However , in patients with IBD flares and inadequate responses to or side effects with oral preparations , intravenous iron supplementation is the therapy of choice .
Neither oral nor intravenous therapy seems to exacerbate the clinical course of IBD , and intravenous iron therapy can be administered even in active disease stages and concomitantly with biologics .
Based on the data presented , oral iron therapy should be preferred for patients with quiescent disease stages and trivial iron deficiency  anemia unless such patients are intolerant or have an inadequate response , whereas intravenous iron supplementation may be of advantage in patients with aggravated anemia or flares of IBD because inflammation hampers intestinal absorption of iron
Abstract Anemia is the most frequent complication of inflammatory bowel disease ( IBD ) , but anemia , mostly due to iron deficiency , has long been neglected in these patients .
The aim was to briefly present the pathophysiology , followed by a balanced overview of the different forms of iron replacement available , and subsequently , to perform a systematic review of studies performed in the last decade on the treatment of iron-deficiency anemia in IBD .
A Randomized, Open-Label, Non-Inferiority Study of Intravenous Iron Isomaltoside 1,000 (Monofer) Compared With Oral Iron for Treatment of Anemia in IBD (PROCEED)
OBJECTIVES : In the largest head-to-head comparison between an oral and an intravenous ( IV ) iron compound in patients with inflammatory bowel disease ( IBD ) so far , we strived to determine whether IV iron isomaltoside 1,000 is non-inferior to oral iron sulfate in the treatment of iron deficiency anemia ( IDA ) . METHODS : This prospect i ve , r and omized , comparative , open-label , non-inferiority study was conducted at 36 sites in Europe and India . Patients with known intolerance to oral iron were excluded . A total of 338 IBD patients in clinical remission or with mild disease , a hemoglobin ( Hb ) < 12 g/dl , and a transferrin saturation ( TSAT ) < 20 % were r and omized 2:1 to receive either IV iron isomaltoside 1,000 according to the Ganzoni formula ( 225 patients ) or oral iron sulfate 200 mg daily ( equivalent to 200 mg elemental iron ; 113 patients ) . An interactive web response system method was used to r and omize the eligible patient to the treatment groups . The primary end point was change in Hb from baseline to week 8 . Iron isomaltoside 1,000 and iron sulfate was compared by a non-inferiority assessment with a margin of −0.5 g/dl . The secondary end points , which tested for superiority , included change in Hb from baseline to weeks 2 and 4 , change in s-ferritin , and TSAT to week 8 , number of patients who discontinued study because of lack of response or intolerance of investigational drugs , change in total quality of life ( QoL ) score to weeks 4 and 8 , and safety . Exploratory analyses included a responder analysis ( proportion of patients with an increase in Hb ≥2 g/dl after 8 weeks ) , the effect of regional differences and total iron dose level , and other potential predictors of the treatment response . RESULTS : Non-inferiority in change of Hb to week 8 could not be demonstrated . There was a trend for oral iron sulfate being more effective in increasing Hb  than iron isomaltoside 1,000 . The estimated treatment effect was −0.37 ( 95 % confidence interval ( CI ) : −0.80 , 0.06 ) with P=0.09 in the full analysis set ( N=327 ) and −0.45 ( 95 % CI : −0.88 , −0.03 ) with P=0.04 in the per protocol analysis set ( N=299 ) . In patients treated with IV iron isomaltoside 1,000 , the mean change in s-ferritin concentration was higher with an estimated treatment effect of 48.7 ( 95 % CI : 18.6 , 78.8 ) with P=0.002 , whereas the mean change in TSAT was lower with an estimated treatment effect of −4.4 ( 95 % CI : −7.4 , −1.4 ) with P=0.005 , compared with patients treated with oral iron . No differences in changes of QoL were observed . The safety profile was similar between the groups . The proportion of responders with Hb ≥2 g/dl ( IV group : 67 % ; oral group : 61 % ) were comparable between the groups ( P=0.32 ) . Iron isomaltoside 1,000 was more efficacious with higher cumulative doses of > 1,000 mg IV . Significant predictors of Hb response to IV iron treatment were baseline Hb and C-reactive protein ( CRP ) . CONCLUSIONS : We could not demonstrate non-inferiority of IV iron isomaltoside 1,000 compared with oral iron in this study . Based on the dose – response relationship observed with the IV iron compound , we suggest that the true iron dem and of IV iron was underestimated by the Ganzoni formula in our study . Alternative calculations including Hb and CRP should be explored to gauge iron stores in patients with IBD
However , in patients with IBD flares and inadequate responses to or side effects with oral preparations , intravenous iron supplementation is the therapy of choice .
Neither oral nor intravenous therapy seems to exacerbate the clinical course of IBD , and intravenous iron therapy can be administered even in active disease stages and concomitantly with biologics .
Based on the data presented , oral iron therapy should be preferred for patients with quiescent disease stages and trivial iron deficiency  anemia unless such patients are intolerant or have an inadequate response , whereas intravenous iron supplementation may be of advantage in patients with aggravated anemia or flares of IBD because inflammation hampers intestinal absorption of iron
Abstract Anemia is the most frequent complication of inflammatory bowel disease ( IBD ) , but anemia , mostly due to iron deficiency , has long been neglected in these patients .
The aim was to briefly present the pathophysiology , followed by a balanced overview of the different forms of iron replacement available , and subsequently , to perform a systematic review of studies performed in the last decade on the treatment of iron-deficiency anemia in IBD .