We thank Kilincalp and colleagues for their interest in our investigation on patients with anaemia following acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) and for highlighting the topic of oral iron absorption.1, 2 In our study, we measured the prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection and found no difference between the treatment groups. Unfortunately, we do not have data on the response rate to H. pylori treatment. The primary aim of our study was to evaluate the effect of iron treatment in anaemic patients after AUGIB in a randomised controlled design, regardless of H. pylori infection and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment. We are fully aware that several micro-environmental factors might influence the absorption of oral iron. A systematic review found a 2.8-fold increase in the relative risk of iron deficiency anaemia among H. pylori-infected patients.3 The infection itself consumes iron and decreases the concentration of gastric juice ascorbic acid.4, 5 As mentioned by Kilincalp et al., the presence of a gastric acidic environment is important for oral iron absorption.1 On the basis of our data, we cannot recommend a specific route of iron supplementation in anaemic patients after AUGIB with H. pylori infection. However, if intravenous iron is chosen, potential reduced iron absorption due to H. pylori infection will be avoided. Use of intravenous iron supplementation furthermore solves the risk of a changed intestinal iron absorption in patients treated with PPI.6 Intravenous iron is still much more expensive than oral iron. Therefore, it would be desirable if we were able to allocate the anaemic AUGIB patients to the most effective iron treatment. This calls for large well-designed studies with a focus on iron absorption in patients with AUGIB, stratifying for PPI treatment, H. pylori status and eradication of H. pylori infection. The authors' declarations of personal and financial interests are unchanged from those in the original article.2
Read full abstract