Dietzfelbinger H
Arzneimittelforschung. 1987 Jan;37(1A):107-12.
Since 1977 the bioavailability of 14 bi- and trivalent oral iron preparations has been investigated in five separate orientated clinical studies by using postabsorption serum iron concentration curves. The range of relative bioavailability was 46 to 100% in the first group of preparations, 31 to 47% in the second group and 6 to 29% in the third group. The first group contained mainly bivalent quick release preparations, the second group slow or sustained release preparations and the third mainly trivalent iron preparations. The postabsorption serum iron concentration curves which show a good congruence with exact 59Fe whole body retention tests again confirmed the nearly 50-year-old rule that bivalent iron is up to 16 times better absorbed than trivalent iron. There is no doubt that the oral iron preparations of good bioavailability are able to cure an iron deficiency more rapidly than iron preparations with a low bioavailability. This therefore has a clear influence on the overall expense of iron therapy. Only those preparations from the first group can be recommended for oral iron therapy. The preparations in the second group are less suitable and those in the third group should be excluded from iron therapy in all countries.
自1977年以来,通过吸收后血清铁浓度曲线,在五项独立的定向临床研究中对14种二价和三价口服铁制剂的生物利用度进行了研究。第一组制剂的相对生物利用度范围为46%至100%,第二组为31%至47%,第三组为6%至29%。第一组主要包含二价速释制剂,第二组为缓释或长效释放制剂,第三组主要是三价铁制剂。吸收后血清铁浓度曲线与精确的59Fe全身保留试验显示出良好的一致性,再次证实了近50年的规律,即二价铁的吸收比三价铁高16倍。毫无疑问,生物利用度良好的口服铁制剂比生物利用度低的铁制剂能更快地治愈缺铁。因此,这对铁疗法的总体费用有明显影响。只有第一组的制剂可推荐用于口服铁疗法。第二组的制剂不太合适,第三组的制剂在所有国家都应排除在铁疗法之外。