Commentary: anaemia in inflammatory bowel disease--the most common and ignored extra intestinal manifestation

Improving Anemia in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Impact of the Anemia Care Pathway

BACKGROUND

Anemia is a common complication of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Despite existing guidelines for anemia in IBD, it is frequently under-treated and the prevalence of anemia has remained high. To address this gap, the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation developed the Anemia Care Pathway (ACP).

AIMS

To implement the ACP in a managed care setting and identify where it improves practice habits and where barriers remain.

METHODS

The ACP was implemented from July 2016 through June 2017 and retrospectively studied. Run charts were used to identify shifts in iron deficiency screening and treatment as well as anemia prevalence. Results were compared to those of other providers in the same center not using the ACP.

RESULTS

640 IBD encounters were studied. In the ACP clinic (n = 213), anemics received iron therapy in only 30% of encounters at baseline but improved to 80%. Concurrently, anemia prevalence decreased from 48 to 25%. Screening for iron deficiency, however, did not improve. No shifts were seen in the non-ACP clinics (n = 427) across the same period despite awareness of the ACP and other guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Across 1 year, we observed gaps in the screening and treatment of anemia in IBD. Although screening rates did not improve, the ACP appeared to reduce missed opportunities for iron therapy by about half. Most importantly, this was associated with an overall decrease in anemia prevalence. Future refinements to the ACP should be focused on enhanced screening and follow-up.

Rational Management of Iron-Deficiency Anaemia in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Anaemia is the most frequent, though often neglected, comorbidity of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Here we want to briefly present (1) the burden of anaemia in IBD, (2) its pathophysiology, which mostly arises from bleeding-associated iron deficiency, followed by (3) diagnostic evaluation of anaemia, (4) a balanced overview of the different modes of iron replacement therapy, (5) evidence for their therapeutic efficacy and subsequently, (6) an updated recommendation for the practical management of anaemia in IBD. Following the introduction of various intravenous iron preparations over the last decade, questions persist about when to use these preparations as opposed to traditional and other novel oral iron therapeutic agents. At present, oral iron therapy is generally preferred for patients with quiescent IBD and mild iron-deficiency anaemia. However, in patients with flaring IBD that hampers intestinal iron absorption and in those with inadequate responses to or side effects with oral preparations, intravenous iron supplementation is the therapy of choice, although information on the efficacy of intravenous iron in patients with active IBD and anaemia is scare. Importantly, anaemia in IBD is often multifactorial and a careful diagnostic workup is mandatory for optimized treatment. Nevertheless, limited information is available on optimal therapeutic start and end points for treatment of anaemia. Of note, neither oral nor intravenous therapies seem to exacerbate the clinical course of IBD. However, additional prospective studies are still warranted to determine the optimal therapy in complex conditions such as IBD.

Intravenous Versus Oral Iron for the Treatment of Anemia in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Anemia is the most prevalent extraintestinal complication of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Our aim was to evaluate the comparative efficacy and harm of intravenous (IV) versus oral iron supplementation for correcting anemia in adult IBD patients.We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to integrate evidence from randomized controlled trials having enrolled adults with IBD, and comparing IV versus oral iron (head-to-head) for correcting iron-deficiency anemia. Medline, Embase, Scopus, and the Web of Science database were searched through July 2015. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the ClinicalTrials.gov, and international conference proceedings were also investigated. Two reviewers independently abstracted study data and outcomes, and rated each trial's risk-of-bias. Pooled odds ratio (OR) estimates with their 95% CIs were calculated using fixed- and random-effects models.Five eligible studies, including 694 IBD patients, were identified. In meta-analysis, IV iron demonstrated a higher efficacy in achieving a hemoglobin rise of ≥2.0 g/dL as compared to oral iron (OR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.13, 2.18). Treatment discontinuation rates, due to adverse events or intolerance, were lower in the IV iron groups (OR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.59). Similarly, the occurrence of gastrointestinal adverse events was consistently lower in the IV iron groups. On the contrary, serious adverse events (SAEs) were more frequently reported among patients receiving IV iron preparations (OR: 4.57, 95% CI: 1.11, 18.8); however, the majority of the reported SAEs were judged as unrelated or unlikely to be related to the study medication. We found no evidence of publication bias, or between-study heterogeneity, across all analyses. Risk of bias was high across primary studies, because patients and personnel were not blinded to the intervention.IV iron appears to be more effective and better tolerated than oral iron for the treatment of IBD-associated anemia.

Management of Iron-Deficiency Anemia in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review

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. Given that intravenous therapies have been introduced in the last decade, a systematic review performed in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the websites of WHO, FDA, and EMA covered prospective trials investigating the management of iron-deficiency anemia in IBD published since 2004. A total of 632 articles were reviewed, and 13 articles (2906 patients) with unique content were included. In general, oral supplementation in iron-deficiency anemia should be administered with a target to restore/replenish the iron stores and the hemoglobin level in a suitable way. 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. In conclusion, because many physicians are in doubt as to how to manage anemia and iron deficiency in IBD, there is a clear need for the implementation of evidence-based recommendations on this matter. 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.

What have we learnt about the role of the environment and natural course of IBD in the new millennium? 20-year follow-up of the IBSEN cohort

The incidence and prevalence of IBD, both Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), have increased in recent years, especially in industrialized countries. Still, the etiology of IBD remains largely unknown. Most research on IBD before the 1990s was conducted on selected patient populations. Selected patient populations are likely to introduce important bias and limit the interpretation and generalizability. The inclusion of both incident and prevalent cases or the inclusion of incident cases over long periods of time (decades) might also introduce bias due to changes in treatment regimens and socioeconomic factors over timer (time-trend bias). Consequently, the choice of a well-characterized population-based inception cohort provides the best opportunity to describe the natural course of a disease. The IBSEN (Inflammatory Bowel Disease in South-Eastern Norway) study followed a large population-based cohort of newly diagnosed IBD patients for 20 years and has contributed significantly to the knowledge of the natural course of IBD.