Serum ferritin as an indicator of iron status: what do we need to know?

Determination of iron status in pregnancy and in young children is essential for both clinical and public health practice. Clinical diagnosis of iron deficiency (ID) through sampling of bone marrow to identify the absence of body iron stores is impractical in most cases. Serum ferritin (SF) concentrations are the most commonly deployed indicator for determining ID, and low SF concentrations reflect a state of iron depletion. However, there is considerable variation in SF cutoffs recommended by different expert groups to diagnose ID. Moreover, the cutoffs used in different clinical laboratories are heterogeneous. There are few studies of diagnostic test accuracy to establish the sensitivity and specificity of SF compared with key gold standards (such as absent bone marrow iron stores, increased intestinal iron absorption, and hemoglobin response to SF) among noninflamed, outpatient populations. The limited data available suggest the commonly recommended SF cutoff of <15 µg/L is a specific but not sensitive cutoff, although evidence is limited. Data from women during pregnancy or from young children are especially uncommon. Most data are from studies conducted >30 y ago, do not reflect ethnic or geographic diversity, and were performed in an era for which laboratory methods no longer reflect present practice. Future studies to define the appropriate SF cutoffs are urgently needed and would also provide an opportunity to compare this indicator with other established and emerging iron indexes. In addition, future work would benefit from a focus on elucidating cutoffs and indexes relevant to iron adequacy.

Diagnostic and therapeutic treatment modalities for acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Investigations for lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) include flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, computed tomographic angiography (CTA), and angiography. All may be used to direct endoscopic, radiological or surgical treatment, although their optimal use is unknown. The aims of this study were to determine the diagnostic and therapeutic yields of endoscopy, CTA, and angiography for managing LGIB, and their influence on rebleeding, transfusion, and hospital stay. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies of intervention (NRSIs) published between 2000 and 12 November 2015 in patients hospitalized with LGIB. Separate meta-analyses were conducted, presented as pooled odds (ORs) or risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Two RCTs and 13 NRSIs were included, none of which examined flexible sigmoidoscopy, or compared endotherapy with embolization, or investigated the timing of CTA or angiography. Two NRSIs (57 - 223 participants) comparing colonoscopy and CTA were of insufficient quality for synthesis but showed no difference in diagnostic yields between the two interventions. One RCT and 4 NRSIs (779 participants) compared early colonoscopy (< 24 hours) with colonoscopy performed later; meta-analysis of the NRSIs demonstrated higher diagnostic and therapeutic yields with early colonoscopy (OR 1.86, 95 %CI 1.12 to 2.86, P  = 0.004 and OR 3.08, 95 %CI 1.93 to 4.90, P  < 0.001, respectively) and reduced length of stay (mean difference 2.64 days, 95 %CI 1.54 to 3.73), but no difference in transfusion or rebleeding. CONCLUSIONS: In LGIB there is a paucity of high-quality evidence, although the limited studies on the timing of colonoscopy suggest increased rates of diagnosis and therapy with early colonoscopy.

Effect of restrictive versus liberal red cell transfusion strategies on haemostasis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Red cells play a key role in normal haemostasis in vitro but their importance clinically is less clear. The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess if correction of anaemia by transfusing red cells at a high haemoglobin threshold (liberal transfusion) is superior to transfusion at a lower haemoglobin threshold (restrictive transfusion) for reducing the risk of bleeding or thrombotic events. We searched for randomised controlled trials in any clinical setting that compared two red cell transfusion thresholds and investigated the risk of bleeding. We searched for studies published up to October 19, 2016 in The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and the Transfusion Evidence Library and ISI Web of Science. Relative risks (RR) or Peto Odds Ratios (pOR) were pooled using a random-effect model. Nineteen randomised trials with 9852 participants were eligible for inclusion in this review. Overall there was no difference in the risk of any bleeding between transfusion strategies (RR 0.91, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.74 to 1.12). The risk of severe or life-threatening bleeding was lower with a restrictive strategy (RR 0.75, 95 % CI 0.57 to 0.99). There was no difference in the risk of thrombotic events (RR 0.83, 95 % CI 0.61 to 1.13). The risk of any bleeding was not reduced with liberal transfusion and there was no overall difference in the risk of thrombotic events. Data from the included trials do not support aiming for a high haemoglobin threshold to improve haemostasis. PROSPERO registration number CRD42016035519.