Effects of ferrous sulphate and non-ionic iron-polymaltose complex on markers of oxidative tissue damage in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

54Citations
Citations of this article
44Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: Iron deficiency is a common complication of inflammatory bowel disease. Oral iron therapy may reinforce intestinal tissue injury by catalyzing production of reactive oxygen species. Aim: To compare the effects of ferrous sulphate and non-ionic iron-polymaltose complex on markers of oxidative tissue damage and clinical disease activity in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Methods: Forty-one patients with inflammatory bowel disease and iron deficiency were randomized to treatment with ferrous sulphate 100 mg twice a day or iron-polymaltose complex 200 mg once a day for 14 days. Results: Following ferrous sulphate, plasma malondialdehyde increased (P = 0.02), while urine 8-isoprostaglandin F2α and plasma antioxidants did not change significantly. Iron-polymaltose complex did not change plasma malondialdehyde, urine 8-isoprostaglandin F2α or plasma antioxidants. Comparing the two treatments, changes in plasma malondialdehyde tended to differ (P = 0.08), while urine 8-isoprostaglandin F2α and plasma antioxidants did not differ. Neither ferrous sulphate nor iron-polymaltose complex altered clinical disease activity indices. Conclusions: Ferrous sulphate increased plasma malondialdehyde, a marker of lipid peroxidation. Comparing treatment with ferrous sulphate and iron-polymaltose complex, changes in plasma malondialdehyde tended to differ. Clinical disease activity was unchanged after both treatments. © 2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Erichsen, K., Ulvik, R. J., Grimstad, T., Berstad, A., Berge, R. K., & Hausken, T. (2005). Effects of ferrous sulphate and non-ionic iron-polymaltose complex on markers of oxidative tissue damage in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 22(9), 831–838. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02652.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free