Vitamin B12 replacement strategies: a Brazilian delphi consensus.

IF 12.8 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
EClinicalMedicine Pub Date : 2026-09-23 eCollection Date: 2026-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.eclinm.2026.104205
Ricardo V Cohen, Randy Levinson, Otavio Baiocchi, João Eduardo N Salles, Marcondes Cavalcante França, Tomas Navarro, Fabio Trujilho, José Maria Soares, Daniel Nakagawa, Marcelo Valente, Ricardo Barbuti, Raphael Ribeiro Spera, Fabio Moura, Cynthia Valerio, Carlos A Schiavon, Fania Cristina Dos Santos, Anna Carolina Batista Dantas, Andre Abdo, Marcelo Luis Steiner, Henri Augusto Korkes, Julianne Tannous Cordenonssi, Philip Bachour
{"title":"Vitamin B12 replacement strategies: a Brazilian delphi consensus.","authors":"Ricardo V Cohen, Randy Levinson, Otavio Baiocchi, João Eduardo N Salles, Marcondes Cavalcante França, Tomas Navarro, Fabio Trujilho, José Maria Soares, Daniel Nakagawa, Marcelo Valente, Ricardo Barbuti, Raphael Ribeiro Spera, Fabio Moura, Cynthia Valerio, Carlos A Schiavon, Fania Cristina Dos Santos, Anna Carolina Batista Dantas, Andre Abdo, Marcelo Luis Steiner, Henri Augusto Korkes, Julianne Tannous Cordenonssi, Philip Bachour","doi":"10.1016/j.eclinm.2026.104205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Vitamin B12 deficiency is common in older adults, atrophic gastritis, and after bariatric surgery, and can cause irreversible neurological injury. Oral, sublingual, and intramuscular routes all correct serum concentrations, yet whether any route is superior for clinically meaningful outcomes is unclear, and international guidelines diverge. This consensus was convened to define where evidence is adequate, where it is lacking, and the priority research questions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a modified Delphi consensus study. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied through a two-stage process of 2 electronic rounds and an in-person meeting in São Paulo, Brazil. Panellists were recruited between 1 July 2025 and 15 July 2025. Thirty statements were voted on, presented as 31 graded items, using a binary (agree or disagree) format with a priori percentage-agreement grades (A+, 100%; A, 90%-99.9%; B, 80%-89.9%; C, 70%-79.9%; and D, 66%-69.9%). Draft statements, informed by a systematic review, were rated anonymously by a Brazilian multidisciplinary panel of 20 experts across haematology, gastroenterology, endocrinology, bariatric surgery, and geriatric medicine/neurology. Of 20 experts invited, all 20 agreed to participate and completed the electronic rounds (100%); 16 (80%) attended the in-person meeting. Patient representatives (n = 2) participated as non-voting observers. Grade A (at least 90% agreement) was the stopping rule. This consensus was not registered.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>In total, 30 statements across 6 modules were agreed, comprising 31 separately graded items as statement 1 was presented in two parts (1a and 1b); 22 of 31 items (71%) reached grade A+ (100% agreement) and 9 of 31 (29%) reached grade A (90%-99.9%). All routes were judged capable of normalising serum vitamin B12, but none showed proven superiority for symptom resolution, neurological recovery, functional status, or quality of life. Evidence gaps were greatest after bariatric surgery, in older adults with cognitive impairment or frailty, and in pernicious anaemia. Dosing, monitoring, and response definitions varied substantially.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Vitamin B12 replacement across all routes remains guided primarily by biochemical rather than clinical evidence. Treatment should be individualised by aetiology, patient preference, feasibility, and access, with functional biomarkers and clinical assessment complementing serum levels. Adequately powered, long-term comparative trials using standardised, patient-centred outcomes are the priority.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This work was funded by Myralis Indústria Farmacêutica Ltda, São Paulo, Brazil.</p>","PeriodicalId":11393,"journal":{"name":"EClinicalMedicine","volume":"100 ","pages":"104205"},"PeriodicalIF":12.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13634271/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EClinicalMedicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2026.104205","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Vitamin B12 deficiency is common in older adults, atrophic gastritis, and after bariatric surgery, and can cause irreversible neurological injury. Oral, sublingual, and intramuscular routes all correct serum concentrations, yet whether any route is superior for clinically meaningful outcomes is unclear, and international guidelines diverge. This consensus was convened to define where evidence is adequate, where it is lacking, and the priority research questions.

Methods: This was a modified Delphi consensus study. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied through a two-stage process of 2 electronic rounds and an in-person meeting in São Paulo, Brazil. Panellists were recruited between 1 July 2025 and 15 July 2025. Thirty statements were voted on, presented as 31 graded items, using a binary (agree or disagree) format with a priori percentage-agreement grades (A+, 100%; A, 90%-99.9%; B, 80%-89.9%; C, 70%-79.9%; and D, 66%-69.9%). Draft statements, informed by a systematic review, were rated anonymously by a Brazilian multidisciplinary panel of 20 experts across haematology, gastroenterology, endocrinology, bariatric surgery, and geriatric medicine/neurology. Of 20 experts invited, all 20 agreed to participate and completed the electronic rounds (100%); 16 (80%) attended the in-person meeting. Patient representatives (n = 2) participated as non-voting observers. Grade A (at least 90% agreement) was the stopping rule. This consensus was not registered.

Findings: In total, 30 statements across 6 modules were agreed, comprising 31 separately graded items as statement 1 was presented in two parts (1a and 1b); 22 of 31 items (71%) reached grade A+ (100% agreement) and 9 of 31 (29%) reached grade A (90%-99.9%). All routes were judged capable of normalising serum vitamin B12, but none showed proven superiority for symptom resolution, neurological recovery, functional status, or quality of life. Evidence gaps were greatest after bariatric surgery, in older adults with cognitive impairment or frailty, and in pernicious anaemia. Dosing, monitoring, and response definitions varied substantially.

Interpretation: Vitamin B12 replacement across all routes remains guided primarily by biochemical rather than clinical evidence. Treatment should be individualised by aetiology, patient preference, feasibility, and access, with functional biomarkers and clinical assessment complementing serum levels. Adequately powered, long-term comparative trials using standardised, patient-centred outcomes are the priority.

Funding: This work was funded by Myralis Indústria Farmacêutica Ltda, São Paulo, Brazil.

维生素B12替代策略:巴西德尔菲共识。
背景:维生素B12缺乏常见于老年人、萎缩性胃炎和减肥手术后,并可引起不可逆的神经损伤。口服、舌下和肌肉注射途径均能正确测定血清浓度,但是否有哪一种途径在有临床意义的结果方面更优尚不清楚,国际指南也存在分歧。达成这一共识是为了确定哪些地方证据充足,哪些地方证据不足,以及优先研究的问题。方法:这是一项修正的德尔菲共识研究。兰德/加州大学洛杉矶分校的适当性方法通过两个阶段的过程进行应用,包括2个电子回合和在巴西圣保罗举行的一次面对面会议。小组成员于2025年7月1日至2025年7月15日期间征聘。对30项陈述进行投票,分为31个评分项目,采用二元(同意或不同意)格式,并采用先验百分比-同意等级(a +, 100%; a, 90%-99.9%; B, 80%-89.9%; C, 70%-79.9%; D, 66%-69.9%)。由巴西血液学、胃肠病学、内分泌学、减肥外科和老年医学/神经病学等20名专家组成的多学科小组对声明草案进行了匿名评价。在受邀的20位专家中,全部20位同意参加并完成了电子轮次(100%);16人(80%)参加了面对面会议。患者代表(n = 2)作为无投票权的观察员参加。A级(至少90%同意)为停止规则。这项协商一致意见没有得到登记。结果:共有6个模块的30个陈述被同意,其中包括31个单独评分的项目,因为陈述1分为两部分(1a和1b);31项中有22项(71%)达到A+级(100%一致),9项(29%)达到A级(90% ~ 99.9%)。所有途径均被认为能够使血清维生素B12正常化,但在症状缓解、神经恢复、功能状态或生活质量方面均未显示出优势。在减肥手术、认知障碍或虚弱的老年人以及恶性贫血患者中,证据差距最大。给药、监测和反应的定义差别很大。解释:所有途径的维生素B12替代仍然主要以生化而非临床证据为指导。治疗应根据病因、患者偏好、可行性和可及性进行个体化,并使用功能生物标志物和临床评估来补充血清水平。使用标准化的、以患者为中心的结果进行充分有力的长期比较试验是当务之急。资助:这项工作由Myralis Indústria Farmacêutica Ltda, s o Paulo, Brazil资助。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
EClinicalMedicine
EClinicalMedicine Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
18.90
自引率
1.30%
发文量
506
审稿时长
22 days
期刊介绍: eClinicalMedicine is a gold open-access clinical journal designed to support frontline health professionals in addressing the complex and rapid health transitions affecting societies globally. The journal aims to assist practitioners in overcoming healthcare challenges across diverse communities, spanning diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and health promotion. Integrating disciplines from various specialties and life stages, it seeks to enhance health systems as fundamental institutions within societies. With a forward-thinking approach, eClinicalMedicine aims to redefine the future of healthcare.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书