Oral versus intramuscular administration of vitamin B12 for vitamin B12 deficiency in primary care: a pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority clinical trial (OB12)

The trial was financed by Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo Español through their call for independent clinical research, Orden Ministerial SAS/2377, 2010 (EC10-115, EC10-116, EC10-117, EC10-119, EC10-122); CAIBER—Spanish Clinical Research Network, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) (CAI08/010044); and Gerencia Asistencial de Atención Primaria de Madrid. This study is also supported by the Spanish Clinical Research Network (SCReN), funded by ISCIII-Subdirección General de Evaluación y Fomento de la Investigación, project number PT13/0002/0007, within the National Research Program I+D+I 2013-2016 and co-funded with European Union ERDF funds (European Regional Development Fund). This project received a grant for the translation and publication of this article from the Foundation for Biomedical Research and Innovation in Primary Care (FIIBAP) Call 2017 for grants to promote research programs. Objectives To compare the effectiveness of oral versus intramuscular (IM) vitamin B12 (VB12) in patients aged ≥65 years with VB12 deficiency. Design Pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority, multicentre trial in 22 primary healthcare centres in Madrid (Spain). Participants 283 patients ≥65 years with VB12 deficiency were randomly assigned to oral (n=140) or IM (n=143) treatment arm. Interventions The IM arm received 1 mg VB12 on alternate days in weeks 1–2, 1 mg/week in weeks 3–8 and 1 mg/month in weeks 9–52. The oral arm received 1 mg/day in weeks 1–8 and 1 mg/week in weeks 9–52. Main outcomes Serum VB12 concentration normalisation (≥211 pg/mL) at 8, 26 and 52 weeks. Non-inferiority would be declared if the difference between arms is 10% or less. Secondary outcomes included symptoms, adverse events, adherence to treatment, quality of life, patient preferences and satisfaction. Results The follow-up period (52 weeks) was completed by 229 patients (80.9%). At week 8, the percentage of patients in each arm who achieved normal B12 levels was well above 90%; the differences in this percentage between the oral and IM arm were −0.7% (133 out of 135 vs 129 out of 130; 95% CI: −3.2 to 1.8; p>0.999) by per-protocol (PPT) analysis and 4.8% (133 out of 140 vs 129 out of 143; 95% CI: −1.3 to 10.9; p=0.124) by intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. At week 52, the percentage of patients who achieved normal B12 levels was 73.6% in the oral arm and 80.4% in the IM arm; these differences were −6.3% (103 out of 112 vs 115 out of 117; 95% CI: −11.9 to −0.1; p=0.025) and −6.8% (103 out of 140 vs 115 out of 143; 95% CI: −16.6 to 2.9; p=0.171), respectively. Factors affecting the success rate at week 52 were age, OR=0.95 (95% CI: 0.91 to 0.99) and having reached VB12 levels ≥281 pg/mL at week 8, OR=8.1 (95% CI: 2.4 to 27.3). Under a Bayesian framework, non-inferiority probabilities (Δ>−10%) at week 52 were 0.036 (PPT) and 0.060 (ITT). Quality of life and adverse effects were comparable across groups. 83.4% of patients preferred the oral route. Conclusions Oral administration was no less effective than IM administration at 8 weeks. Although differences were found between administration routes at week 52, the probability that the differences were below the non-inferiority threshold was very low. Publisher PDF