Risk of Infection Associated With Administration of Intravenous Iron: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Intravenous iron is recommended by many clinical guidelines based largely on its effectiveness in reducing anemia. However, the association with important safety outcomes, such as infection, remains uncertain. Objective: To examine the risk of infection associated with intravenous iron compared with oral iron or no iron. Data Sources: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from 1966 to January 31, 2021. Ongoing trials were sought from ClinicalTrials.gov, CENTRAL, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Search Registry Platform. Study Selection: Pairs of reviewers identified RCTs that compared intravenous iron with oral iron or no iron across all patient populations, excluding healthy volunteers. Nonrandomized studies published since January 1, 2007, were also included. A total of 312 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane recommendations, and the quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Two reviewers extracted data independently. A random-effects model was used to synthesize data from RCTs. A narrative synthesis was performed to characterize the reporting of infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was risk of infection. Secondary outcomes included mortality, hospital length of stay, and changes in hemoglobin and red blood cell transfusion requirements. Measures of association were reported as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences. Results: A total of 154 RCTs (32 920 participants) were included in the main analysis. Intravenous iron was associated with an increased risk of infection when compared with oral iron or no iron (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.31; I2 = 37%; moderate certainty of evidence). Intravenous iron also was associated with an increase in hemoglobin (mean difference, 0.57 g/dL; 95% CI, 0.50-0.64 g/dL; I2 = 94%) and a reduction in the risk of requiring a red blood cell transfusion (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76-0.89; I2 = 15%) when compared with oral iron or no iron. There was no evidence of an effect on mortality or hospital length of stay. Conclusions and Relevance: In this large systematic review and meta-analysis, intravenous iron was associated with an increased risk of infection. Well-designed studies, using standardized definitions of infection, are required to understand the balance between this risk and the potential benefits.

Classification of intestinal T-cell receptor repertoires using machine learning methods can identify patients with coeliac disease regardless of dietary gluten status.

In coeliac disease (CeD), immune-mediated small intestinal damage is precipitated by gluten, leading to variable symptoms and complications, occasionally including aggressive T-cell lymphoma. Diagnosis, based primarily on histopathological examination of duodenal biopsies, is confounded by poor concordance between pathologists and minimal histological abnormality if insufficient gluten is consumed. CeD pathogenesis involves both CD4+ T-cell-mediated gluten recognition and CD8+ and γδ T-cell-mediated inflammation, with a previous study demonstrating a permanent change in γδ T-cell populations in CeD. We leveraged this understanding and explored the diagnostic utility of bulk T-cell receptor (TCR) sequencing in assessing duodenal biopsies in CeD. Genomic DNA extracted from duodenal biopsies underwent sequencing for TCR-δ (TRD) (CeD, n = 11; non-CeD, n = 11) and TCR-γ (TRG) (CeD, n = 33; non-CeD, n = 21). We developed a novel machine learning-based analysis of the TCR repertoire, clustering samples by diagnosis. Leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) was performed to validate the classification algorithm. Using TRD repertoire, 100% (22/22) of duodenal biopsies were correctly classified, with a LOOCV accuracy of 91%. Using TCR-γ (TRG) repertoire, 94.4% (51/54) of duodenal biopsies were correctly classified, with LOOCV of 87%. Duodenal biopsy TRG repertoire analysis permitted accurate classification of biopsies from patients with CeD following a strict gluten-free diet for at least 6 months, who would be misclassified by current tests. This result reflects permanent changes to the duodenal γδ TCR repertoire in CeD, even in the absence of gluten consumption. Our method could complement or replace histopathological diagnosis in CeD and might have particular clinical utility in the diagnostic testing of patients unable to tolerate dietary gluten, and for assessing duodenal biopsies with equivocal features. This approach is generalisable to any TCR/BCR locus and any sequencing platform, with potential to predict diagnosis or prognosis in conditions mediated or modulated by the adaptive immune response. © 2020 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.