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.
Systematic review with meta-analysis: the efficacy of tranexamic acid in upper gastrointestinal bleeding
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020
BACKGROUND Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a common medical emergency associated with substantial mortality. Tranexamic acid may be effective for reducing mortality in upper gastrointestinal bleeding. AIM: To examine the effects of tranexamic acid in upper gastrointestinal bleeding by systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and other relevant websites for randomised controlled trials investigating the effect of tranexamic acid published from inception to December 10, 2019. The primary outcome of interest was mortality. Estimates of effect were pooled with a random effects model. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. RESULTS The search identified 1572 citations. Eleven trials comprising 2076 patients were eligible for inclusion. Of these, 10 trials (2013 patients) compared tranexamic acid with placebo. Risk of death was significantly reduced in patients who received tranexamic acid compared with those who received placebo (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43-0.82, P = 0.001) with no significant heterogeneity noted among studies (I(2) = 0%, P = 0.81). The GRADE assessment rated the quality of the evidence for mortality as moderate due to risk of bias. There were no statistically significant differences between tranexamic acid and placebo for the prevention of re-bleeding, need for surgical interventions, need for blood transfusions or frequency of thromboembolic events. CONCLUSIONS Moderate-quality evidence shows that tranexamic acid is superior to placebo for the reduction in mortality in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. While our findings lend further support to the use of tranexamic acid for treating patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding, additional higher-quality trials are needed.
Controlled trial of transfusions for silent cerebral infarcts in sickle cell anemia
New England Journal of Medicine. 2014;371((8):):699-710.
BACKGROUND Silent cerebral infarcts are the most common neurologic injury in children with sickle cell anemia and are associated with the recurrence of an infarct (stroke or silent cerebral infarct). We tested the hypothesis that the incidence of the recurrence of an infarct would be lower among children who underwent regular blood-transfusion therapy than among those who received standard care. METHODS In this randomized, single-blind clinical trial, we randomly assigned children with sickle cell anemia to receive regular blood transfusions (transfusion group) or standard care (observation group). Participants were between 5 and 15 years of age, with no history of stroke and with one or more silent cerebral infarcts on magnetic resonance imaging and a neurologic examination showing no abnormalities corresponding to these lesions. The primary end point was the recurrence of an infarct, defined as a stroke or a new or enlarged silent cerebral infarct. RESULTS A total of 196 children (mean age, 10 years) were randomly assigned to the observation or transfusion group and were followed for a median of 3 years. In the transfusion group, 6 of 99 children (6%) had an end-point event (1 had a stroke, and 5 had new or enlarged silent cerebral infarcts). In the observation group, 14 of 97 children (14%) had an end-point event (7 had strokes, and 7 had new or enlarged silent cerebral infarcts). The incidence of the primary end point in the transfusion and observation groups was 2.0 and 4.8 events, respectively, per 100 years at risk, corresponding to an incidence rate ratio of 0.41 (95% confidence interval, 0.12 to 0.99; P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS Regular blood-transfusion therapy significantly reduced the incidence of the recurrence of cerebral infarct in children with sickle cell anemia. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and others; Silent Cerebral Infarct Multi-Center Clinical Trial ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00072761, and Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN52713285.)
The efficacy of antifibrinolytics in the reduction of blood loss during complex adult reconstructive spine surgery
STUDY DESIGN Controlled study to assess the efficacy of aprotinin and Amicar in reducing blood loss during complex spinal fusions. OBJECTIVES To compare blood loss and the clotting profile with a thromboelastogram in patients with spinal deformities undergoing sequential anterior and posterior spinal fusions treated intraoperatively with either aprotinin or Amicar. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Spinal fusion for correction of adult spinal deformities is associated with large blood losses despite the implementation of multiple factors to reduce this blood loss. The antifibrinolytics aprotinin and Amicar have both been shown to reduce blood loss in other surgical procedures with the potential for large blood loss. Hence, we compared their efficacy for reducing blood loss in complex spinal fusions. METHODS Sixty patients for elective sequential anteroposterior thoracolumbosacral fusions were randomly assigned to three groups: control, aprotinin, and Amicar. Patients were assessed for blood loss, transfusion requirements, postoperative complications, and coagulation profile using a thromboelastogram. RESULTS The study demonstrated a significant reduction in total blood loss (aprotinin 3628 mL, Amicar 4056 mL, control 5181 mL) and transfusion requirements using the half-dose aprotinin regimen compared with Amicar or control. Aprotinin also preserved the thromboelastogram mean clot formation time, clot strength, and clotting index compared with Amicar or control. CONCLUSIONS For complex spinal operations with large blood losses, the half-dose aprotinin regimen will reduce blood loss and the need for blood components and may have a role in reducing postoperative lung injury.