Intravenous Iron Versus Oral Iron Administration for the Treatment of Iron Deficiency Anemia: A Patient-Preference Study.

Background: Intravenous iron supplementation has been reported to provide a superior safety profile and effectiveness in the treatment of iron deficiency anemia (IDA) compared to traditional oral iron supplements.

Aim: To assess preference for intravenous iron versus oral iron among patients with IDA at King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Methods: This observational cross-sectional study included 267 adults diagnosed with IDA or on treatment for IDA at King Abdulaziz University Hospital between February 2023 and March 2024. A specially modified questionnaire was used for the collection of data, which included demographic and treatment-related data. The values of the variables are presented as mean and standard deviation or median and interquartile range. Differences with an asymptotic two-tailed P-value of less than 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.

Results: The majority of the included patients were women (95.5%), Saudi nationals (90.6%), and from the Western region (98.1%). About half of the included patients were receiving intravenous iron supplementation (51.7%), and the other half were receiving oral iron supplements (48.3%). However, the majority of the patients (74.9%) reported that they preferred intravenous iron treatment. With regard to factors that affected their preference, education level (P = 0.044), employment status (P = 0.009), and income level (P = 0.007) were identified as significant predictors. Among the patients who preferred oral iron therapy, the reason cited by the majority, that is, 79.1%, was that tablets were easier to adhere to than needles, while 50.7% stated that tablets had fewer side effects than needles and 64.2% reported a fear of needles. Among the patients who preferred intravenous iron therapy, the majority, that is, 82.4%, stated that intravenous administration was easier for them. Further, 73.5% were of the opinion that intravenous iron therapy had fewer side effects (73.5%), 27.7% reported that they were unable to swallow iron tablets, and 52.5% reported that they had difficulty remembering to take iron tablets. About a third of patients discontinued oral iron therapy due to changes in bowel habits (35%). Although 18.7% of the patients reported feeling pain with intravenous iron therapy, the majority were satisfied (79.4%) and recommended intravenous iron treatment for anemia to friends and family members (84.6%). In contrast, more than half of the patients on oral therapy were uncomfortable (56.2%) with the treatment. Further, 37.1% were not satisfied with their iron tablets, and 25.1% of patients stated that they would not recommend iron tablets for anemia treatment to their friends or family members.

Conclusion: The majority of the patients preferred intravenous iron therapy to correct IDA because oral therapy was associated with difficulties related to swallowing iron tablets and remembering to take the tablets. Although the results indicate that both therapies have similar effectiveness, patients receiving intravenous treatment appeared to be more satisfied with the treatment and recommended it to friends and family.