Vol. 6, Issue 1, Part A (2024)

Background: Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is a common global health issue characterized by low hemoglobin levels due to insufficient iron. Conventional oral iron supplements such as Ferrous Fumarate, Ferrous Ascorbate, and Ferrous Pyrophosphate are commonly prescribed, yet their comparative efficacy and tolerability remain underexplored.
Objective: This study aimed to compare the tolerance and efficacy of Ferrous Fumarate, Ferrous Ascorbate, and Ferrous Pyrophosphate in the treatment of IDA.
Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted over three months with 99 patients diagnosed with IDA, divided into three groups: Group A (Ferrous Fumarate), Group B (Ferrous Ascorbate), and Group C (Ferrous Pyrophosphate). Hemoglobin levels were measured at baseline, 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months. Tolerance was assessed based on patient-reported symptoms and clinical observations. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 23.0.
Results: Group B (Ferrous Ascorbate) exhibited the most significant and sustained increase in hemoglobin levels, from 10.7±0.8 g/dL at baseline to 11.3±0.8 g/dL at 3 months (p< 0.05). Group C (Ferrous Pyrophosphate) also showed significant improvement but reported higher incidences of tiredness and shortness of breath. Group A (Ferrous Fumarate) showed an initial increase in hemoglobin, but this improvement was not sustained, resulting in a non-significant overall change (p > 0.05).
Conclusion: Ferrous Ascorbate demonstrated superior efficacy in improving hemoglobin levels compared to Ferrous Fumarate and Ferrous Pyrophosphate. However, Ferrous Pyrophosphate’s side effects warrant consideration. The choice of iron supplement should balance efficacy with patient tolerability. Future research should focus on long-term effects, adherence, and broader population studies to refine treatment strategies for IDA.