Interventions for treating iron deficiency anaemia in inflammatory bowel disease
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2021;1:Cd013529
BACKGROUND Inflammatory bowel disease affects approximately seven million people globally. Iron deficiency anaemia can occur as a common systemic manifestation, with a prevalence of up to 90%, which can significantly affect quality of life, both during periods of active disease or in remission. It is important that iron deficiency anaemia is treated effectively and not be assumed to be a normal finding of inflammatory bowel disease. The various routes of iron administration, doses and preparations present varying advantages and disadvantages, and a significant proportion of people experience adverse effects with current therapies. Currently, no consensus has been reached amongst physicians as to which treatment path is most beneficial. OBJECTIVES The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the interventions for the treatment of iron deficiency anaemia in people with inflammatory bowel disease. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases on 21st November 2019. We also contacted experts in the field and searched references of trials for any additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness and safety of iron administration interventions compared to other iron administration interventions or placebo in the treatment of iron deficiency anaemia in inflammatory bowel disease. We considered both adults and children, with studies reporting outcomes of clinical, endoscopic, histologic or surgical remission as defined by study authors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment of included studies. We expressed dichotomous and continuous outcomes as risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology. MAIN RESULTS We included 11 studies (1670 randomised participants) that met the inclusion criteria. The studies compared intravenous iron sucrose vs oral iron sulphate (2 studies); oral iron sulphate vs oral iron hydroxide polymaltose complex (1 study); oral iron fumarate vs intravenous iron sucrose (1 study); intravenous ferric carboxymaltose vs intravenous iron sucrose (1 study); erythropoietin injection + intravenous iron sucrose vs intravenous iron sucrose + injection placebo (1 study); oral ferric maltol vs oral placebo (1 study); oral ferric maltol vs intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (1 study); intravenous ferric carboxymaltose vs oral iron sulphate (1 study); intravenous iron isomaltoside vs oral iron sulphate (1 study); erythropoietin injection vs oral placebo (1 study). All studies compared participants with CD and UC together, as well as considering a range of disease activity states. The primary outcome of number of responders, when defined, was stated to be an increase in haemoglobin of 20 g/L in all but two studies in which an increase in 10g/L was used. In one study comparing intravenous ferric carboxymaltose and intravenous iron sucrose, moderate-certainty evidence was found that intravenous ferric carboxymaltose was probably superior to intravenous iron sucrose, although there were responders in both groups (150/244 versus 118/239, RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.46, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 9). In one study comparing oral ferric maltol to placebo, there was low-certainty evidence of superiority of the iron (36/64 versus 0/64, RR 73.00, 95% CI 4.58 to 1164.36). There were no other direct comparisons that found any difference in the primary outcomes, although certainty was low and very low for all outcomes, due to imprecision from sparse data and risk of bias varying between moderate and high risk. The reporting of secondary outcomes was inconsistent. The most common was the occurrence of serious adverse events or those requiring withdrawal of therapy. In no comparisons was there a difference seen between any of the intervention agents being studied, although the certainty was very low for all comparisons made, due to risk of bias and significant imprecision due to the low numbers of events. Time to remission, histological and biochemical outcomes were sparsely reported in the studies. None of the other secondary outcomes were reported in any of the studies. An analysis of all intravenous iron preparations to all oral iron preparations showed that intravenous administration may lead to more responders (368/554 versus 205/373, RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31, NNTB = 11, low-certainty due to risk of bias and inconsistency). Withdrawals due to adverse events may be greater in oral iron preparations vs intravenous (15/554 versus 31/373, RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.74, low-certainty due to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Intravenous ferric carboxymaltose probably leads to more people having resolution of IDA (iron deficiency anaemia) than intravenous iron sucrose. Oral ferric maltol may lead to more people having resolution of IDA than placebo. We are unable to draw conclusions on which of the other treatments is most effective in IDA with IBD (inflammatory bowel disease) due to low numbers of studies in each comparison area and clinical heterogeneity within the studies. Therefore, there are no other conclusions regarding the treatments that can be made and certainty of all findings are low or very low. Overall, intravenous iron delivery probably leads to greater response in patients compared with oral iron, with a NNTB (number needed to treat) of 11. Whilst no serious adverse events were specifically elicited with any of the treatments studied, the numbers of reported events were low and the certainty of these findings very low for all comparisons, so no conclusions can be drawn. There may be more withdrawals due to such events when oral is compared with intravenous iron delivery. Other outcomes were poorly reported and once again no conclusions can be made as to the impact of IDA on any of these outcomes. Given the widespread use of many of these treatments in practice and the only guideline that exists recommending the use of intravenous iron in favour of oral iron, research to investigate this key issue is clearly needed. Considering the current ongoing trials identified in this review, these are more focussed on the impact in specific patient groups (young people) or on other symptoms (such as fatigue). Therefore, there is a need for studies to be performed to fill this evidence gap.
Randomised clinical trial: intravenous vs oral iron for the treatment of anaemia after acute gastrointestinal bleeding
Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics. 2019
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.
Improved Hemoglobin Response with Ferric Carboxymaltose in Patients with Gastrointestinal-Related Iron-Deficiency Anemia Versus Oral Iron
Digestive Diseases and Sciences. 2018;63((11):):3009-3019.
AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) versus oral iron and other IV iron therapies in patients with iron-deficiency anemia (IDA) resulting from gastrointestinal (GI) disorders. METHODS A pooled analysis of four prospective, randomized, active-controlled trials in patients with IDA was performed. Efficacy measures included change from baseline in hemoglobin (Hb), ferritin, and transferrin saturation (TSAT) and correlations of baseline Hb, ferritin, and TSAT to change in Hb. The incidence and type of adverse events were evaluated. RESULTS A total of 191 patients were evaluated. The mean change in Hb from baseline to the maximum value was 0.8 g/dL with oral iron (P = 0.001 vs. FCM), 2.2 g/dL with FCM, 2.0 g/dL with any IV iron (P = 0.391 vs. FCM), and 1.9 g/dL with iron sucrose (P = 0.329 vs. FCM). Patients treated with FCM and iron sucrose had larger increases in Hb. This effect may have been attributed to a lower baseline Hb level. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 11.9, 12, 26.2, and 25% and serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred in 6.9, 4, 9.8, and 12.5% of patients in the FCM, oral iron, other IV iron therapies, and iron sucrose groups, respectively. No SAEs were considered treatment related in the FCM group, compared with two treatment-related SAEs in two patients (6.3%) in the iron sucrose group. CONCLUSIONS FCM is an effective therapy in patients with IDA who have GI disorders and has a safety profile comparable to that of other IV iron agents.
Systematic review with network meta-analysis: comparative efficacy and tolerability of different intravenous iron formulations for the treatment of iron deficiency anaemia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 2017;45((10):):1303-1318
BACKGROUND Iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) is a common complication of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) associated with reduced quality of life and increased hospitalisation rates. While the best way of treating IDA in IBD patients is not clearly established, current European guidelines recommend intravenous iron therapy in IBD patients with severe anaemia or intolerance to oral iron compounds. AIM: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of different intravenous iron formulations used to treat IDA in IBD patients in a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA), PROSPERO registration number: 42016046565. METHODS In June 2016, we systematically searched for studies analysing efficacy and safety of intravenous iron for IDA therapy in IBD. Primary outcome was therapy response, defined as Hb normalisation or increase ≥2 g/dL. RESULTS Five randomised, controlled trials (n = 1143 patients) were included in a network meta-analysis. Only ferric carboxymaltose was significantly more effective than oral iron [OR=1.9, 95% CrI: (1.1;3.2)]. Rank probabilities showed ferric carboxymaltose to be most effective, followed by iron sucrose, iron isomaltose and oral iron. Pooled data from the systematic review (n = 1746 patients) revealed adverse event rates of 12.0%, 15.3%, 12.0%, 17.0% for ferric carboxymaltose, iron sucrose, iron dextran and iron isomaltose respectively. One drug-related serious adverse event (SAE) each was reported for ferric carboxymaltose and iron isomaltoside, and one possibly drug-related SAE for iron sucrose. CONCLUSIONS Ferric carboxymaltose was the most effective intravenous iron formulation, followed by iron sucrose. In addition, ferric carboxymaltose tended to be better tolerated. Thus, nanocolloidal IV iron products exhibit differing therapeutic and safety characteristics and are not interchangeable.
Oral versus intravenous iron replacement therapy distinctly alters the gut microbiota and metabolome in patients with IBD
OBJECTIVE Iron deficiency is a common complication in patients with IBD and oral iron therapy is suggested to exacerbate IBD symptoms. We performed an open-labelled clinical trial to compare the effects of per oral (PO) versus intravenous (IV) iron replacement therapy (IRT). DESIGN The study population included patients with Crohn's disease (CD; N=31), UC (N=22) and control subjects with iron deficiency (non-inflamed, NI=19). After randomisation, participants received iron sulfate (PO) or iron sucrose (IV) over 3 months. Clinical parameters, faecal bacterial communities and metabolomes were assessed before and after intervention. RESULTS Both PO and IV treatments ameliorated iron deficiency, but higher ferritin levels were observed with IV. Changes in disease activity were independent of iron treatment types. Faecal samples in IBD were characterised by marked interindividual differences, lower phylotype richness and proportions of Clostridiales. Metabolite analysis also showed separation of both UC and CD from control anaemic participants. Major shifts in bacterial diversity occurred in approximately half of all participants after IRT, but patients with CD were most susceptible. Despite individual-specific changes in phylotypes due to IRT, PO treatment was associated with decreased abundances of operational taxonomic units assigned to the species Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, Ruminococcus bromii, Dorea sp. and Collinsella aerofaciens. Clear IV-specific and PO-specific fingerprints were evident at the level of metabolomes, with changes affecting cholesterol-derived host substrates. CONCLUSIONS Shifts in gut bacterial diversity and composition associated with iron treatment are pronounced in IBD participants. Despite similar clinical outcome, oral administration differentially affects bacterial phylotypes and faecal metabolites compared with IV therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER clinicaltrial.gov (NCT01067547).
Ferumoxytol versus placebo in iron deficiency anemia: efficacy, safety, and quality of life in patients with gastrointestinal disorders
Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology. 2016;9:151-62.
INTRODUCTION Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is common in patients with gastrointestinal (GI) disorders and can adversely affect quality of life. Oral iron is poorly tolerated in many patients with GI disorders. Ferumoxytol is approved for the intravenous treatment of IDA in patients with chronic kidney disease. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ferumoxytol in patients with IDA and concomitant GI disorders. PATIENTS AND METHODS This analysis included 231 patients with IDA and GI disorders from a Phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluating ferumoxytol (510 mg x2) versus placebo in patients who had failed or were intolerant of oral iron therapy. The primary study end point was the proportion of patients achieving a ≥20 g/L increase in hemoglobin (Hgb) from baseline to Week 5. Other end points included mean change in Hgb, proportion of patients achieving Hgb ≥120 g/L, mean change in transferrin saturation, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS Significantly more patients with IDA receiving ferumoxytol achieved a ≥20 g/L increase in Hgb versus placebo (82.1% vs 1.7%, respectively; P<0.001). Mean increase in Hgb (28.0 g/L vs -1.0 g/L, respectively; P<0.001) significantly favored ferumoxytol treatment. Ferumoxytol-treated patients demonstrated significantly greater improvements than placebo-treated patients relative to their very poor baseline PRO scores posttreatment, including improvements in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue questionnaire and various domains of the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey. Ferumoxytol-treated patients had a low rate of adverse events. CONCLUSION In this study, ferumoxytol was shown to be an efficacious and generally well-tolerated treatment option for patients with IDA and underlying GI disorders who were unable to use or had a history of unsatisfactory oral iron therapy.
Ferric maltol therapy for iron deficiency anaemia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: long-term extension data from a Phase 3 study
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 2016;44((3):):259-70
BACKGROUND Ferric maltol was effective and well-tolerated in iron deficiency anaemia patients with inflammatory bowel disease during a 12-week placebo-controlled trial. AIM: To perform a Phase 3 extension study evaluating long-term efficacy and safety with ferric maltol in inflammatory bowel disease patients in whom oral ferrous therapies had failed to correct iron deficiency anaemia. METHODS After 12 weeks of randomised, double-blind treatment, patients with iron deficiency anaemia and mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease received open-label ferric maltol 30 mg b.d. for 52 weeks. RESULTS 111 patients completed randomised treatment and 97 entered the open-label ferric maltol extension. In patients randomised to ferric maltol ('continued'; n = 50), mean +/- s.d. haemoglobin increased by 3.07 +/- 1.46 g/dL between baseline and Week 64. In patients randomised to placebo ('switch'; n = 47), haemoglobin increased by 2.19 +/- 1.61 g/dL. Normal haemoglobin was achieved in high proportions of both continued and switch patients (89% and 83% at Week 64, respectively). Serum ferritin increased from 8.9 mug/L (baseline) to 26.0 mug/L (Week 12) in ferric maltol-treated patients, and to 57.4 mug/L amongst all patients at Week 64. In total, 80% of patients reported ≥1 adverse event by Week 64. Adverse events considered related to ferric maltol were recorded in 27/111 (24%) patients: 8/18 discontinuations due to adverse events were treatment-related. One patient was withdrawn due to increased ulcerative colitis activity. CONCLUSIONS Normal haemoglobin was observed in ≥80% of patients from weeks 20-64 of long-term ferric maltol treatment, with concomitant increases in iron storage parameters. Ferric maltol was well-tolerated throughout this 64-week study.
Randomized open-label phase 1 study of the pharmacokinetics of ferric maltol in inflammatory bowel disease patients with iron deficiency
European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics. 2016;42((2):):229-238
BACKGROUND Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is a common complication of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Oral ferric maltol improves and normalizes hemoglobin (Hb) in patients with IBD. AIM: This open-label, randomized Phase 1 study evaluated the pharmacokinetics of ferric maltol and its effect on iron indices in IBD patients with iron deficiency (with or without anemia). METHODS Iron deficient adult IBD patients received ferric maltol 30, 60, or 90 mg twice daily during an 8-day period. Pharmacokinetics and iron uptake were assessed on days 1 and 8. RESULTS Twenty-four patients were included: 13 with Crohn's disease and 11 with ulcerative colitis (mean age 39 years; 67 % female, mean Hb 13.0 g/dL; mean reticulocyte Hb content (CHr) 31.9 pg; mean ferritin 13.9 microg/L). Plasma maltol and maltol glucuronide increased rapidly at all doses, reaching maximum plasma concentration (C max) 1.0-1.5 h post-dose and declining to baseline after 3-6 h. Maltol and maltol glucuronide exposure (area under the concentration-time curve; AUC) appeared dose proportional with twice-daily dosing, with higher exposure to maltol glucuronide vs. maltol. Mean day 8/day 1 ratios for C max and AUC0-t indicated no accumulation after 7 days of twice-daily dosing. Serum iron and transferrin saturation (TSAT) increased with all doses (maximum values at 1.5-3.0 h post-dose). Serum ferritin and CHr increased by day 8, with greater improvements with 60 and 90 mg twice-daily doses than with 30 mg twice-daily doses. CONCLUSIONS The key constituents of ferric maltol showed predictable pharmacokinetics, with no accumulation over 7 days and increased iron uptake and storage over time at 30-90 mg twice-daily doses.
Intravenous versus oral iron for the treatment of anemia in inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
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.
Management of iron-deficiency anemia in inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review
Anemia is the most frequent complication of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but anemia, mostly due to iron deficiency, has long been neglected in these patients.The aim was to briefly present the pathophysiology, followed by a balanced overview of the different forms of iron replacement available, and subsequently, to perform a systematic review of studies performed in the last decade on the treatment of iron-deficiency anemia in IBD.Given that intravenous therapies have been introduced in the last decade, a systematic review performed in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the websites of WHO, FDA, and EMA covered prospective trials investigating the management of iron-deficiency anemia in IBD published since 2004.A total of 632 articles were reviewed, and 13 articles (2906 patients) with unique content were included. In general, oral supplementation in iron-deficiency anemia should be administered with a target to restore/replenish the iron stores and the hemoglobin level in a suitable way. However, in patients with IBD flares and inadequate responses to or side effects with oral preparations, intravenous iron supplementation is the therapy of choice. Neither oral nor intravenous therapy seems to exacerbate the clinical course of IBD, and intravenous iron therapy can be administered even in active disease stages and concomitantly with biologics.In conclusion, because many physicians are in doubt as to how to manage anemia and iron deficiency in IBD, there is a clear need for the implementation of evidence-based recommendations on this matter. Based on the data presented, oral iron therapy should be preferred for patients with quiescent disease stages and trivial iron deficiency anemia unless such patients are intolerant or have an inadequate response, whereas intravenous iron supplementation may be of advantage in patients with aggravated anemia or flares of IBD because inflammation hampers intestinal absorption of iron.