Indirect comparison between ferric carboxymaltose and oral iron replacement in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a network meta-analysis

Accepted: January 26, 2021
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Authors
Treatment of iron deficiency (ID) in patients with heart failure (HF) has improved symptoms, quality of life, exercise capacity and has reduced hospitalizations in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses. Intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) provided convincing results in this field, while oral iron supplementation failed. However, FCM and oral iron were compared to placebo, and a comparison between the two strategies is still lacking. We aimed to fill this gap of knowledge with an indirect comparison between them by means of a network meta-analysis of RCTs. Five studies measuring exercise capacity (i.e. 6-minute walking test) and quality of life (i.e. Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire) were eligible to be included in our review. Given the limitations of a network meta-analysis, our findings support the better efficacy of FCM than oral iron as regards exercise capacity, with a trend towards an improvement in quality of life, suggesting that FCM seems to be strategy of choice to correct ID in HF patients.
Supporting Agencies
Ethos s.r.l., via Berna 9 Sc, A Int, 1, 00144 Rome, ItalyHow to Cite

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.