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 M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
PY - 2019
Y1 - 2019
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
SN - 0735-1631
VL - 36
SP - 366
EP - 376
JO - American journal of perinatology
JF - American journal of perinatology
IS - 4
ER -