal of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis 27, no. 2_suppl (June 2007): 255–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089686080702702s44.

Full text

Abstract:

Iron supplementation is required in a preponderance of peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients treated with erythropoietic stimulatory agents (ESAs). Although many authors and clinical practice guidelines recommend primary oral iron supplementation in ESA-treated PD patients, numerous studies have clearly demonstrated that, because of a combination of poor bioavailability of oral iron, gastrointestinal intolerance, and noncompliance, oral iron supplementation is insufficient for maintaining a positive iron balance in these patients over time. Controlled trials have demonstrated that, in iron-deficient and iron-replete PD patients alike, intravenous (IV) iron supplementation results in superior iron stores and hemoglobin levels with fewer side effects than oral iron produces. Careful monitoring of iron stores in patients receiving IV iron supplementation is important in view of conflicting epidemiologic links between IV iron loading and infection and cardiovascular disease. Emerging new iron therapies such as heme iron polypeptide and ferumoxytol may further enhance the tolerability, efficacy, and ease of administration of iron in PD patients.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

27

Johnson, David W., Karen A. Herzig, Ruth Gissane, Scott B. Campbell, Carmel M. Hawley, and Nicole M. Isbel. "Oral versus Intravenous Iron Supplementation in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients." Peritoneal Dialysis International: Journal of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis 21, no. 3_suppl (December 2001): 231–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089686080102103s41.

Full text

Abstract:

The vast majority of erythropoietin (EPO)–treated peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients require iron supplementation. Most authors and clinical practice guidelines recommend primary oral iron supplementation in PD patients because it is more practical and less expensive. However, numerous studies have clearly demonstrated that oral iron therapy is unable to maintain EPO-treated PD patients in positive iron balance. Once patients become iron-deficient, intravenous iron administration has been found to more effectively augment iron stores and hematologic response than does oral therapy. We recently performed a prospective, cross-over trial in 28 iron-replete PD patients and showed that twice-monthly outpatient iron polymaltose infusions (200 mg) were a practical and safe alternative to oral iron. That treatment produced significant increases in hemoglobin concentration and body iron stores. The additional expense of intravenous iron therapy was completely offset by reductions in EPO dosage. Careful monitoring of iron stores is important in patients receiving intravenous iron supplementation in view of epidemiologic links with infection and cardiovascular disease. Nevertheless, a growing body of evidence suggests that, as has been found for hemodialysis patients, intravenous iron therapy is superior to oral iron supplementation in EPO-treated PD patients.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

28

Jahan, Dilshad, Mohammad Manirul Islam, Mohammad Zaid Hossain, Masuma Ahmed Salsabil, Iftadul Islam, AKM Ziaul Huque, Md Enamul Karim, Nihar Ranjan Mazumder, and MA Khan. "Comparative Study of Intravenous Iron Sucrose Vs Oral Ferrous Sulfate Therapy for Uncomplicated Iron Deficiency Anemia." Journal of Dhaka Medical College 27, no. 2 (March 10, 2020): 175–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/jdmc.v27i2.45830.

Full text

Abstract:

Background: Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is one of the most frequent nutritional deficiency leading to morbidity and mortality in whole world. Oral iron therapy as well as intravenous (IV) iron therapy can be given to treat the IDA patients. Objective: To compare the efficacy and hematological changes of Oral and IV iron preparation in patients with uncomplicated iron deficiency anemia. Method: An interventional, prospective study in patients with uncomplicated IDA anemia receiving IV iron sucrose and Oral iron ferrous sulfate were included. Clinical history, baseline hemoglobin, anemia indices data were recorded in a case record form. A total number of 80 patients were enrolled in this study. 40 patients (Group A) were treated with IV iron sucrose and another 40 patients (Group B) were treated with oral iron ferrous sulfate. After therapy Hemoglobin level, RBC indices and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were observed. Place and period of Study: Study was carried out in the Department of Hematology at Dhaka Medical College Hospital (DMCH), from July 2015 to June 2016. Results: The mean age of total participants was 35.77 ± 16.08 (range of 13 – 75 years). In this study female (72.5%) is predominant than male (27.5%). Oral and IV iron preparations significantly (P<0.0001) improved mean hemoglobin, anemia indices at the end of study. However, mean increase in hemoglobin were significant (P<0.0001) with IV iron sucrose (7.6 ± 2.9) gm/dl, as compared to Oral ferrous sulfate (6.4± 2.2)gm/dl, after 2 months of therapy. In this study Hemoglobin increases in group A (IV iron arm) almost 1mg/kg/week and in group B (oral iron arm) 0.8 mg/dl/week).Surprisingly, ADRs were more in patients treated with oral ferrous sulfate (38%) compared to iron sucrose (26%). Conclusion: IV iron sucrose improves hemoglobin, anemia indices and replenish iron stores rapidly and is well tolerated than oral iron preparations. J Dhaka Medical College, Vol. 27, No.2, October, 2018, Page 175-181

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

29

Gaspe Mudiyanselage, Nilupa, Tarek Elrafei, Beth Lewis, Mary King, Marianna Strakhan, Karenza Alexis, and Richard Gralla. "Economic, Transfusion, and Efficacy Outcomes with the Addition of IV Iron Sucrose to Oral Iron Therapy in Pregnancy Associated Iron Deficiency Anemia." Blood 128, no. 22 (December 2, 2016): 4737. http://dx.doi.org/10.1182/blood.v128.22.4737.4737.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract Background: Prior studies have indicated that transfusion is unusual (2%) in pregnant women with iron deficiency anemia. Nonetheless, compliance with oral iron replacement can be an issue and physicians may wish to use IV iron therapy in markedly anemic pregnant women. Objectives: to evaluate the effectiveness of adding intravenous iron sucrose concentrate (ISC) to pregnant patients already taking oral iron in terms of effect on hemoglobin, effect on ferritin levels, rates of transfusion, and cost. Methods: We analyzed all referrals from Obstetrics to Hematology clinic and Obstetrics consultation (Internal medicine) clinic from January 2014 to June 2016. Of the 176 pregnant patients, 98 were referred for anemia, including 81 patients with Hgb < 12 g/dl and ferritin < 20 ug/L. All had previously been given oral ferrous sulfate prescriptions. Patients with hemoglobinopathy were excluded. All 81 patients were advised to continue on the oral iron, and 40 were given IV iron sucrose (ISC group). Results: The average cumulative dose of iron sucrose was 700 mg, a mean of 5.575 doses (initiated in the third trimester in 38 of 40 patients). The lowest antepartum Hgb was 8.18 g/dl in the ISC group and 9.58 in the oral only group; there was an average Hgb increase of 2.17 vs 1.76 g/dl respectively (p=.107 NS and the 0.41 g/dl difference was considered to be of no clinical consequence). 89% in the ISC group vs 30% in the oral achieved a ferritin >20 (p=0.000015). No adverse events in the IV iron group were reported. There was 1 transfusion in the oral iron group attributable to iron deficiency (2.4%) vs none in the IV iron group (p = 0.107 NS). Two patients were transfused in the antenatal period before IV iron was started and 1 transfused because of post-partum hemorrhage. The total cost of the IV iron therapy would add an average of $1,500 per patient. Thus, and additional cost of $60,000 in IV iron would be required to prevent 1 transfusion [40:1]. Conclusions: ISC corrects ferritin in more patients than oral iron replacement, but did not significantly increase Hgb levels or have a meaningful impact on the transfusion rate. The additional cost and lack of clinically improved outcomes with IV iron argue against its use and in favor of strategies to ensure compliance with oral iron. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

30

Prajapati, Saloni M., and Meha K. Patel. "A study of efficacy of oral iron and intravenous iron sucrose in the treatment of moderate anemia in pregnancy." International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology 8, no. 6 (May 28, 2019): 2221. http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20192163.

Full text

Abstract:

Background: Iron deficiency anaemia in pregnancy is a common medical problem throughout India with the burden of disease impacting on both mother and the newborn. It is also responsible for increased incidence of premature births, low birth weight babies and high perinatal mortality. Intravenous iron sucrose and oral iron therapy are the primary therapeutic modalities for management of iron deficiency anaemia during pregnancy, but its efficacy during pregnancy is still a matter of argument among healthcare personnel. Therefore the objective of this study is to compare the effect of oral iron and intravenous iron sucrose on hemoglobin and other blood indices among pregnant females with iron deficiency anemia.Methods: Randomized clinical trial was conducted among 400 females between 20 to 34 weeks gestation with iron deficiency anemia who were managed either with oral ferrous sulphate or intravenous iron sucrose therapy. Z test was used for statistical analysis for significance with 95% confidence interval. The hemoglobin and blood indices levels before and after initiating treatment in both groups were compared.Results: Intravenous and oral; both the treatments were associated with increment in hemoglobin but this rise was significantly more in the intravenous group than in oral. Comparing participants with low pretreatment hemoglobin among both groups, participants in the intravenous group were better benefited than oral due to respective treatment.Conclusions: Intravenous iron therapy is much effective in correcting iron deficiency anemia in pregnancy than oral iron therapy. It restores iron stores more promptly. Also intravenous iron is better tolerated compared to oral iron.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

31

Bargotya, Mona, Payel Das, Lalit Kumar, and Mukul Aggarwal. "Comparative Improvement of RBC Indices and Hemoglobin After Oral Versus Iron Therapy in Patients of Iron Deficiency Anemia." Annals of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine 5, no. 9 (September 14, 2018): A770–773. http://dx.doi.org/10.21276/apalm.2057.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

32

Okam, Maureen, Todd Koch, and Minh Ha Tran. "Clinical Criteria for Transitioning from Oral to IV Iron Replacement Therapy in Patients with Iron Deficiency Anemia." Blood 124, no. 21 (December 6, 2014): 211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1182/blood.v124.21.211.211.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract Introduction: Oral iron supplementation is an effective means of iron replacement. Nevertheless, there is a frequent need to transition patients with iron deficiency anemia (IDA) from oral to intravenous (IV) iron therapy for inadequate response. No definitive guidance on the optimal timing for this change in therapy exists. Serum hepcidin may be a marker in predicting response to oral iron therapy, but currently, hepcidin assays are not commercially available. We evaluated the ability of various early response characteristics to accurately predict for an overall hemoglobin (Hb) response to oral iron. Our objective was to identify an early predictor of overall Hb response in patients on oral iron treatment as a guide to the decision to switch from oral to IV iron in patients unlikely to benefit from continued oral iron. Methods: Proprietary datasets from 6 published randomized studies in which oral iron (325 mg of ferrous sulfate containing 65 mg of elemental iron, t.i.d.[4 studies], 304.3 mg capsules containing 100 mg bivalent iron b.i.d [1 study] and as prescribed by the investigator [1 study]) was used as a comparator to ferric carboxymaltose were analyzed. Five studies were pooled into one primary analysis dataset and one study was analyzed separately due to differences in study design that precluded pooling. Patients were grouped by the underlying etiology of their IDA (postpartum, heavy uterine bleeding, gastrointestinal, and others) and stratified by those who had ≥ 1 g/dL Hb change after 14 days of oral iron therapy (responders) and those who did not (non-responders). Further analyses evaluated Hb response at various time points based on initial 14 day Hb response (≥ 1 g/dL change vs < 1 g/dL). We systemically evaluated changes in hemoglobin, absolute reticulocyte count, % reticulocyte count, ferritin, and transferrin saturation at specific time points to determine their ability to predict overall Hb response. Results: A total of 738 patients who were randomized to oral iron were included in the pooled study analysis. In the separate study, a total of 253 patients, all non-responders, were included. The mean baseline values for the 6 studies were Hb 9.9 g/dL, ferritin 19.9 ng/mL, and TSAT 16.9%. The vast majority of patients (96%) were females with a mean age of 36 years. In the pooled analysis, by day 14 of oral iron treatment, 27.2% (201/738) of patients had a Hb increase of < 1 g/dL (non-responders). Of these 201 patients, less than half (46.8%, 94/201) achieved an increase in Hb ≥ 1 g/dL from baseline after 2 additional weeks of oral iron (by day 28) and only 63.2% (127/201) had an increase in Hb ≥ 1g/dL from baseline after 6 to 8 weeks of oral iron (42 to 56 days). Furthermore, only 27.4% (55/201) and 5.5% (11/201) had an increase in Hb of 2 or 3 g/dL respectively at the Day 42 or 56 measurement. In comparison, responders (those who had a Hb increase ≥ 1 g/dL by 14 days of treatment) sustained a robust Hb response with continued dosing of oral iron. After 4 weeks of oral iron (28 days), 84.9% of the responders had a ≥ 2 g/dL increase in Hb from baseline. After 6 to 8 weeks of oral iron (42 or 56 days), 92.9% of the patients had ≥ 2 g/dL Hb increase from baseline, significantly different from non-responders (p < 0.0001). Patients with etiology of postpartum anemia had the most robust Hb response to oral iron. Results observed in the sixth study were similar to the pooled analysis. Only 10.2% (17/167) of non-responders who continued oral iron after day 14 achieved a Hb ≥ 2g/dL by Day 35, whereas 38.8% (57/147) who were switched to IV ferric carboxymaltose achieved a Hb > 2/dL by Day 35 (p =0.0001). Hb response after 14 days of oral iron was a strong predictor of overall response (sensitivity = 90.1%, specificity = 79.3%, positive predictive value = 92.9%, negative predictive value= 72.7%), surpassing other parameters evaluated in this study. Conclusion: In the absence of significant continuous blood loss, Hb measurements taken 14 days after initiation of oral iron therapy can reliably predict overall response in Hb to oral iron therapy. Accordingly, day 14 Hb may be a useful tool for clinicians in determining when to switch patients from oral to IV iron. Disclosures Koch: Luitpold Pharmaceuticals: Employment.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

33

Tate, Snehal S., Arti S. Shirsath, and Neelesh S. Risbud. "Can oral iron tablets be replaced by the intravenous iron sucrose in antenatal period? A new thought." International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology 7, no. 8 (July 26, 2018): 3103. http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20183298.

Full text

Abstract:

Background: Anaemia is the commonest medical disorder that contributes significantly to maternal morbidity and mortality, preterm delivery, intrauterine growth restriction. Pregnant women are particularly vulnerable to anaemia because they have dual iron requirements both for their growth and growth of foetus. A high proportion of women in both industrialized and developing countries become anaemic during pregnancy. Intravenous iron therapy is safe convenient and effective than oral iron therapy in prevention of iron deficiency anaemia when compliance is the problem. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy, safety and acceptability of intravenous iron Vs oral iron in prevention of iron deficiency anaemia during pregnancy. The objective of the present research was to study the efficacy, safety and acceptability of oral iron (ferrous fumarate) versus intravenous iron (iron sucrose) for the prevention of iron deficiency anaemia during pregnancy.Methods: It was a prospective comparative case control study without blinding including 400 registered antenatal women in SKNMC and GH, Narhe, Pune. Results were based on collection and analysis of data from samples within study population.Results: There was no significant difference in mean haemoglobin rise between oral group and IV group but there is significant difference between mean ferritin levels between oral group and IV group. In IV group ferritin levels at 36 weeks were almost 1.8 times more than oral group. Acceptability and convenience of IV iron was significantly more than oral iron.Conclusions: Intravenous iron therapy in the form of three divided doses, one in each trimester can be safely used in the antenatal woman as an alternative to prophylactic iron tablets for prevention of iron deficiency anaemia especially in women who are non-compliant or does not tolerate oral iron tablets.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

34

Silverstein, Scott B., Jeffrey A. Gilreath, and George M. Rodgers. "Intravenous Iron Therapy: A Summary of Treatment Options and Review of Guidelines." Journal of Pharmacy Practice 21, no. 6 (September 16, 2008): 431–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0897190008318916.

Full text

Abstract:

Iron replacement for iron-deficiency anemia has historically been accomplished with the use of oral iron therapy. Although oral iron is appropriate for most iron-deficiency anemia patients, many patients do not respond to or may be intolerant of oral iron, or may experience bleeding of sufficient magnitude to require higher iron doses than that achievable with oral iron. Intravenous iron therapy is a useful option for these latter patients. Three intravenous iron products are recommended: low-molecular weight iron dextran (INFeD), ferric gluconate (Ferrlecit), and iron sucrose (Venofer). These intravenous iron products have superior safety profiles compared to high-molecular weight iron dextran. The Food and Drug Administration's approval of erythropoietic-stimulating agents to treat certain types of anemia has increased usage of intravenous iron for functional iron deficiency. This review summarizes the current status of intravenous iron products and discusses their advantages and disadvantages in treating both absolute and functional iron deficiency.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

35

Tarantino, Germano, Elisa Brilli, Ylenia Zambito, Giulio Giordano, and Francesco Equitani. "Sucrosomial Iron®: A New Highly Bioavaible Oral Iron Supplement." Blood 126, no. 23 (December 3, 2015): 4561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1182/blood.v126.23.4561.4561.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract Introduction: Iron deficiency is one of the most widespread nutritional deficiencies. Globally two billion people are suffering from iron- deficiency anemia (Hermida et al., 2010). Oral therapy for iron deficiency is mainly based on immediate release formulations of ferrous iron. However, modified formulations have been marketed to reduce gastrointestinal side effects and to prevent iron instability in the gastrointestinal tract. Overcoming biological barriers, including the gastrointestinal epithelial barriers, is a great challenge for pharmaceutical research and thus there is a need for new absorption enhancers with more favorable profile. Sucrose esters are widely used in the food industry, and there are reports on their potential use in pharmaceutical formulations as excipients (Szuts A et al., 2008). In vitro methods using cell cultures have been proposed to assess iron bioavailability as an alternative to in vivo methods. Caco-2 cells have shown numerous morphological and biochemical characteristics of enterocytes and have been successfully used to study iron absorption (Garcia et al., 1996; Jovani et al., 2001). Caco-2 monolayers formed a good barrier as reflected by high transepithelial resistance and positive immunostaining for junctional proteins. Sucrose esters in nontoxic concentrations significantly reduced resistance and impedance, and increased permeability of some components in Caco-2 monolayers. Recent data indicate that sucrose esters can enhance drug permeability through both the transcellular and paracellular routes (Kiss et al., 2014). Aim: The strong correlation between the published human absorption data and the iron uptake by Caco-2 cells makes them an ideal in vitro model to study iron bioavailability (Au and Reddy, 2000). For this, in the present study, we compared the bioavailability of innovative Oral Iron formulation based on Sucrosomial Iron¨ (Sideral¨) with three different Iron formulations (Figure 1). Materials and Methods: Sucrosomial Iron, preparation of ferric pyrophosphate convered by a phospholipids plus sucrose esters of fatty acids matrix; Lipofer¨, a water-dispersible micronised iron; Sunactive¨ ferric pyrophosphate, lecithin and emulsifiers. Results: The data showed that Sucrosomial Iron¨ (Sideral¨), is significantly more bioavaible than microencapsulated Ferric pyrophosphate ingredients, Lipofer¨ and Sunactive¨ and Ferrous Sulfate in Caco-2 cell model (Figure 1). Bibliography Au, A. P., Reddy, M. B. (2000). Caco-2 cells can be used to assess human iron bioavailability from a semipurified meal. J Nutr 130:1329-1334. Garcia et al. (1996). The Caco-2 cell culture system can be used as a model to study food iron availability. J Nutr 126:251-258. Hermida et al., Preparation and characterization of iron-containing liposomes: their effect on soluble iron uptake by Caco-2 cells Journal of Liposome Research, 2010, 1-10, Jovani et al. (2001) Calcium, iron, and zinc uptake from digests of infant formulas by Caco-2 cells. J Agric Food Chem 49:3480-3485. Kiss et al., (2014) Sucrose esters increase drug penetration, but do not inhibit p-glycoprotein in caco-2 intestinal epithelial cells J Pharm Sci. Oct;103(10):3107-19. Szuts A et al. (2008) Study of the effects of drugs on the structures of sucrose esters and the effects of solid-state interactions on drug release J Pharm Biomed Anal. 48: Figure 1. the graph shows the Ferritin levels of Caco-2 cells after iron formulations treatment. Sucrosomial Iron treated cells display significant increase of Ferritin synthesis compared to Lipofer and SunActive treated cells. Figure 1. the graph shows the Ferritin levels of Caco-2 cells after iron formulations treatment. Sucrosomial Iron treated cells display significant increase of Ferritin synthesis compared to Lipofer and SunActive treated cells. Disclosures Tarantino: Pharmanutra s.p.a.: Employment. Brilli:Pharmanutra s.p.a.: Employment.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

36

Kloub, Mohammad N., and Mohamed A. Yassin. "Oral Iron Therapy-Induced Neutropenia in Patient with Iron Deficiency Anemia." Case Reports in Oncology 13, no. 2 (June 24, 2020): 721–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000507730.

Full text

Abstract:

Iron deficiency anemia is common and worldwide distributed, particularly among females; however, it can also occur among males. Iron deficiency anemia is commonly associated with thrombocytosis; little is known about the effect of iron therapy (oral or intravenous) on other hematological parameters. We report a 29-year-old male patient with iron deficiency anemia, who received oral iron replacement therapy and developed neutropenia which recovered spontaneously 1 month later.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

37

Pitale, Devdatt Laxman. "Effectiveness of intravenous iron sucrose over oral iron therapy for anaemia in pregnancy." International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology 7, no. 5 (April 28, 2018): 1908. http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20181927.

Full text

Abstract:

Background: Anaemia in pregnancy is very common throughout our country impacting both mother and the newborn. The most common cause of anaemia in pregnancy is iron deficiency. The increased prevalence of iron deficiency anaemia amongst the pregnant women, especially in developing countries is a major cause of significant maternal morbidity and mortality. Intolerance to oral iron, inadequate absorption, and side effects leading to poor compliance are the major shortcomings in oral iron therapy. These factors are significant especially in anaemia near term. To overcome all these limiting factors associated with oral iron therapy, parenteral iron therapy is preferred. Aim of this study was to study effectiveness of intravenous iron sucrose over oral iron therapy for anaemia in pregnancy.Methods: This prospective study was taken up to compare the effectiveness of intravenous iron sucrose over oral iron therapy for anaemia in 30 antenatal women attending antenatal outpatient Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology belonging to gestational age group of 28-34 weeks with anaemia in pregnancy.Results: Majority of pregnant women belonged to age group of 22-25 years.67% were primigravidas. The period of gestation varied from 28-34 weeks. In this study, the mean baseline haemoglobin was 8.4 g/dl before start of treatment and after iv iron sucrose treatment haemoglobin showed a mean value of 10.8g/dl. The mean baseline MCV was 70 fl/cell. Post treatment MCV after 4 weeks showed a significant mean rise of 12 fl/cell in the present study with no major side effects.Conclusions: Intravenous iron sucrose is highly effective over oral iron therapy for anaemia in pregnancy. It enables rapid correction of anaemia with minimal side effects.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

38

Thobbi, Vidya A., and Zeba Naz M. Bijapur. "A comparative study of efficacy, safety and compliance of oral iron versus intravenous iron sucrose in treatment of iron deficiency anaemia of pregnancy." International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology 9, no. 9 (August 27, 2020): 3852. http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20203495.

Full text

Abstract:

Background: Iron deficiency anemia is the most common form of anemia and nutritional disorder worldwide. Oral iron therapy and blood transfusion has many drawbacks like noncompliance and risk of transmittable infections and transfusion reaction. The modern alternative therapy is treatment with intravenous iron. Present study compares the efficacy, safety and tolerability between intravenous iron sucrose and oral iron in iron deficiency anemia during 20-36 weeks of pregnancy.Methods: It was a randomized controlled study between December 2017 to September 2019. 200 patients attending antenatal OPD in Al Ameen Medical College, with haemoglobin levels between 7-9.9 gm/dl and serum ferritin of <15 ng/ml were enrolled. In intravenous group, 200 mg iron sucrose in 100ml normal saline was infused alternate day till the required dose was met. The oral group received 200 mg of oral iron ascorbate along with folic acid 1.5 mg per day for 6 weeks. Treatment efficacy was assessed by Hb and serum ferritin after 3 and 6 weeks.Results: Out of 200 patients, an increase in Hb was observed in both groups, rising from 9.7 g/dl to 10.3 g/dl and 10.9 g/dl after 3 weeks and 6 weeks respectively in oral group and from 8.6 g/dl to 9.8 g/dl and 10.8 g/dl after 3 weeks and 6 weeks respectively in intravenous group. Similar results were seen in ferritin levels. Rise in Hb and ferritin levels were greater in intravenous group than in oral group.Conclusions: Intravenous iron sucrose appears to be a better treatment option in comparison with oral iron, without serious side effects, better compliance and improved efficacy in correction of anaemia of pregnancy.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

39

Goodnough, Lawrence T., David Morris, Todd Koch, Andy He, and David Bregman. "Hepcidin Levels Predict Non-Responsiveness to Oral Iron Therapy in Patients with Iron Deficiency Anemia." Blood 120, no. 21 (November 16, 2012): 484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1182/blood.v120.21.484.484.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract Abstract 484 Background Treatment options for individuals diagnosed with iron deficiency anemia (IDA) include oral or intravenous iron. Oral iron may not increase patient hemoglobin levels adequately, due to poor compliance and/or suboptimal gastrointestinal absorption due to inflammation-mediated induction of hepcidin, which regulates iron homeostasis. This study evaluated whether hepcidin levels can be used to identify patients with IDA who are unresponsive to oral iron therapy. Methods Hepcidin levels were assessed in a subset of subjects enrolled in a randomized trial comparing oral iron (ferrous sulfate) to intravenous iron (Injectafer®[ferric carboxymaltose, FCM]) in subjects with IDA (Hemoglobin [Hb] ≤ 11 g/dL; and ferritin ≤ 100 ng/mL, or ≤ 300 ng/mL when transferrin saturation (TSAT) was ≤ 30%) (Szczech et al Amer Soc Nephrol 2011; 22:405A). Subjects who met the inclusion criteria underwent a 14-day (run-in) course of ferrous sulfate 325 mg, three times per day. Subjects with an increase in Hb ≥ 1 g/dL were considered to be “responders” and not randomized. “Non-responders” were randomized to ferric carboxymaltose (2 injections of 750 mg given on Day 0 [day of randomization] and Day 7) or oral iron for 14 more days. Hb levels and markers of iron status were assessed at screening (day-15), day-1 and day 35. Hepcidin levels were analyzed at screening (Day -15) in an initial Cohort (I) of 44 patients, 22 responders and 22 non-responders. A hepcidin value of >20 ng/mL was identified for further analysis for predictive values for non-responsiveness to 14 day oral iron run-in in 240 patients (Cohort II). Hepcidin levels were also analyzed at Day -1 and Day 35 in a Cohort (III) of patients who were then randomized to FCM vs. oral iron therapy. Results Hepcidin screening levels in Cohort I were significantly higher in the non-responders vs. responders (33.2 vs. 8.7 ng/mL, p < 0.004). Twenty one of 22 non-responders had hepcidin values > 20 ng/mL. For Cohort II, mean hepcidin levels were again significantly higher in the non-responders vs. responders (38.4 vs. 11.3 ng/mL, p = 0.0002). Utilizing a hepcidin criterion of > 20 ng/mL, we found a sensitivity of 41.3% (26 of 150), specificity of 84.4% (76 of 90), and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 81.6% (62 of 76) for non-responsiveness to oral iron (Figure: The Receiver Operator Characteristic curves present plots of sensitivity vs. (1-specificity) for hepcidin, ferritin, and TSAT at the various cutoff levels indicated near the respective curves in the same color as the respective curves). While ferritin < 30ng/mL or TSAT <15% had greater sensitivity (77.3% and 64.7%, respectively), their PPVs (59.2% and 55%) were inferior to PPVs for hepcidin. Patients subsequently randomized to FCM vs. oral iron responded with Hgb increases of ≥1 g/dL for 65.3% vs. 20.8% (p <0.0001)and mean Hgb increases of 1.7 ± 1.3 vs. 0.6 ± 0.9 g/dL (p = 0.0025), respectively. Conclusion Our analysis provides evidence that non-responsiveness to oral iron in patients with iron deficiency anemia can be predicted from patients' baseline hepcidin levels, which have superior positive predictive values compared to transferrin saturation or ferritin levels. Furthermore, non-response to oral iron therapy does not rule out iron deficiency, since two thirds of these non-responders to oral iron responded to IV iron. Disclosures: Goodnough: Luitpold: Consultancy. Off Label Use: ferric carboxymaltose for treatment of iron deficiency anemia. Morris:Luitpold: Consultancy. Koch:Luitpold: Employment. He:Luitpold: Employment. Bregman:Luitpold: Employment.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

40

D’Amico, Ferdinando, Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet, and Silvio Danese. "Oral Iron for IBD Patients: Lessons Learned at Time of COVID-19 Pandemic." Journal of Clinical Medicine 9, no. 5 (May 19, 2020): 1536. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm9051536.

Full text

Abstract:

Anemia is a frequent manifestation in patients with chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and requires tight monitoring and adequate supplementary therapy. Intravenous iron is the first-line treatment in subjects with moderate–severe anemia, active disease, or oral iron intolerance. On the other hand, oral iron is recommended in patients with mild anemia and inactive disease. However, during the current coronavirus pandemic, hospital activities have significantly changed, and all non-essential procedures, including non-urgent iron infusions, have been rescheduled. Oral iron, including both the traditional formulations with ferrous iron and the new ferric iron complexes, could constitute a valid alternative for anemia treatment. For this reason, we conducted a literature review, to summarize the scientific evidence on oral iron therapy in IBD patients with anemia.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

41

Becuzzi, Nadine, Roland Zimmermann, and Alexander Krafft. "Long-Term Efficacy of Postpartum Intravenous Iron Therapy." BioMed Research International 2014 (2014): 1–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/815437.

Full text

Abstract:

Background. The potential benefits of administering a dose of intravenous iron in patients with moderate postpartum anaemia rather than oral iron alone remains unproven.Aims.To determine whether a single injection of intravenous iron followed by a 6-week course of oral iron is as effective over 6 months in restoring normal haemoglobin levels and replenishing iron stores in women with moderate postpartum anaemia as a course of oral iron alone in women with mild postpartum anaemia.Materials and Methods. Retrospective two-arm cohort study in women with mild postpartum anaemia (haemoglobin 9.6–10.5 g/dL) prescribed iron daily for 6 weeks (N=150) and women with moderate postpartum anaemia (haemoglobin 8.5–9.5 g/dL), given a single 500 mg injection of intravenous iron followed by iron daily for 6 weeks (N=75). Haemoglobin and ferritin were measured 6 months postpartum.Results. Haemoglobin returned to similar mean levels in both groups. Ferritin levels were statistically significantly higher in the intravenous + oral group (57.7±49.3 μg/L versus32.9±20.1 μg/L).Conclusions.Despite lower baseline haemoglobin, intravenous iron carboxymaltose was superior to oral iron alone in replenishing iron stores in moderate postpartum anaemia and may prove similarly beneficial in mild postpartum anaemia.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

42

PIOMELLI, SERGIO. "Oral Iron Chelators for the Clinical Management of Iron Overload." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 612, no. 1 Sixth Cooley' (December 1990): 311–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1990.tb24318.x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

43

Ruiz-Argüelles, Guillermo J., Angeles Díaz-Hernández, Carlos Manzano, and Guillermo J. Ruiz-Delgado. "Ineffectiveness of oral iron hydroxide polymaltose in iron-deficiency anemia." Hematology 12, no. 3 (June 2007): 255–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10245330701214160.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

44

BRISE, HANS. "INFLUENCE OF MEALS ON IRON ABSORPTION IN ORAL IRON THERAPY." Acta Medica Scandinavica 171, S376 (April 24, 2009): 39–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0954-6820.1962.tb18681.x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

45

Tang, Grace H., Vinita Dhir, Adena S. Scheer, Andrea C. Tricco, Michelle Sholzberg, and Christine Brezden-Masley. "Intravenous iron versus oral iron or observation for gastrointestinal malignancies." European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 31, no. 7 (July 2019): 799–808. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/meg.0000000000001433.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

46

Goonewardene, M., C. Liyanage, and R. Fernando. "Intermittent oral iron supplementation during pregnancy." Ceylon Medical Journal 46, no. 4 (January 24, 2014): 132. http://dx.doi.org/10.4038/cmj.v46i4.6440.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

47

Gupta, Shruti, Anita Hooda, Anjali Narwal, and Arun Kumar. "Iron in Oral Health and Disease." RUHS Journal of Health Science 3, no. 4 (December 31, 2018): 224. http://dx.doi.org/10.37821/ruhsjhs.3.4.2018.224-229.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

48

Moretti, Diego. "Novel approaches to oral iron treatment." HemaSphere 3 (June 2019): 109–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/hs9.0000000000000235.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

49

GRADY, ROBERT W., and CHAIM HERSHKO. "HBED: A Potential Oral Iron Chelator." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 612, no. 1 Sixth Cooley' (December 1990): 361–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1990.tb24323.x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

50

Kontoghiorghes, G. J., P. Nasseri-Sina, J. G. Goddard, J. M. Barr, P. Nortey, and L. N. Sheppard. "SAFETY OF ORAL IRON CHELATOR L1." Lancet 334, no. 8660 (August 1989): 457–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(89)90642-9.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Journal articles on the topic 'Oral iron'

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles