Cochrane · systematic review · CD013529
Interventions for treating iron deficiency anaemia in inflammatory bowel disease
Gordon, M, Sinopoulou, V, Iheozor-Ejiofor, Z, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2021 · Cochrane Library
GutAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
20
current version
GRADE rated
19
No studies
1
Included studies
NR
No studies 1 · 5%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 11 · 55%Low 7 · 35%Moderate 1 · 5%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
IV iron sucrose compared to oral iron sulphate
Population: IBD patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of responders ‐ active or inactive disease (6 weeks) IV iron sucrose vs oral iron sulphate | RR 1.22 [0.95, 1.57] | 2 studies · 137 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Serious adverse events ‐ mild to moderate disease (20 weeks) IV iron sucrose vs oral iron sulphate | RR 3.07 [0.13, 73.32] | 1 study · 91 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Oral iron sulphate compared to oral iron hydroxide polymaltose complex
Population: IBD patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of responders ‐ active or inactive disease (14 days) Oral iron sulphate vs oral iron hydroxide polymaltose complex | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 41 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Serious adverse events ‐ active or inactive disease (14 days) Oral iron sulphate vs oral iron hydroxide polymaltose complex | RR 2.86 [0.32, 25.24] | 1 study · 41 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
IV ferric carboxymaltose compared to IV iron sucrose
Population: IBD patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of responders ‐ mild to moderate disease (12 weeks) IV ferric carboxymaltose vs IV iron sucrose | RR 1.25 [1.06, 1.46] | 1 study · 485 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Serious adverse events ‐ mild to moderate disease (12 weeks) IV ferric carboxymaltose vs IV iron sucrose | RR 2.94 [0.12, 71.78] | 1 study · 485 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
IM erythropoietin + IV iron sucrose compared to IV iron sucrose + IM placebo
Population: IBD patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of responders ‐ disease activity not stated (12 weeks) IM erythropoietin + IV iron sucrose vs IV iron sucrose + IM placebo | RR 1.2 [0.9, 1.61] | 1 study · 40 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Serious adverse events ‐ disease activity not stated (12 weeks) IM erythropoietin + IV iron sucrose vs IV iron sucrose + IM placebo | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Oral ferric maltol compared to oral placebo
Population: IBD patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of responders ‐ mild disease to quiescent (up to 52 weeks) Oral ferric maltol vs oral placebo | RR 73 [4.58, 1164.36] | 1 study · 128 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Serious adverse events ‐ mild disease to quiescent (up to 52 weeks) Oral ferric maltol vs oral placebo | RR 1 [0.15, 6.88] | 1 study · 128 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Oral ferric maltol compared to IV ferric carboxymaltose
Population: IBD patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of responders ‐ disease activity not stated (12 weeks) Oral ferric maltol vs IV ferric carboxymaltose | RR 0.83 [0.65, 1.06] | 1 study · 252 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Serious adverse events (12 weeks) Oral ferric maltol vs IV ferric carboxymaltose | RR 2.95 [0.98, 8.91] | 1 study · 252 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
IV ferric carboxymaltose compared to oral iron sulphate
Population: IBD patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of responders ‐ mild to moderate disease (16 weeks) IV ferric carboxymaltose vs oral iron sulphate | RR 1.17 [0.95, 1.43] | 1 study · 200 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Serious adverse events ‐ mild to moderate disease (16 weeks) IV ferric carboxymaltose vs oral iron sulphate | RR 8.81 [0.52, 149.07] | 1 study · 200 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
IV iron isomaltoside compared to oral iron sulphate
Population: IBD patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of responders ‐ remission or mild disease (8 weeks) IV iron isomaltoside vs oral iron sulphate | RR 1.12 [0.93, 1.34] | 1 study · 338 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Serious adverse events ‐ remission or mild disease (8 weeks) IV iron isomaltoside vs oral iron sulphate | RR 4.02 [0.51, 31.73] | 1 study · 338 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
IM erythropoietin compared to oral placebo
Population: IBD patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of responders ‐ active disease (12 weeks) IM erythropoietin vs oral placebo | RR 3.5 [1.44, 8.48] | 1 study · 34 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Serious adverse events IM erythropoietin vs oral placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Intravenous preparations compared to oral preparations for treating iron deficiency anaemia in inflammatory bowel disease
Population: IBD patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of responders Intravenous preparations vs oral preparations | RR 1.17 [1.05, 1.31] | 5 studies · 927 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Withdrawal due to adverse events Intravenous preparations vs oral preparations | RR 0.39 [0.2, 0.74] | 5 studies · 927 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |