Background Intravenous iron sucrose is a promising therapy for increasing haemoglobin concentration; however, its effect on clinical outcomes in pregnancy is not yet established. We aimed to assess the safety and clinical effectiveness of intravenous iron sucrose (intervention) versus standard oral iron (control) therapy in the treatment of women with moderate-to-severe iron deficiency anaemia in pregnancy.Methods We did a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial at four government medical colleges in India. Pregnant women, aged 18 years or older, at 20-28 weeks of gestation with a haemoglobin concentration of 5-8 g/dL, or at 29-32 weeks of gestation with a haemoglobin concentration of 5-9 g/dL, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous iron sucrose (dose was calculated using a formula based on bodyweight and haemoglobin deficit) or standard oral iron therapy (100 mg elemental iron twice daily). Logistic regression was used to compare the primary maternal composite outcome consisting of potentially life-threatening conditions during peripartum and postpartum periods (postpartum haemorrhage, the need for blood transfusion during and after delivery, puerperal sepsis, shock, prolonged hospital stay [>3 days following vaginal delivery and >7 days after lower segment caesarean section], and intensive care unit admission or referral to higher centres) adjusted for site and severity of anaemia. The primary outcome was analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population, which excluded participants who refused to participate after randomisation, those who were lost to follow-up, and those whose outcome data were missing. Safety was assessed in both modified intention-to-treat and as-treated populations. The data safety monitoring board recommended stopping the trial after the first interim analysis because of futility (conditional power 1•14% under the null effects, 3•0% under the continued effects, and 44•83% under hypothesised effects). This trial is registered with the Clinical Trial Registry of India, CTRI/2012/05/002626.
Objective
The M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) captures the severity of common cancer symptoms from the patients’ perspective. We describe the validity and sensitivity of a module of the MDASI to be used with patients having ovarian cancer (MDASI-OC).
Methods
Ovarian cancer–specific module items were developed from 14 qualitative patient interviews. 128 patients with invasive epithelial ovarian, peritoneal, or fallopian-tube cancer treated at MD Anderson Cancer Center were recruited. Patients completed the MDASI-OC, socio-demographic questionnaires, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovary (FACT-O), and a global quality-of-life (QOL) item. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach α and sensitivity using known group was assessed. Construct validity was tested using exploratory factor analysis.
Results
The sample was primarily white (85.2%), had a mean age of 57.5 years (±12.7 years), and had previously been treated with chemotherapy (75.0%) and/or surgery (93.8%). Approximately 30% of patients reported disturbed sleep, fatigue, or numbness/tingling of at least moderate severity (≥5 on a 0–10 scale). On the ovarian-cancer-specific symptoms, approximately 20% reported back pain, feeling bloated, or constipation of at least moderate severity. Factor analysis revealed six underlying constructs (pain/sleep; cognitive; disease-related and numbness; treatment-related; affective; gastrointestinal-specific). MDASI-OC symptom and interference items had Cronbach α values of 0.90 and 0.89, respectively. The MDASI-OC was sensitive to symptom severity by performance status (p=0.009), QOL (p=0.002), and FACT-O scores (p<0.001).
Conclusions
The 27-item MDASI-OC meets common criteria for validation and reliability and is sensitive to expected changes in symptoms related to differences in disease and treatment status.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.