-
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Jan 2021Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a relapsing and remitting condition affecting between 5% and 10% of people. Efficacious therapies are available, but their relative efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a relapsing and remitting condition affecting between 5% and 10% of people. Efficacious therapies are available, but their relative efficacy is unknown.
AIM
To perform a systematic review with network meta-analysis to resolve this uncertainty.
METHODS
We searched the medical literature through July 2020 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing efficacy of drugs for adults with FD, compared with each other, or placebo. Trials reported a dichotomous assessment of symptom status after completion of therapy. We pooled data using a random effects model. Efficacy was reported as a pooled relative risk (RR) of remaining symptomatic with a 95% confidence interval (CI) to summarise efficacy of each comparison tested. Relative ranking was assessed with surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probabilities.
RESULTS
We identified 71 eligible RCTs (19 243 participants). Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) were ranked second for efficacy (RR of remaining symptomatic = 0.71; 95% CI 0.58-0.87, SUCRA 0.87), and first when only low risk of bias trials were included. Most RCTs that used TCAs recruited patients who were refractory to other drugs included in the network. Although sulpiride or levosulpiride were ranked first for efficacy (RR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.36-0.69, SUCRA 0.99), trial quality was low and only 86 patients received active therapy. TCAs were more likely to cause adverse events than placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
TCAs, histamine- receptor antagonists, standard- and low-dose proton pump inhibitors, sulpiride or levosulpiride, itopride and acotiamide were all more efficacious than placebo for FD.
Topics: Adult; Dyspepsia; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Proton Pump Inhibitors
PubMed: 32936964
DOI: 10.1111/apt.16072 -
Nutrients Jan 2020Probiotic is little known for its benefits on upper gastrointestinal health. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the efficacy of probiotics in...
Probiotic is little known for its benefits on upper gastrointestinal health. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the efficacy of probiotics in alleviating the frequency and severity of symptoms in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in the general adult population. The PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective studies on GERD, heartburn, regurgitation, and dyspepsia, without any limitation on sample size. The Jadad scale was used to evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trials. In total, 13 prospective studies that were published in 12 articles were included in the analysis and scored per the Jadad scale as high- (five studies), medium- (two), and low- (six) quality. One article reported on two probiotic groups; thus, 14 comparisons were included in the selected studies, of which 11 (79%) reported positive benefits of probiotics on symptoms of GERD. Five out of 11 positive outcomes (45%) noted benefits on reflux symptoms: three noted reduced regurgitation; improvements in reflux or heartburn were seen in one study; five (45%) saw improvements in dyspepsia symptoms; and nine (81%) saw improvements in other upper gastrointestinal symptoms, such as nausea (three studies), abdominal pain (five), and gas-related symptoms (four), such as belching, gurgling, and burping. In conclusion, probiotic use can be beneficial for GERD symptoms, such as regurgitation and heartburn. However, proper placebo-controlled, randomized, and double-blinded clinical trials with a sufficient number of participants are warranted to confirm its efficacy in alleviating these symptoms. Further, interventions with longer durations and an intermediate analysis of endpoints should be considered to determine the proper therapeutic window.
Topics: Gastroesophageal Reflux; Humans; Probiotics
PubMed: 31906573
DOI: 10.3390/nu12010132 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Mar 2016To evaluate whether Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication therapy benefits patients with functional dyspepsia (FD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To evaluate whether Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication therapy benefits patients with functional dyspepsia (FD).
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy and safety of H. pylori eradication therapy for patients with functional dyspepsia published in English (up to May 2015) were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library. Pooled estimates were measured using the fixed or random effect model. Overall effect was expressed as a pooled risk ratio (RR) or a standard mean difference (SMD). All data were analyzed with Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 12.0.
RESULTS
This systematic review included 25 RCTs with a total of 5555 patients with FD. Twenty-three of these studies were used to evaluate the benefits of H. pylori eradication therapy for symptom improvement; the pooled RR was 1.23 (95%CI: 1.12-1.36, P < 0.0001). H. pylori eradication therapy demonstrated symptom improvement during long-term follow-up at ≥ 1 year (RR = 1.24; 95%CI: 1.12-1.37, P < 0.0001) but not during short-term follow-up at < 1 year (RR = 1.26; 95%CI: 0.83-1.92, P = 0.27). Seven studies showed no benefit of H. pylori eradication therapy on quality of life with an SMD of -0.01 (95%CI: -0.11 to 0.08, P = 0.80). Six studies demonstrated that H. pylori eradication therapy reduced the development of peptic ulcer disease compared to no eradication therapy (RR = 0.35; 95%CI: 0.18-0.68, P = 0.002). Eight studies showed that H. pylori eradication therapy increased the likelihood of treatment-related side effects compared to no eradication therapy (RR = 2.02; 95%CI: 1.12-3.65, P = 0.02). Ten studies demonstrated that patients who received H. pylori eradication therapy were more likely to obtain histologic resolution of chronic gastritis compared to those who did not receive eradication therapy (RR = 7.13; 95%CI: 3.68-13.81, P < 0.00001).
CONCLUSION
The decision to eradicate H. pylori in patients with functional dyspepsia requires individual assessment.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chi-Square Distribution; Drug Therapy, Combination; Dyspepsia; Female; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Remission Induction; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27022230
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i12.3486 -
Journal of Gastroenterology and... Sep 2022Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (hEDS) and the hypermobility spectrum disorders (HSD) can be challenging to diagnose and manage. Gastrointestinal symptoms and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (hEDS) and the hypermobility spectrum disorders (HSD) can be challenging to diagnose and manage. Gastrointestinal symptoms and disorders of gut-brain interaction are common in this cohort and multifactorial in origin. The primary aim of this review is to arm the gastroenterologist with a clinically useful understanding of HSD/hEDS, by exploring the association of gastrointestinal disorders with HSD/hEDS, highlighting current pathophysiological understanding and providing a pragmatic approach to managing these patients.
METHODS
Literature relevant to the gastrointestinal system and hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome was systematically searched, critically appraised, and summarized.
RESULTS
Diagnosis is based upon clinical criteria and a genetic basis is yet to be defined. The prevalence of many gut symptoms, including abdominal pain (69% vs 27%, P < 0.0001), postprandial fullness (34% vs 16%, P = 0.01), constipation (73% vs 16%, P < 0.001), and diarrhea (47% vs 9%, P < 0.001) are significantly higher in HSD/hEDS compared with non-HSD/hEDS individuals. Disorders of gut-brain interaction are also common, particularly functional dyspepsia. The pathophysiology of gut symptoms is poorly understood but may involve effects of connective tissue laxity and its functional consequences, and the influence of autonomic dysfunction, medication and comorbid mental health disorders. Awareness is the key to early diagnosis. Management is limited in evidence-base but ideally should include an integrated multidisciplinary approach.
CONCLUSIONS
HSD/hEDS is a multisystemic disorder in which gastrointestinal symptoms, particularly related to disorders of gut-brain interaction are common. Deficiencies in knowledge regarding the pathophysiological processes limit evidence-based interventions and remain important areas for future research.
Topics: Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome; Gastroenterologists; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Joint Instability
PubMed: 35750466
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.15927 -
Contemporary Clinical Trials... Aug 2022Semaglutide is a long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) indicated for glycaemic management in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Oral... (Review)
Review
The efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide for glycaemic management in adults with type 2 diabetes compared to subcutaneous semaglutide, placebo, and other GLP-1 RA comparators: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
AIM
Semaglutide is a long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) indicated for glycaemic management in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Oral semaglutide administration can help decrease glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight in people with uncontrolled T2D. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide compared to that of subcutaneous semaglutide, placebo, and other GLP-1 RAs in the treatment of T2D.
METHODS
Randomised controlled trials of subcutaneous and oral semaglutide for glycaemic control in adults with T2D were selected from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PubMed. Mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to synthesise the results, and oral and subcutaneous semaglutide formulations were indirectly compared using mixed treatment comparisons.
RESULTS
Twelve studies were included in this review (6840 participants). Oral semaglutide (14.0 mg) significantly reduced HbA1c (MD, -1.30% [95%CI: -1.44, -1.16], P < 0.05) and body weight (MD, -3.17 kg [95%CI: -3.89, -2.45], P < 0.05) compared to placebo (MD, HbA1c: -0.32% [95%CI: -0.49, -0.15], P < 0.05; MD body weight: -2.56 kg [95%CI: -3.41, -1.71], P < 0.05), liraglutide (1.2 mg), exenatide ER (2.0 mg), and dulaglutide (1.5 mg). Oral semaglutide was slightly less effective than subcutaneous semaglutide in reducing HbA1c levels (MD: -0.26% [95%CI: -0.44, -0.07], P < 0.05) and body weight (MD: -1.08 kg [95%CI: -2.04, -0.12], P < 0.05). Oral semaglutide increased the incidence of adverse events (nausea, diarrhoea, dyspepsia, and vomiting) compared to placebo, liraglutide (1.2 mg), exenatide (ER, 2.0 mg), and dulaglutide 1.5 mg but not compared to subcutaneous semaglutide.
CONCLUSION
Oral semaglutide was non-inferior to subcutaneous semaglutide and superior to placebo and another GLP-1 RA in reducing HbA1c and body weight. It was superior to subcutaneous semaglutide and inferior to other GLP-1 RA comparators and placebo in terms of the incidence of adverse events. Thus, oral semaglutide provides a convenient administration route for patients who prefer oral treatments over injectable therapies.
PubMed: 35812819
DOI: 10.1016/j.conctc.2022.100944 -
Gut Jul 2015Many cross-sectional surveys have reported the prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia, but there has been no recent systematic review of data from all studies to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Many cross-sectional surveys have reported the prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia, but there has been no recent systematic review of data from all studies to determine its global prevalence and risk factors.
DESIGN
MEDLINE, EMBASE and EMBASE Classic were searched (until January 2014) to identify population-based studies that reported the prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia in adults (≥ 15 years old); dyspepsia was defined using symptom-based criteria or questionnaires. The prevalence of dyspepsia was extracted for all studies and according to the criteria used to define it. Pooled prevalence, according to study location and certain other characteristics, ORs and 95% CIs were calculated.
RESULTS
Of the 306 citations evaluated, 103 reported the prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia in 100 separate study populations, containing 312,415 subjects. Overall pooled prevalence in all studies was 20.8% (95% CI 17.8% to 23.9%). The prevalence varied according to country (from 1.8% to 57.0%) and criteria used to define dyspepsia. The greatest prevalence values were found when a broad definition of dyspepsia (29.5%; 95% CI 25.3% to 33.8%) or upper abdominal or epigastric pain or discomfort (20.4%; 95% CI 16.3% to 24.8%) were used. The prevalence was higher in women (OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.36), smokers (OR 1.25; 95% CI 1.12 to 1.40), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) users (OR 1.59; 95% CI 1.27 to 1.99) and Helicobacter pylori-positive individuals (OR 1.18; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.33).
CONCLUSIONS
The overall pooled prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia was 21%, but varied among countries and according to the criteria used to define its presence. Prevalence is significantly higher in women, smokers, NSAID users and H. pylori-positive individuals, although these associations were modest.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Dyspepsia; Female; Global Health; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Intestines; Male; Prevalence; Risk Factors; Sex Factors; Smoking
PubMed: 25147201
DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-307843 -
Food Science & Nutrition Jan 2019Ginger, the rhizome of Zingiber officinale, which is used as a spice globally has a long history of medicinal use that stimulates investigators to assess its potential... (Review)
Review
Ginger, the rhizome of Zingiber officinale, which is used as a spice globally has a long history of medicinal use that stimulates investigators to assess its potential roles as an adjuvant therapy or alternative medicine in a range of diseases. Anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antitumor, and antiulcer effects of ginger have been proven in many scientific studies, and some of the ancient applications of ginger as a home remedy has been confirmed in human. In this review, we summarized the current evidence on the effects of ginger consumption on gastrointestinal disorders based on clinical trials. Our data indicate that divided lower daily dosage of 1500 mg ginger is beneficial for nausea relief. Because of limited number of studies on some other gastrointestinal disorders, the results may not be as much powered as to find significant results. Therefore, more extensive and well-controlled human studies of ginger or its standard extracts are required to demonstrate its efficacy as a gastroprotective agent. Dose-finding studies should be undertaken to accurately determine the effective dose and preparation of ginger in further clinical trials protocol.
PubMed: 30680163
DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.807 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) infection has been implicated in a number of malignancies and non-malignant conditions including peptic ulcers, non-ulcer dyspepsia,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) infection has been implicated in a number of malignancies and non-malignant conditions including peptic ulcers, non-ulcer dyspepsia, recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding, unexplained iron deficiency anaemia, idiopathic thrombocytopaenia purpura, and colorectal adenomas. The confirmatory diagnosis of H pylori is by endoscopic biopsy, followed by histopathological examination using haemotoxylin and eosin (H & E) stain or special stains such as Giemsa stain and Warthin-Starry stain. Special stains are more accurate than H & E stain. There is significant uncertainty about the diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive tests for diagnosis of H pylori.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the diagnostic accuracy of urea breath test, serology, and stool antigen test, used alone or in combination, for diagnosis of H pylori infection in symptomatic and asymptomatic people, so that eradication therapy for H pylori can be started.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Science Citation Index and the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Database on 4 March 2016. We screened references in the included studies to identify additional studies. We also conducted citation searches of relevant studies, most recently on 4 December 2016. We did not restrict studies by language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluated at least one of the index tests (urea breath test using isotopes such as C or C, serology and stool antigen test) against the reference standard (histopathological examination using H & E stain, special stains or immunohistochemical stain) in people suspected of having H pylori infection.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the references to identify relevant studies and independently extracted data. We assessed the methodological quality of studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We performed meta-analysis by using the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model to estimate and compare SROC curves. Where appropriate, we used bivariate or univariate logistic regression models to estimate summary sensitivities and specificities.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 101 studies involving 11,003 participants, of which 5839 participants (53.1%) had H pylori infection. The prevalence of H pylori infection in the studies ranged from 15.2% to 94.7%, with a median prevalence of 53.7% (interquartile range 42.0% to 66.5%). Most of the studies (57%) included participants with dyspepsia and 53 studies excluded participants who recently had proton pump inhibitors or antibiotics.There was at least an unclear risk of bias or unclear applicability concern for each study.Of the 101 studies, 15 compared the accuracy of two index tests and two studies compared the accuracy of three index tests. Thirty-four studies (4242 participants) evaluated serology; 29 studies (2988 participants) evaluated stool antigen test; 34 studies (3139 participants) evaluated urea breath test-C; 21 studies (1810 participants) evaluated urea breath test-C; and two studies (127 participants) evaluated urea breath test but did not report the isotope used. The thresholds used to define test positivity and the staining techniques used for histopathological examination (reference standard) varied between studies. Due to sparse data for each threshold reported, it was not possible to identify the best threshold for each test.Using data from 99 studies in an indirect test comparison, there was statistical evidence of a difference in diagnostic accuracy between urea breath test-C, urea breath test-C, serology and stool antigen test (P = 0.024). The diagnostic odds ratios for urea breath test-C, urea breath test-C, serology, and stool antigen test were 153 (95% confidence interval (CI) 73.7 to 316), 105 (95% CI 74.0 to 150), 47.4 (95% CI 25.5 to 88.1) and 45.1 (95% CI 24.2 to 84.1). The sensitivity (95% CI) estimated at a fixed specificity of 0.90 (median from studies across the four tests), was 0.94 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.97) for urea breath test-C, 0.92 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.94) for urea breath test-C, 0.84 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.91) for serology, and 0.83 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.90) for stool antigen test. This implies that on average, given a specificity of 0.90 and prevalence of 53.7% (median specificity and prevalence in the studies), out of 1000 people tested for H pylori infection, there will be 46 false positives (people without H pylori infection who will be diagnosed as having H pylori infection). In this hypothetical cohort, urea breath test-C, urea breath test-C, serology, and stool antigen test will give 30 (95% CI 15 to 58), 42 (95% CI 30 to 58), 86 (95% CI 50 to 140), and 89 (95% CI 52 to 146) false negatives respectively (people with H pylori infection for whom the diagnosis of H pylori will be missed).Direct comparisons were based on few head-to-head studies. The ratios of diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) were 0.68 (95% CI 0.12 to 3.70; P = 0.56) for urea breath test-C versus serology (seven studies), and 0.88 (95% CI 0.14 to 5.56; P = 0.84) for urea breath test-C versus stool antigen test (seven studies). The 95% CIs of these estimates overlap with those of the ratios of DORs from the indirect comparison. Data were limited or unavailable for meta-analysis of other direct comparisons.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In people without a history of gastrectomy and those who have not recently had antibiotics or proton ,pump inhibitors, urea breath tests had high diagnostic accuracy while serology and stool antigen tests were less accurate for diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection.This is based on an indirect test comparison (with potential for bias due to confounding), as evidence from direct comparisons was limited or unavailable. The thresholds used for these tests were highly variable and we were unable to identify specific thresholds that might be useful in clinical practice.We need further comparative studies of high methodological quality to obtain more reliable evidence of relative accuracy between the tests. Such studies should be conducted prospectively in a representative spectrum of participants and clearly reported to ensure low risk of bias. Most importantly, studies should prespecify and clearly report thresholds used, and should avoid inappropriate exclusions.
Topics: Adult; Antigens, Bacterial; Biomarkers; Breath Tests; Child; Feces; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Prevalence; Urea
PubMed: 29543326
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012080.pub2 -
Gut Jan 2022Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a chronic disorder that is difficult to treat. may contribute to its pathophysiology. A Cochrane review from 2006 suggested that...
OBJECTIVE
Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a chronic disorder that is difficult to treat. may contribute to its pathophysiology. A Cochrane review from 2006 suggested that eradication therapy was beneficial, but there have been numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published since. We evaluated impact of eradication therapy on both cure and improvement of FD, as well as whether any benefit was likely to arise from eradication of .
DESIGN
We searched the medical literature through October 2021 to identify RCTs examining efficacy of eradication therapy in -positive adults with FD. The control arm received antisecretory therapy or prokinetics, with or without placebo antibiotics, or placebo alone. Follow-up was for ≥3 months. We pooled dichotomous data to obtain a relative risk (RR) of symptoms not being cured or symptoms not improving with a 95% CI. We estimated the number needed to treat (NNT).
RESULTS
Twenty-nine RCTs recruited 6781 . -positive patients with FD. Eradication therapy was superior to control for symptom cure (RR of symptoms not being cured=0.91; 95% CI 0.88 to 0.94, NNT=14; 95% CI 11 to 21) and improvement (RR of symptoms not improving=0.84; 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91, NNT=9; 95% CI 7 to 17). There was no significant correlation between eradication rate and RR of FD improving or being cured (Pearson correlation coefficient=-0.23, p=0.907), but the effect was larger in patients with successful eradication of than with unsuccessful eradication (RR=0.65; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.82, NNT=4.5, 95% CI 3 to 9). Adverse events (RR=2.19; 95% 1.10 to 4.37) and adverse events leading to withdrawal (RR=2.60; 95% CI 1.47 to 4.58) were more common with eradication therapy.
CONCLUSION
There is high quality evidence to suggest that eradication therapy leads to both cure and improvement in FD symptoms, although the benefit is modest.
PubMed: 35022266
DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-326583 -
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Jul 2019To perform a systematic review of randomized trials comparing oral vs intravenous (IV) iron therapy to treat postpartum anemia.
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review of randomized trials comparing oral vs intravenous (IV) iron therapy to treat postpartum anemia.
DATA SOURCES
Data sources were as follows: PubMed (1972-2017); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL (1972-2017); CINAHL (1972-2017); Web of Science; Excerpta Medica Database, and EMBASE (1972-2017).
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We included randomized trials comparing oral vs IV iron monotherapy to treat postpartum anemia (classified as a hemoglobin <12 g/dL).
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
Study quality was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. The primary outcome was hemoglobin concentration at 6 weeks postpartum. Secondary outcomes included hemoglobin concentration at 1-5 weeks postpartum, ferritin concentration at 1-6 weeks postpartum, and maternal adverse outcomes. For meta-analysis, mean differences and odds ratios using a random effects model were calculated. Risk of heterogeneity was reported as I.
RESULTS
A total of 15 randomized trials met our inclusion criteria (n = 1001 and 1 181 women receiving oral iron and IV iron, respectively); 4 studies reported data for our primary outcome. We observed higher postpartum week 6 hemoglobin concentrations in the IV iron group compared to the oral iron group (mean difference, 0.9 g/dL; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.4-1.3; P = .0003). Compared to oral iron, women receiving IV iron had higher hemoglobin concentrations at postpartum weeks 1, 2, and 3; higher ferritin concentrations at postpartum weeks 1, 2, 4, and 6; an increased likelihood of skin flushing (odds ratio [OR], 6.95; 95% CI, 1.56-31.03; P = .01; I = 0%); and a decreased likelihood of constipation (OR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.03-0.21; P < .00001, I = 27%) and dyspepsia (OR, 0.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.42; P = .004; I = 0%). The reported event rate for anaphylaxis among women receiving IV iron was 0.6%.
CONCLUSION
In this systematic review, among women with postpartum anemia, hemoglobin concentrations at 6 weeks postpartum were almost 1 g/dL higher in women who received IV iron compared to oral iron. The safety profile of IV iron was also reassuring. Given the weaker hemoglobin response and higher risk of gastrointestinal side effects with oral iron use, our findings suggest that IV iron be considered as a viable treatment option for postpartum iron deficiency anemia.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Administration, Oral; Anemia, Iron-Deficiency; Female; Ferric Compounds; Ferrous Compounds; Hematinics; Hemoglobins; Humans; Iron; Pregnancy; Puerperal Disorders; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30578747
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.12.016