Efficacy of intravenous iron therapy in non-anaemic iron-deficient patients with fatigue.

Iron deficiency, without anaemia, is common in the general population and induces various symptoms. Its management consists of oral and intravenous supplementation for cases of inefficacy of or intolerance to oral iron. We assessed the efficacy of intravenous iron therapy in non-anaemic iron-deficient patients with fatigue. We prospectively evaluated the level of fatigue, using the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), in patients suffering from iron deficiency without anaemia, treated by intravenous iron at the moment of the perfusion (W0), after 4 weeks (W4), and 12 weeks (W12). Of 25 patients, at W0, the mean FFS was 49.3+/-13.7. There was a significant improvement in FSS at W4 (44+/-15; p = 0.01) and a sustained response at W12 with an FFS of 35.8+/-17.1 (p < 0,0001). There was no correlation between FSS and serum ferritin level at W12 (p=0.54) or between serum ferritin at W12 and difference between FSS at W0 and W12 (p=0.58). There were six mild adverse events (24%): asthenia (8%), nausea (8%), headache (4%), local pain (4%); and no serious adverse events. Our results suggest the rapid efficacy of intravenous iron in improving fatigue in iron deficiency without anaemia with a good profile of tolerance.

Adherence to fracture liaison service programs in patients over 70: the hidden part of the iceberg.

Significant dropout rates have been observed throughout Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) programs, especially for elderly patients. In an FLS program set up specifically for patients over 70, the non-initiation of osteoporosis treatment was the only factor associated with poor adherence to the program. Neither age nor frailty factors affected adherence. INTRODUCTION: FLS programs are considered the most effective interventions for secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures. Our objective was to identify risk factors for non-adherence to an FLS program set up specifically for patients over 70. METHODS: Our multifaceted, intensive program included five appointments over a 2-year period. One hundred sixty-seven patients (mean age 83.5 years) who presented with a recent fragility fracture were enrolled. Multivariable analysis was conducted to determine whether the demographic, clinical, frailty, and osteoporotic risk factors of the patients influenced their adherence to the program. RESULTS: About half of the patients did not attend the follow-up visits. According to the regression analysis, non-initiation of osteoporosis treatment was associated with poor adherence to the program (aHR 3.66). Demographic, clinical, dwelling, frailty factors, osteoporotic risk factors, fracture type, or densitometric scores were not associated with adherence. The first self-reported reason for withdrawal was the difficulty of attending several follow-up visits, and the second was the feeling of not being concerned. CONCLUSION: We observed that non-initiation of osteoporosis treatment was the only factor correlated with non-adherence to an FLS program. Thus, neither age nor frailty factors should result in patients not being included in FLS. Beyond the necessity of the osteoporosis treatment, good patient understanding of the relevance of all the interventions included in the program is the key.