Meenakshi Sachdeva, Abhishek Purohit, Meenakshi Malik, Lovely Jain, Pranita Pradhan, Joseph L Mathew
{"title":"静脉注射与口服补充维生素B12治疗儿童维生素B12缺乏性贫血的疗效和安全性比较:一项系统综述","authors":"Meenakshi Sachdeva, Abhishek Purohit, Meenakshi Malik, Lovely Jain, Pranita Pradhan, Joseph L Mathew","doi":"10.1093/nutrit/nuae227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Vitamin B12 deficiency in children is treated with either parenteral or oral supplementation. Although the efficacy of supplementation is reportedly comparable for the 2 routes in adults, there is limited data for children.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this review was to compare the efficacy and safety of parenteral vs oral B12 supplementation in children with vitamin B12 deficiency anemia.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, four Clinical Trials Registries, and 2 gray literature databases, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the parenteral vs oral routes of administering B12 in children with vitamin B12 deficiency anemia.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Among 6467 citations screened, there was only 1 eligible RCT, in which children with vitamin B12 deficiency anemia received 1 dose of 1000 µg parenterally before being randomized to either parenteral or oral therapy.</p><p><strong>Data analysis: </strong>After 3 months, the parenteral route resulted in higher B12 levels compared with the oral route (median [IQR]: 653 [459, 835] vs 506 [399, 726] pg/mL). The changes from baseline in vitamin B12 levels (median [IQR]: 600 [389, 775] vs 399 [313, 606] pg/mL, P = .016) and hemoglobin (2.7 [0.4, 4.6] vs 0.5 [-0.1, 1.2] g/dL, P = .001) were also significantly greater with the parenteral route. There was no data on safety. In terms of quality, the RCT was judged to be at \"high risk of bias.\"</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Limited evidence from a single, methodologically weak RCT suggested that the parenteral route is more efficacious than the oral route. However, considering the limitations in quality and quantity of the available evidence, this should be interpreted with caution.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO registration No. CRD42024526597.</p>","PeriodicalId":19469,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Parenteral vs Oral Route of Vitamin B12 Supplementation for the Treatment of Vitamin B12 Deficiency Anemia in Children: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Meenakshi Sachdeva, Abhishek Purohit, Meenakshi Malik, Lovely Jain, Pranita Pradhan, Joseph L Mathew\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/nutrit/nuae227\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Vitamin B12 deficiency in children is treated with either parenteral or oral supplementation. Although the efficacy of supplementation is reportedly comparable for the 2 routes in adults, there is limited data for children.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this review was to compare the efficacy and safety of parenteral vs oral B12 supplementation in children with vitamin B12 deficiency anemia.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, four Clinical Trials Registries, and 2 gray literature databases, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the parenteral vs oral routes of administering B12 in children with vitamin B12 deficiency anemia.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Among 6467 citations screened, there was only 1 eligible RCT, in which children with vitamin B12 deficiency anemia received 1 dose of 1000 µg parenterally before being randomized to either parenteral or oral therapy.</p><p><strong>Data analysis: </strong>After 3 months, the parenteral route resulted in higher B12 levels compared with the oral route (median [IQR]: 653 [459, 835] vs 506 [399, 726] pg/mL). The changes from baseline in vitamin B12 levels (median [IQR]: 600 [389, 775] vs 399 [313, 606] pg/mL, P = .016) and hemoglobin (2.7 [0.4, 4.6] vs 0.5 [-0.1, 1.2] g/dL, P = .001) were also significantly greater with the parenteral route. There was no data on safety. In terms of quality, the RCT was judged to be at \\\"high risk of bias.\\\"</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Limited evidence from a single, methodologically weak RCT suggested that the parenteral route is more efficacious than the oral route. However, considering the limitations in quality and quantity of the available evidence, this should be interpreted with caution.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO registration No. CRD42024526597.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19469,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nutrition reviews\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nutrition reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuae227\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuae227","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:儿童维生素B12缺乏症可通过肠外或口服补充治疗。虽然据报道,两种途径在成人中的补充效果相当,但儿童的数据有限。目的:本综述的目的是比较维生素B12缺乏性贫血儿童肠外和口服补充维生素B12的疗效和安全性。资料来源:我们在PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane图书馆、Scopus、Web of Science、4个临床试验注册库和2个灰色文献数据库中进行了全面的文献检索,比较了维生素B12缺乏性贫血儿童的肠外和口服给药途径的随机对照试验(RCTs)。数据提取:在筛选的6467篇文献中,只有1篇符合条件的RCT,其中患有维生素B12缺乏性贫血的儿童在随机接受肠外或口服治疗前接受1剂量1000µg的肠外治疗。数据分析:3个月后,与口服途径相比,肠外途径的B12水平更高(中位数[IQR]: 653[459,835]对506 [399,726]pg/mL)。与基线相比,维生素B12水平(中位数[IQR]: 600 [389,775] vs 399 [313,606] pg/mL, P = 0.016)和血红蛋白(2.7 [0.4,4.6]vs 0.5 [-0.1, 1.2] g/dL, P = 0.001)的变化也显著高于肠外治疗。没有关于安全性的数据。就质量而言,该随机对照试验被判定为“高偏倚风险”。结论:来自一项方法学薄弱的单一随机对照试验的有限证据表明,肠外途径比口服途径更有效。然而,考虑到现有证据在质量和数量上的局限性,对此应谨慎解释。系统评审注册:普洛斯彼罗注册号:CRD42024526597。
Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Parenteral vs Oral Route of Vitamin B12 Supplementation for the Treatment of Vitamin B12 Deficiency Anemia in Children: A Systematic Review.
Context: Vitamin B12 deficiency in children is treated with either parenteral or oral supplementation. Although the efficacy of supplementation is reportedly comparable for the 2 routes in adults, there is limited data for children.
Objective: The objective of this review was to compare the efficacy and safety of parenteral vs oral B12 supplementation in children with vitamin B12 deficiency anemia.
Data sources: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, four Clinical Trials Registries, and 2 gray literature databases, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the parenteral vs oral routes of administering B12 in children with vitamin B12 deficiency anemia.
Data extraction: Among 6467 citations screened, there was only 1 eligible RCT, in which children with vitamin B12 deficiency anemia received 1 dose of 1000 µg parenterally before being randomized to either parenteral or oral therapy.
Data analysis: After 3 months, the parenteral route resulted in higher B12 levels compared with the oral route (median [IQR]: 653 [459, 835] vs 506 [399, 726] pg/mL). The changes from baseline in vitamin B12 levels (median [IQR]: 600 [389, 775] vs 399 [313, 606] pg/mL, P = .016) and hemoglobin (2.7 [0.4, 4.6] vs 0.5 [-0.1, 1.2] g/dL, P = .001) were also significantly greater with the parenteral route. There was no data on safety. In terms of quality, the RCT was judged to be at "high risk of bias."
Conclusion: Limited evidence from a single, methodologically weak RCT suggested that the parenteral route is more efficacious than the oral route. However, considering the limitations in quality and quantity of the available evidence, this should be interpreted with caution.
期刊介绍:
Nutrition Reviews is a highly cited, monthly, international, peer-reviewed journal that specializes in the publication of authoritative and critical literature reviews on current and emerging topics in nutrition science, food science, clinical nutrition, and nutrition policy. Readers of Nutrition Reviews include nutrition scientists, biomedical researchers, clinical and dietetic practitioners, and advanced students of nutrition.