Alaa Qassim1, Ben W Mol2, Rosalie M Grivell2,3,4, Luke E Grzeskowiak2,5. 1. School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia. 2. The Robinson Research Institute, Adelaide Medical School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, SA, Australia. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia. 5. SA Pharmacy, SA Health, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, SA, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intravenous (IV) iron in pregnancy is useful where oral iron is not tolerated or a rapid replenishment of iron is required. AIMS: To review the literature on the efficacy and safety of different IV iron preparations in the management of antenatal iron-deficiency anaemia (IDA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus from inception to June 2016. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies, involving administration of IV iron (ferric carboxymaltose (FCM), iron polymaltose (IPM) or iron sucrose (IS)), regardless of comparator, to manage antenatal IDA. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data and assessed quality. RESULTS: A total of 47 studies were eligible (21 RCTs and 26 observational studies), investigating IS (n = 2635; 41 studies), FCM (n = 276; four studies) and IPM (n = 164; three studies). All IV preparations resulted in significant improvements in haematological parameters, with a median increase of 21.8 g/L at 3-4 weeks and 30.1 g/L by delivery, but there was no evidence of any associated improvements in clinical outcomes. A greater median increase in Hb was observed with a high (25 g/L; range: 20-39.6 g/L) compared with low dose (20 g/L; range: 6.2-50.3 g/L). The median prevalence of adverse drug reactions for IPM (2.2%; range: 0-4.5%) was lower than FCM (5.0%; range: 0-20%) and IS (6.7%; range: 0-19.5%). CONCLUSION: While IV iron in pregnancy improves haematological parameters, there is an absence of evidence for improvements in important maternal or perinatal outcomes. No single preparation of IV iron appeared to be superior, with the current IV iron preparation of choice largely determined by cost and convenience around administration.
BACKGROUND: Intravenous (IV) iron in pregnancy is useful where oral iron is not tolerated or a rapid replenishment of iron is required. AIMS: To review the literature on the efficacy and safety of different IV iron preparations in the management of antenatal iron-deficiency anaemia (IDA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus from inception to June 2016. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies, involving administration of IV iron (ferric carboxymaltose (FCM), iron polymaltose (IPM) or iron sucrose (IS)), regardless of comparator, to manage antenatal IDA. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data and assessed quality. RESULTS: A total of 47 studies were eligible (21 RCTs and 26 observational studies), investigating IS (n = 2635; 41 studies), FCM (n = 276; four studies) and IPM (n = 164; three studies). All IV preparations resulted in significant improvements in haematological parameters, with a median increase of 21.8 g/L at 3-4 weeks and 30.1 g/L by delivery, but there was no evidence of any associated improvements in clinical outcomes. A greater median increase in Hb was observed with a high (25 g/L; range: 20-39.6 g/L) compared with low dose (20 g/L; range: 6.2-50.3 g/L). The median prevalence of adverse drug reactions for IPM (2.2%; range: 0-4.5%) was lower than FCM (5.0%; range: 0-20%) and IS (6.7%; range: 0-19.5%). CONCLUSION: While IV iron in pregnancy improves haematological parameters, there is an absence of evidence for improvements in important maternal or perinatal outcomes. No single preparation of IV iron appeared to be superior, with the current IV iron preparation of choice largely determined by cost and convenience around administration.
Authors: Hye Won Shin; Doo Yeon Go; Suk Woo Lee; Yoon Ji Choi; Eun Ji Ko; Hae Sun You; Yoo Kyung Jang Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 1.817