Relative bioavailability of iron and folic acid from a new powdered supplement compared to a traditional tablet in pregnant women

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Deficiencies of iron and folic acid during pregnancy can lead to adverse outcomes for the fetus, thus supplements are recommended. Adherence to current tablet-based supplements is documented to be poor. Recently a powdered form of micronutrients has been developed which may decrease side-effects and thus improve adherence. However, before testing the efficacy of the supplement as an alternate choice for supplementation during pregnancy, the bioavailability of the iron needs to be determined. Our objective was to measure the relative bioavailability of iron and folic acid from a powdered supplement that can be sprinkled on semi-solid foods or beverages versus a traditional tablet supplement in pregnant women.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Eighteen healthy pregnant women (24 – 32 weeks gestation) were randomized to receive the supplements in a crossover design. Following ingestion of each supplement, the changes (over baseline) in serum iron and folate over 8 hours were determined. The powdered supplement contained 30 mg of iron as micronized dispersible ferric pyrophosphate with an emulsifier coating and 600 μg folic acid; the tablet contained 27 mg iron from ferrous fumarate and 1000 μg folic acid.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Overall absorption of iron from the powdered supplement was significantly lower than the tablet (p = 0.003). There was no difference in the overall absorption of folic acid between supplements. Based on the differences in the area under the curve and doses, the relative bioavailability of iron from powdered supplement was lower than from the tablet (0.22).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The unexpected lower bioavailability of iron from the powdered supplement is contrary to previously published reports. However, since pills and capsules are known to be poorly accepted by some women during pregnancy, it is reasonable to continue to explore alternative micronutrient delivery systems and forms of iron for this purpose.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00789490</p

Micronutrient Sprinkles to Control Childhood Anaemia

Over 750 million children have iron-deficiency anemia. A simple powdered sachet may be the key to addressing this global proble

Canagliflozin and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy

BACKGROUND Type 2 diabetes mellitus is the leading cause of kidney failure worldwide, but few effective long-term treatments are available. In cardiovascular trials of inhibitors of sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2), exploratory results have suggested that such drugs may improve renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS In this double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and albuminuric chronic kidney disease to receive canagliflozin, an oral SGLT2 inhibitor, at a dose of 100 mg daily or placebo. All the patients had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 30 to &lt;90 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area and albuminuria (ratio of albumin [mg] to creatinine [g], &gt;300 to 5000) and were treated with renin–angiotensin system blockade. The primary outcome was a composite of end-stage kidney disease (dialysis, transplantation, or a sustained estimated GFR of &lt;15 ml per minute per 1.73 m2), a doubling of the serum creatinine level, or death from renal or cardiovascular causes. Prespecified secondary outcomes were tested hierarchically. RESULTS The trial was stopped early after a planned interim analysis on the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring committee. At that time, 4401 patients had undergone randomization, with a median follow-up of 2.62 years. The relative risk of the primary outcome was 30% lower in the canagliflozin group than in the placebo group, with event rates of 43.2 and 61.2 per 1000 patient-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.82; P=0.00001). The relative risk of the renal-specific composite of end-stage kidney disease, a doubling of the creatinine level, or death from renal causes was lower by 34% (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.81; P&lt;0.001), and the relative risk of end-stage kidney disease was lower by 32% (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.86; P=0.002). The canagliflozin group also had a lower risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95; P=0.01) and hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.80; P&lt;0.001). There were no significant differences in rates of amputation or fracture. CONCLUSIONS In patients with type 2 diabetes and kidney disease, the risk of kidney failure and cardiovascular events was lower in the canagliflozin group than in the placebo group at a median follow-up of 2.62 years

Atrasentan and renal events in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (SONAR): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Background: Short-term treatment for people with type 2 diabetes using a low dose of the selective endothelin A receptor antagonist atrasentan reduces albuminuria without causing significant sodium retention. We report the long-term effects of treatment with atrasentan on major renal outcomes. Methods: We did this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 689 sites in 41 countries. We enrolled adults aged 18–85 years with type 2 diabetes, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)25–75 mL/min per 1·73 m 2 of body surface area, and a urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR)of 300–5000 mg/g who had received maximum labelled or tolerated renin–angiotensin system inhibition for at least 4 weeks. Participants were given atrasentan 0·75 mg orally daily during an enrichment period before random group assignment. Those with a UACR decrease of at least 30% with no substantial fluid retention during the enrichment period (responders)were included in the double-blind treatment period. Responders were randomly assigned to receive either atrasentan 0·75 mg orally daily or placebo. All patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was a composite of doubling of serum creatinine (sustained for ≥30 days)or end-stage kidney disease (eGFR <15 mL/min per 1·73 m 2 sustained for ≥90 days, chronic dialysis for ≥90 days, kidney transplantation, or death from kidney failure)in the intention-to-treat population of all responders. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned study treatment. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01858532. Findings: Between May 17, 2013, and July 13, 2017, 11 087 patients were screened; 5117 entered the enrichment period, and 4711 completed the enrichment period. Of these, 2648 patients were responders and were randomly assigned to the atrasentan group (n=1325)or placebo group (n=1323). Median follow-up was 2·2 years (IQR 1·4–2·9). 79 (6·0%)of 1325 patients in the atrasentan group and 105 (7·9%)of 1323 in the placebo group had a primary composite renal endpoint event (hazard ratio [HR]0·65 [95% CI 0·49–0·88]; p=0·0047). Fluid retention and anaemia adverse events, which have been previously attributed to endothelin receptor antagonists, were more frequent in the atrasentan group than in the placebo group. Hospital admission for heart failure occurred in 47 (3·5%)of 1325 patients in the atrasentan group and 34 (2·6%)of 1323 patients in the placebo group (HR 1·33 [95% CI 0·85–2·07]; p=0·208). 58 (4·4%)patients in the atrasentan group and 52 (3·9%)in the placebo group died (HR 1·09 [95% CI 0·75–1·59]; p=0·65). Interpretation: Atrasentan reduced the risk of renal events in patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease who were selected to optimise efficacy and safety. These data support a potential role for selective endothelin receptor antagonists in protecting renal function in patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk of developing end-stage kidney disease. Funding: AbbVie

Monoclonal antibodies as COVID-19 prophylaxis therapy in immunocompromised patient populations

Objectives: The objective of this review was to examine the latest literature regarding the effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies as COVID-19 prophylaxis therapy for immunocompromised patient populations. Methods: Literature review of published real-world and randomized control trials (RCTs) from 2020 to May 2023. Results: COVID-19 is highly transmissible with potentially serious health outcomes, underscoring the need for effective prevention and treatment strategies. Vaccines are highly effective at preventing COVID-19 for the general population; however, efficacy is often impaired in immunocompromised patients given insufficient response to initial exposure and/or memory for secondary exposures. Some individuals may also have contraindications to vaccination. As such, additional protective measures are needed to bolster the immune response in these populations. Monoclonal antibodies have been effective at bolstering immune system responses to COVID-19 among immunocompromised patients; however, they are proving ineffective against the most recent Omicron strains (BA.4 and BA.5). Conclusion: Several studies have investigated the efficacy of monoclonal antibodies as pre- and post-prophylaxis for COVID-19. Historical evidence is promising; however, new variants of concern are proving challenging for currently available regimens

A Canadian Perspective: Monoclonal Antibodies for Pre- and Post-Exposure Protection from COVID-19 in Vulnerable Patients with Hematological Malignancies

Patients with hematological malignancies have an increased risk of serious outcomes following COVID-19 infection, suggesting broader protection is needed beyond vaccination. Monoclonal antibodies such as sotrovimab, casirivimab–imdevimab, and bamlanivimab have provided valuable options for the treatment of COVID-19 disease. More recently, monoclonal antibodies have been examined for the prevention of COVID-19 infection. The monoclonal antibody combination, tixagevimab–cilgavimab, was recently approved by Health Canada as pre-exposure prophylaxis against COVID-19 in individuals who are immunocompromised or where vaccination is not recommended. Prophylactic approaches such as the use of tixagevimab–cilgavimab, in addition to COVID-19 vaccination, may provide additional protection for patients with hematological malignancies who are at greater risk of serious outcomes from COVID-19 infection.Other UBCNon UBCReviewedFacultyResearche