背景:据报道,与传统口服铁补充剂相比,静脉补铁在治疗缺铁性贫血(IDA)方面提供了优越的安全性和有效性。
目的:评估阿卜杜勒阿齐兹国王大学医院IDA患者对静脉铁剂与口服铁剂的偏好,吉达,沙特阿拉伯。
方法:这项观察性横断面研究包括2023年2月至2024年3月在阿卜杜勒阿齐兹国王大学医院诊断为IDA或接受IDA治疗的267名成年人。特别修改的问卷用于收集数据,其中包括人口统计学和治疗相关数据。变量的值表示为平均值和标准偏差或中值和四分位数范围。渐近双尾P值小于0.05的差异被认为具有统计学意义。
结果:纳入的患者大多数是女性(95.5%),沙特国民(90.6%),西部地区(98.1%)。约一半的纳入患者接受静脉补铁(51.7%),另一半正在接受口服铁补充剂(48.3%)。然而,大多数患者(74.9%)报告他们更喜欢静脉补铁治疗.关于影响他们偏好的因素,教育水平(P=0.044),就业状况(P=0.009),和收入水平(P=0.007)被确定为显著的预测因素。在首选口服铁剂治疗的患者中,大多数人引用的原因,也就是说,79.1%,药片比针头更容易粘附,50.7%的人表示片剂的副作用比针头少,64.2%的人表示害怕针头。在首选静脉补铁治疗的患者中,大多数,也就是说,82.4%,指出静脉给药对他们来说更容易。Further,73.5%的人认为静脉铁剂治疗副作用较少(73.5%),27.7%的人报告说他们无法吞下铁片,52.5%的人报告说他们很难记住服用铁片。大约三分之一的患者由于排便习惯的改变而停止口服铁剂治疗(35%)。尽管18.7%的患者报告说静脉铁剂治疗会感到疼痛,大多数人感到满意(79.4%),并向朋友和家人推荐静脉铁剂治疗贫血(84.6%).相比之下,接受口服治疗的患者中有一半以上(56.2%)对治疗感到不适。Further,37.1%的人对他们的铁片不满意,25.1%的患者表示,他们不会向他们的朋友或家人推荐治疗贫血的铁片。
结论:大多数患者首选静脉铁剂治疗以纠正IDA,因为口服治疗与吞咽铁片和记住服用铁片相关的困难有关。尽管结果表明两种疗法具有相似的效果,接受静脉治疗的患者似乎对治疗更满意,并将其推荐给朋友和家人。
BACKGROUND: Intravenous iron supplementation has been reported to provide a superior safety profile and effectiveness in the treatment of iron deficiency anemia (IDA) compared to traditional oral iron supplements.
OBJECTIVE: To assess preference for intravenous iron versus oral iron among patients with IDA at King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
METHODS: This observational cross-sectional
study included 267 adults diagnosed with IDA or on treatment for IDA at King Abdulaziz University Hospital between February 2023 and March 2024. A specially modified questionnaire was used for the collection of data, which included demographic and treatment-related data. The values of the variables are presented as mean and standard deviation or median and interquartile range. Differences with an asymptotic two-tailed P-value of less than 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.
RESULTS: The majority of the included patients were women (95.5%), Saudi nationals (90.6%), and from the Western region (98.1%). About half of the included patients were receiving intravenous iron supplementation (51.7%), and the other half were receiving oral iron supplements (48.3%). However, the majority of the patients (74.9%) reported that they preferred intravenous iron treatment. With regard to factors that affected their preference, education level (P = 0.044), employment status (P = 0.009), and income level (P = 0.007) were identified as significant predictors. Among the patients who preferred oral iron therapy, the reason cited by the majority, that is, 79.1%, was that tablets were easier to adhere to than needles, while 50.7% stated that tablets had fewer side effects than needles and 64.2% reported a fear of needles. Among the patients who preferred intravenous iron therapy, the majority, that is, 82.4%, stated that intravenous administration was easier for them. Further, 73.5% were of the opinion that intravenous iron therapy had fewer side effects (73.5%), 27.7% reported that they were unable to swallow iron tablets, and 52.5% reported that they had difficulty remembering to take iron tablets. About a third of patients discontinued oral iron therapy due to changes in bowel habits (35%). Although 18.7% of the patients reported feeling pain with intravenous iron therapy, the majority were satisfied (79.4%) and recommended intravenous iron treatment for anemia to friends and family members (84.6%). In contrast, more than half of the patients on oral therapy were uncomfortable (56.2%) with the treatment. Further, 37.1% were not satisfied with their iron tablets, and 25.1% of patients stated that they would not recommend iron tablets for anemia treatment to their friends or family members.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the patients preferred intravenous iron therapy to correct IDA because oral therapy was associated with difficulties related to swallowing iron tablets and remembering to take the tablets. Although the results indicate that both therapies have similar effectiveness, patients receiving intravenous treatment appeared to be more satisfied with the treatment and recommended it to friends and family.