Treatment of Iron Deficiency Anemia in Pregnancy with Intravenous versus Oral Iron: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Shravya Govindappagari, Richard Burwick

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the benefits of intravenous (IV) iron in pregnancy. Study Design Systematic review was registered with PROSPERO and performed using PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched. Eleven RCTs, comparing IV to oral iron for treatment of iron-deficiency anemia in pregnancy, were included. Meta-analyses were performed with Stata software (College Station, TX), utilizing random effects model and method of DerSimonian and Laird. Outcomes were assessed by pooled odds ratios (OR) or pooled weighted mean difference (WMD). Sensitivity analyses were performed for heterogeneity. Results We found that pregnant women receiving IV iron, compared with oral iron, had the following benefits: (1) Achieved target hemoglobin more often, pooled OR 2.66 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.71-4.15), p < 0.001; (2) Increased hemoglobin level after 4 weeks, pooled WMD 0.84 g/dL (95% CI: 0.59-1.09), p < 0.001; (3) Decreased adverse reactions, pooled OR 0.35 (95% CI: 0.18-0.67), p = 0.001. Results were unchanged following sensitivity analyses. Conclusion In this meta-analysis, IV iron is superior to oral iron for treatment of iron-deficiency anemia in pregnancy. Women receiving IV iron more often achieve desired hemoglobin targets, faster and with fewer side effects.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)366-376
Number of pages11
JournalAmerican Journal of Perinatology
Volume36
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Iron-Deficiency Anemias
Meta-Analysis
Iron
Pregnancy
Hemoglobins
Odds Ratio
Confidence Intervals
Therapeutics
Randomized Controlled Trials
PubMed
MEDLINE
Libraries
Pregnant Women
Software
Guidelines

Keywords

  • anemia
  • intravenous iron
  • iron deficiency
  • oral iron
  • pregnancy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

Treatment of Iron Deficiency Anemia in Pregnancy with Intravenous versus Oral Iron : Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. / Govindappagari, Shravya; Burwick, Richard.

In: American Journal of Perinatology, Vol. 36, No. 4, 01.01.2019, p. 366-376.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e73ab62d0cb34e0cbb11295f0ab9a047,
title = "Treatment of Iron Deficiency Anemia in Pregnancy with Intravenous versus Oral Iron: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis",
abstract = "Objective To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the benefits of intravenous (IV) iron in pregnancy. Study Design Systematic review was registered with PROSPERO and performed using PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched. Eleven RCTs, comparing IV to oral iron for treatment of iron-deficiency anemia in pregnancy, were included. Meta-analyses were performed with Stata software (College Station, TX), utilizing random effects model and method of DerSimonian and Laird. Outcomes were assessed by pooled odds ratios (OR) or pooled weighted mean difference (WMD). Sensitivity analyses were performed for heterogeneity. Results We found that pregnant women receiving IV iron, compared with oral iron, had the following benefits: (1) Achieved target hemoglobin more often, pooled OR 2.66 (95{\%} confidence interval [CI]: 1.71-4.15), p < 0.001; (2) Increased hemoglobin level after 4 weeks, pooled WMD 0.84 g/dL (95{\%} CI: 0.59-1.09), p < 0.001; (3) Decreased adverse reactions, pooled OR 0.35 (95{\%} CI: 0.18-0.67), p = 0.001. Results were unchanged following sensitivity analyses. Conclusion In this meta-analysis, IV iron is superior to oral iron for treatment of iron-deficiency anemia in pregnancy. Women receiving IV iron more often achieve desired hemoglobin targets, faster and with fewer side effects.",
keywords = "anemia, intravenous iron, iron deficiency, oral iron, pregnancy",
author = "Shravya Govindappagari and Richard Burwick",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1055/s-0038-1668555",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "366--376",
journal = "American Journal of Perinatology",
issn = "0735-1631",
publisher = "Thieme Medical Publishers",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Treatment of Iron Deficiency Anemia in Pregnancy with Intravenous versus Oral Iron

T2 - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AU - Govindappagari, Shravya

AU - Burwick, Richard

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Objective To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the benefits of intravenous (IV) iron in pregnancy. Study Design Systematic review was registered with PROSPERO and performed using PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched. Eleven RCTs, comparing IV to oral iron for treatment of iron-deficiency anemia in pregnancy, were included. Meta-analyses were performed with Stata software (College Station, TX), utilizing random effects model and method of DerSimonian and Laird. Outcomes were assessed by pooled odds ratios (OR) or pooled weighted mean difference (WMD). Sensitivity analyses were performed for heterogeneity. Results We found that pregnant women receiving IV iron, compared with oral iron, had the following benefits: (1) Achieved target hemoglobin more often, pooled OR 2.66 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.71-4.15), p < 0.001; (2) Increased hemoglobin level after 4 weeks, pooled WMD 0.84 g/dL (95% CI: 0.59-1.09), p < 0.001; (3) Decreased adverse reactions, pooled OR 0.35 (95% CI: 0.18-0.67), p = 0.001. Results were unchanged following sensitivity analyses. Conclusion In this meta-analysis, IV iron is superior to oral iron for treatment of iron-deficiency anemia in pregnancy. Women receiving IV iron more often achieve desired hemoglobin targets, faster and with fewer side effects.

AB - Objective To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the benefits of intravenous (IV) iron in pregnancy. Study Design Systematic review was registered with PROSPERO and performed using PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched. Eleven RCTs, comparing IV to oral iron for treatment of iron-deficiency anemia in pregnancy, were included. Meta-analyses were performed with Stata software (College Station, TX), utilizing random effects model and method of DerSimonian and Laird. Outcomes were assessed by pooled odds ratios (OR) or pooled weighted mean difference (WMD). Sensitivity analyses were performed for heterogeneity. Results We found that pregnant women receiving IV iron, compared with oral iron, had the following benefits: (1) Achieved target hemoglobin more often, pooled OR 2.66 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.71-4.15), p < 0.001; (2) Increased hemoglobin level after 4 weeks, pooled WMD 0.84 g/dL (95% CI: 0.59-1.09), p < 0.001; (3) Decreased adverse reactions, pooled OR 0.35 (95% CI: 0.18-0.67), p = 0.001. Results were unchanged following sensitivity analyses. Conclusion In this meta-analysis, IV iron is superior to oral iron for treatment of iron-deficiency anemia in pregnancy. Women receiving IV iron more often achieve desired hemoglobin targets, faster and with fewer side effects.

KW - anemia

KW - intravenous iron

KW - iron deficiency

KW - oral iron

KW - pregnancy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062409436&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85062409436&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1055/s-0038-1668555

DO - 10.1055/s-0038-1668555

M3 - Article

C2 - 30121943

AN - SCOPUS:85062409436

VL - 36

SP - 366

EP - 376

JO - American Journal of Perinatology

JF - American Journal of Perinatology

SN - 0735-1631

IS - 4

ER -