Search

IntroductionAnemia remains a prevalent global health issue with varying severity. Intravenous iron supplementation, particularly with ferric carboxymaltose (FCM), has appeared as a possible therapeutic intervention for individuals with moderate to severe anemia. The study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) in reducing anemia.MethodsWe searched electronic databases, registries, websites, e-libraries, reference lists of reviews, citations, etc. We included randomized control trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, and single-arm studies, while observational studies, case series, and case studies were excluded. Two reviewers independently screened the studies and extracted the data. We included studies of moderate-to-severely anemic Indians and excluded Indians with other comorbidities. We assessed the risk of bias and the overall quality of evidence (QoE) using GRADE GDT.ResultWe identified 255 studies and included 14 studies (11 RCT, one non-RCT, and two single-arm studies) with 1,972 participants for qualitative analysis and 10 studies in the meta-analysis. All the included studies detailed the use of FCM for anemia. The primary outcomes assessed in the included studies were anemia, hemoglobin, and adverse events. The outcomes assessed ranged from 2 weeks to 12 weeks. The risk of bias varied across different studies with different outcomes. FCM is consistent with a fewer number of adverse events as compared to other interventions and provides “moderate” to “very low” QoE.ConclusionA slow single infusion of 1 gram of FCM is well-tolerated, safe, and effective in treating iron deficiency anemia (IDA) and surpasses other interventions (Iron Sucrose Complex (ISC), Iron sucrose, and ferrous ascorbate) in elevating hemoglobin levels and replenishing iron stores.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=459363, CRD42023459363.

BackgroundOptimal breastfeeding (BF) practices are essential for child survival and proper growth and development. The purpose of this overview is to evaluate the effectiveness of different interventions for promoting and optimizing breastfeeding.MethodsWe included systematic reviews (SRs) [including trials from Low-Income (LICs) and Low Middle-Income countries (LMICs)] that have evaluated the effect of various interventions for promoting and optimizing breastfeeding and excluded non-systematic reviews, and SRs based on observational studies. We searched various electronic databases. We followed the standard methodology as suggested by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Two sets of reviewers undertook screening followed by data extraction and assessment of the methodological quality of included SRs.ResultWe identified and screened 1,002 Cochrane SRs and included six SRs in this overview. Included SRs reported only two of the primary outcomes, early initiation of breastfeeding (EIBF) and/or exclusive breastfeeding (EBF). None of the included SR reported continued BF up to 2 years of age. The results were evaluated using two major comparisons groups: BF intervention against routine care and one type of BF intervention vs. other types of BF intervention. Overall results from included SRs showed that there were improvements in the rates of EIBF and EBF among women who received BF intervention such as BF education sessions and support compared to those women who received only standard care. However, BF intervention via mobile devices showed no improvements. In Target Client Communication (TCC) via mobile devices intervention group, no significant improvements were reported in BF practices, and also the reported evidence was of very low certainty.ConclusionCommunity Based Intervention Packages (CBIP) delivered to pregnant and reproductive-age women during their Antenatal care (ANC) and/or Postnatal care (PNC) periods by Ancillary Nurse-Midwives reported the highest improvement in EIBF compared to women who received standard care. However, insufficient evidence was reported to suggest that BF intervention showed improvements in EBF in both the comparison groups. This overview highlighted the gaps in primary research regarding the uncertainty about the settings such as LICs or LMICs, lack of evidence from LMICs, and also identified gaps in the availability of reliable up-to-date SRs on the effects of several BF interventions to promote and optimize practices.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020174998, PROSPERO [CRD42020174998].