Renee A Mischler1, Seth M Armah2, Bruce A Craig3, Arthur D Rosen4, Ambar Banerjee5, Don J Selzer5, Jennifer N Choi5, Nana Gletsu-Miller6. 1. Department of Nutrition Science, Purdue University, 700 W. State Street, Stone Hall, Room 208, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA. 2. Department of Nutrition, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, 27412, USA. 3. Department of Statistics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA. 4. Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA. 5. School of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA. 6. Department of Nutrition Science, Purdue University, 700 W. State Street, Stone Hall, Room 208, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA. ngletsum@purdue.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The evidence behind recommendations for treatment of iron deficiency (ID) following roux-en-y gastric bypass surgery (RYGB) lacks high quality studies. SETTING: Academic, United States OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to compare the effectiveness of oral iron supplementation using non-heme versus heme iron for treatment of iron deficiency in RYGB patients. METHODS: In a randomized, single-blind study, women post-RYGB and iron deficient received non-heme iron (FeSO4, 195 mg/day) or heme iron (heme-iron-polypeptide, HIP, 31.5 to 94.5 mg/day) for 8 weeks. Measures of iron status, including blood concentrations of ferritin, soluble transferrin receptor (sTfR), and hemoglobin, were assessed. RESULTS: At baseline, the mean ± standard deviation for age, BMI, and years since surgery of the sample was 41.5 ± 6.8 years, 34.4 ± 5.9 kg/m2, and 6.9 ± 3.1 years, respectively; and there were no differences between FeSO4 (N = 6) or HIP (N = 8) groups. Compliance was greater than 94%. The study was stopped early due to statistical and clinical differences between groups. Values before and after FeSO4 supplementation, expressed as least square means (95% CI) were hemoglobin, 10.8 (9.8, 11.9) to 13.0 (11.9, 14.0) g/dL; sTfR, 2111 (1556, 2864) to 1270 (934, 1737) μg/L; ferritin, 4.9 (3.4, 7.2) to 15.5 (10.6, 22.6) μg/L; and sTfR:ferritin ratio, 542 (273, 1086) to 103 (51, 204); all p < 0.0001. With HIP supplementation, no change was observed in any of the iron status biomarkers (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In accordance with recommendations, oral supplementation using FeSO4, but not HIP, was efficacious for treatment of iron deficiency after RYGB.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The evidence behind recommendations for treatment of iron deficiency (ID) following roux-en-y gastric bypass surgery (RYGB) lacks high quality studies. SETTING: Academic, United States OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to compare the effectiveness of oral iron supplementation using non-heme versus hemeiron for treatment of iron deficiency in RYGB patients. METHODS: In a randomized, single-blind study, women post-RYGB and iron deficient received non-hemeiron (FeSO4, 195 mg/day) or hemeiron (heme-iron-polypeptide, HIP, 31.5 to 94.5 mg/day) for 8 weeks. Measures of iron status, including blood concentrations of ferritin, soluble transferrin receptor (sTfR), and hemoglobin, were assessed. RESULTS: At baseline, the mean ± standard deviation for age, BMI, and years since surgery of the sample was 41.5 ± 6.8 years, 34.4 ± 5.9 kg/m2, and 6.9 ± 3.1 years, respectively; and there were no differences between FeSO4 (N = 6) or HIP (N = 8) groups. Compliance was greater than 94%. The study was stopped early due to statistical and clinical differences between groups. Values before and after FeSO4 supplementation, expressed as least square means (95% CI) were hemoglobin, 10.8 (9.8, 11.9) to 13.0 (11.9, 14.0) g/dL; sTfR, 2111 (1556, 2864) to 1270 (934, 1737) μg/L; ferritin, 4.9 (3.4, 7.2) to 15.5 (10.6, 22.6) μg/L; and sTfR:ferritin ratio, 542 (273, 1086) to 103 (51, 204); all p < 0.0001. With HIP supplementation, no change was observed in any of the iron status biomarkers (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In accordance with recommendations, oral supplementation using FeSO4, but not HIP, was efficacious for treatment of iron deficiency after RYGB.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bariatric surgery; Iron deficiency; Iron supplementation; Nutritional complications
Authors: David Edholm; Felicity Svensson; Ingmar Näslund; F Anders Karlsson; Eva Rask; Magnus Sundbom Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2012-03-23 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Jeffrey I Mechanick; Adrienne Youdim; Daniel B Jones; W Timothy Garvey; Daniel L Hurley; M Molly McMahon; Leslie J Heinberg; Robert Kushner; Ted D Adams; Scott Shikora; John B Dixon; Stacy Brethauer Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Wendy C King; Jia-Yuh Chen; Steven H Belle; Anita P Courcoulas; Gregory F Dakin; Katherine A Elder; David R Flum; Marcelo W Hinojosa; James E Mitchell; Walter J Pories; Bruce M Wolfe; Susan Z Yanovski Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-04-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Stavra A Xanthakos; Jane C Khoury; Thomas H Inge; Todd M Jenkins; Avani C Modi; Marc P Michalsky; Mike K Chen; Anita P Courcoulas; Carroll M Harmon; Mary L Brandt; Michael A Helmrath; Heidi J Kalkwarf Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2019-11-06 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Ajay Kumar Jain; Carel W le Roux; Puneet Puri; Ali Tavakkoli; Nana Gletsu-Miller; Blandine Laferrère; Richard Kellermayer; John K DiBaise; Robert G Martindale; Bruce M Wolfe Journal: JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Antonio J Martínez-Ortega; Gabriel Olveira; José L Pereira-Cunill; Carmen Arraiza-Irigoyen; José M García-Almeida; José A Irles Rocamora; María J Molina-Puerta; Juan B Molina Soria; Juana M Rabat-Restrepo; María I Rebollo-Pérez; María P Serrano-Aguayo; Carmen Tenorio-Jiménez; Francisco J Vílches-López; Pedro P García-Luna Journal: Nutrients Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Simon S Evers; Yikai Shao; Sadeesh K Ramakrishnan; Jae Hoon Shin; Nadejda Bozadjieva-Kramer; Martin Irmler; Kerstin Stemmer; Darleen A Sandoval; Yatrik M Shah; Randy J Seeley Journal: Cell Rep Date: 2022-01-18 Impact factor: 9.423