Efficacy of daily versus intermittent oral iron supplementation for prevention of anaemia among pregnant women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 9.6 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL EClinicalMedicine Pub Date : 2024-07-17 eCollection Date: 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102742
Anindita Banerjee, Shreyasi Athalye, Poonam Shingade, Vandana Khargekar, Namrata Mahajan, Manisha Madkaikar, Naveen Khargekar
{"title":"Efficacy of daily versus intermittent oral iron supplementation for prevention of anaemia among pregnant women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Anindita Banerjee, Shreyasi Athalye, Poonam Shingade, Vandana Khargekar, Namrata Mahajan, Manisha Madkaikar, Naveen Khargekar","doi":"10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102742","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The World Health Organization recommends daily oral supplementation of iron for prevention of maternal anaemia. However, the adverse effects due to daily supplementation leads to poor compliance among pregnant women. Also, the mucosal block theory suggests that intermittent oral iron may be more efficient than daily iron with respect to optimum absorption. Our meta-analysis reviewed the existing clinical studies for the efficacy of daily versus intermittent oral iron supplementation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this systematic review and meta-analysis [PROSPERO ID:CRD42024498180], we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Science Direct and Cochrane database for studies published from 1st January 1970 to 31st December, 2023. Studies comparing daily and intermittent iron supplementation in pregnant women were included. The median intermittent iron dose was 120 mg/day and daily iron dose was 60 mg/day. The primary outcome was endpoint haemoglobin levels after iron supplementation. The data was analysed using the 'meta' and 'metafor' packages in RStudio using random effects model. The heterogeneity, publication bias, risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed using I2 statistics, funnel plots, Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (ROB2) tool, and the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach respectively.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Of 4615 search results, 26 studies (n = 4365 participants) were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference (p = 0.18) between the endpoint mean haemoglobin levels of the daily versus intermittent oral iron groups (standardized mean difference (SMD): 0.51, 95% CI: -0.23 to 1.24, I<sup>2</sup> = 97%, low certainty evidence) irrespective of baseline anaemic status. However, the endpoint ferritin levels were significantly higher in the daily supplementation group (SMD: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.15-1.54, p = 0.02, I<sup>2</sup> = 97%, low certainty evidence). The adjusted odds ratio for nausea, (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 3.56, 95% CI: 2.23-5.69, p < 0.001, I<sup>2</sup> = 9%, moderate certainty evidence), diarrhoea (adjusted OR 5.40, 95% CI: 1.90-15.33, p = 0.002, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, low certainty evidence) and constipation (adjusted OR 1.95, 95% CI: 1.21-3.14, p = 0.006, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, moderate certainty evidence) was significantly higher in daily oral iron supplementation group.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Intermittent oral iron supplementation with a median dose of 120 mg/day demonstrates comparable efficacy to daily oral iron supplementation median dose of 60 mg/day in increasing haemoglobin levels among pregnant women with a significant reduction in adverse events.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>There was no funding for this study.</p>","PeriodicalId":11393,"journal":{"name":"EClinicalMedicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11304700/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EClinicalMedicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102742","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The World Health Organization recommends daily oral supplementation of iron for prevention of maternal anaemia. However, the adverse effects due to daily supplementation leads to poor compliance among pregnant women. Also, the mucosal block theory suggests that intermittent oral iron may be more efficient than daily iron with respect to optimum absorption. Our meta-analysis reviewed the existing clinical studies for the efficacy of daily versus intermittent oral iron supplementation.

Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis [PROSPERO ID:CRD42024498180], we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Science Direct and Cochrane database for studies published from 1st January 1970 to 31st December, 2023. Studies comparing daily and intermittent iron supplementation in pregnant women were included. The median intermittent iron dose was 120 mg/day and daily iron dose was 60 mg/day. The primary outcome was endpoint haemoglobin levels after iron supplementation. The data was analysed using the 'meta' and 'metafor' packages in RStudio using random effects model. The heterogeneity, publication bias, risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed using I2 statistics, funnel plots, Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (ROB2) tool, and the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach respectively.

Findings: Of 4615 search results, 26 studies (n = 4365 participants) were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference (p = 0.18) between the endpoint mean haemoglobin levels of the daily versus intermittent oral iron groups (standardized mean difference (SMD): 0.51, 95% CI: -0.23 to 1.24, I2 = 97%, low certainty evidence) irrespective of baseline anaemic status. However, the endpoint ferritin levels were significantly higher in the daily supplementation group (SMD: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.15-1.54, p = 0.02, I2 = 97%, low certainty evidence). The adjusted odds ratio for nausea, (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 3.56, 95% CI: 2.23-5.69, p < 0.001, I2 = 9%, moderate certainty evidence), diarrhoea (adjusted OR 5.40, 95% CI: 1.90-15.33, p = 0.002, I2 = 0%, low certainty evidence) and constipation (adjusted OR 1.95, 95% CI: 1.21-3.14, p = 0.006, I2 = 0%, moderate certainty evidence) was significantly higher in daily oral iron supplementation group.

Interpretation: Intermittent oral iron supplementation with a median dose of 120 mg/day demonstrates comparable efficacy to daily oral iron supplementation median dose of 60 mg/day in increasing haemoglobin levels among pregnant women with a significant reduction in adverse events.

Funding: There was no funding for this study.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
预防孕妇贫血的每日口服铁质补充剂与间歇性口服铁质补充剂的功效:系统综述与荟萃分析。
背景:世界卫生组织建议每天口服铁剂以预防孕妇贫血。然而,由于每日补充铁剂会产生不良影响,导致孕妇对补充铁剂的依从性不高。此外,粘膜阻滞理论认为,间歇性口服铁剂可能比每日口服铁剂更有利于最佳吸收。我们的荟萃分析回顾了现有的关于每日口服铁剂与间歇性口服铁剂疗效的临床研究:在这项系统回顾和荟萃分析[PROSPERO ID:CRD42024498180]中,我们检索了 PubMed、Google Scholar、Scopus、Science Direct 和 Cochrane 数据库中 1970 年 1 月 1 日至 2023 年 12 月 31 日发表的研究。其中包括比较孕妇每日和间歇性补铁的研究。间歇性铁剂剂量的中位数为 120 毫克/天,每日铁剂剂量为 60 毫克/天。主要结果是补充铁剂后的终点血红蛋白水平。使用随机效应模型,使用 RStudio 中的 "meta "和 "metafor "软件包对数据进行了分析。分别使用 I2 统计量、漏斗图、Cochrane Risk of Bias 2(ROB2)工具和推荐、评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)方法评估了异质性、发表偏倚、偏倚风险和证据的确定性:在 4615 项搜索结果中,有 26 项研究(n = 4365 名参与者)被纳入本次荟萃分析。无论基线贫血状态如何,每日口服铁剂组与间歇性口服铁剂组的终点平均血红蛋白水平无明显差异(p = 0.18)(标准化平均差异(SMD):0.51,95% CI:-0.23 至 1.24,I2 = 97%,证据确定性低)。然而,每日补充剂组的终点铁蛋白水平明显更高(SMD:0.85,95% CI:0.15-1.54,P = 0.02,I2 = 97%,低确定性证据)。恶心(调整后的几率比(OR)为 3.56,95% CI:2.23-5.69,p 2 = 9%,中等确定性证据)、腹泻(调整后的几率比(OR)为 5.40,95% CI:1.90-15.33,p = 0.002,I2 = 0%,低度确定性证据)和便秘(调整 OR 1.95,95% CI:1.21-3.14,p = 0.006,I2 = 0%,中度确定性证据)在每日口服铁补充剂组明显较高:在提高孕妇血红蛋白水平方面,中位剂量为 120 毫克/天的间歇性口服铁质补充剂与中位剂量为 60 毫克/天的每日口服铁质补充剂的疗效相当,且不良反应明显减少:本研究没有资金支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
EClinicalMedicine
EClinicalMedicine Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
18.90
自引率
1.30%
发文量
506
审稿时长
22 days
期刊介绍: eClinicalMedicine is a gold open-access clinical journal designed to support frontline health professionals in addressing the complex and rapid health transitions affecting societies globally. The journal aims to assist practitioners in overcoming healthcare challenges across diverse communities, spanning diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and health promotion. Integrating disciplines from various specialties and life stages, it seeks to enhance health systems as fundamental institutions within societies. With a forward-thinking approach, eClinicalMedicine aims to redefine the future of healthcare.
期刊最新文献
Risk factors associated with post-tuberculosis sequelae: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CVN424, a GPR6 inverse agonist, for Parkinson's disease and motor fluctuations: a double-blind, randomized, phase 2 trial. Diagnostic performance of deep learning for infectious keratitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gut microbiota in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: an individual based analysis of publicly available data. The global burden of enteric fever, 2017-2021: a systematic analysis from the global burden of disease study 2021.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1