RESUMO
Aims: To investigate the safety of oral iron therapy in pregnant women with iron-deficiency anemia (IDA) in the real world. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 1792 pregnant patients with IDA who received oral iron supplements from 12 hospitals in Shandong Province from 1 April to 31 June 2021; follow-up and adverse reactions were recorded. They were divided into six groups according to the treatment drugs. Results: The overall adverse reaction rate was 15.4%, and the main adverse reaction site was the digestive system. The incidence of all kinds of oral iron adverse reactions from high to low in order: compound ferrous sulfate and folic acid tablets (21.88%); iron proteinsuccinylate oral solution (20.90%); ferrous succinate tablets (19.76%); ferrous succinate sustained-release tablets (18.00%); iron polysaccharide complex capsule (12.06%); and iron dextran oral solution (6.94%). It was found that there was a significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions among the six drugs (p < 0.05). Pairwise comparison showed that the incidence of adverse reactions was higher in the iron proteinsuccinylate oral solution than that in the iron polysaccharide complex capsule (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions in different ages (p > 0.05), but there was a significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions in different gestational ages (p < 0.05). In Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) patients, the adverse reaction result of most patients is recovery or improvement, and there was no serious adverse reaction outcome such as sequela and death. Conclusion: All the adverse reactions of oral iron were mainly gastrointestinal adverse reactions, and no heavy adverse reactions were found. Iron proteinsuccinylate oral solution has a higher incidence of adverse reactions than iron polysaccharide complex capsule. The results showed that oral iron was safer for anemia patients during pregnancy.
Safety of oral iron in the treatment of iron-deficiency anemia during pregnancy Introduction: The safety of different oral iron agents varies. At present, the safety evaluation of iron supplements in the treatment of anemia during pregnancy is mainly focused on intravenous iron supplements, and there is no comprehensive study on the safety of commonly used oral iron supplements. This study compared the safety of six commonly used oral iron supplements in the treatment of iron-deficiency anemia during pregnancy, aiming to provide a reference for clinical medication. Methods: We conducted a study involving 1792 patients in 12 hospitals in Shandong Province from 1 April to 31 June 2021. Results: Among the six groups, 276 ADR patients reported 302 adverse reactions. There were significant differences in the rates of adverse reactions among the six oral iron agents, and the incidence of adverse reactions in the iron proteinsuccinylate oral solution was significantly higher than that of iron polysaccharide complex capsules. The main incidence of adverse reactions was constipation (6.96%), and most of the outcomes were cured or improved. Conclusion: In this study, there were no heavy adverse reactions. The incidence of adverse reactions of iron proteinsuccinylate oral was higher than that of iron polysaccharide compound capsule. The results showed that oral iron had a good safety in patients with anemia during pregnancy.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Cyanidin has a protective effect on the nervous system and has been reported to treat tumor effectively. However, its impact on glioma stem cells (GSC) is unknown. METHODS: Using seven GSC lines, the anti-tumor effect of cyanidin is tested. The effect of cyanidin on the cell viability in each cell line is evaluated. Wnt signaling pathway-related genes are checked after treatment of cyanidin. Cytoplasmic/nuclear ß-catenin protein levels post cyanidin treatment is detected. Protein levels of c-Myc after cyanidin treatment are determined. Twist1 and Snail1 protein levels after cyanidin treatment are checked as well. RESULTS: Cyanidin significantly reduces the cell viability of all GSCs, and exhibited the most substantial effect in GBM2 but no apparent effect in 293T cells. It can regulate the Wnt signaling pathway of all GSC lines. In the GBM2, GBM7, G166, and G179 cell lines, there is upregulation of WNT1 and MYC genes, while in the G144 and GliNS2 cell line, these two genes are down-regulated after cyanidin treatment. Cytoplasmic and nuclear protein levels of ß-catenin in all cell lines are down-regulated. Cyanidin treatment significantly decreases the protein level for c-Myc in the GBM2 cell line compared with untreated cells, not in G144 or GliNS2 cells. Furthermore, cyanidin strongly reduces the expression of Twist1 and Snail1 in GBM2, G179, and G144 cell lines, while the GliNS2 cells show an opposite change in the cytoplasm and no change in nuclear. CONCLUSION: Cyanidin exerts an anti-tumor effect in glioma stem cell lines, probably through the Wnt signaling pathway.