BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency anemia is the most common form of anemia in India. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is used in diabetic patients as an index of glycemic control reflecting glucose levels of the previous 3 months. Like blood sugar levels, HbA1c levels are also affected by the presence of variant hemoglobins, hemolytic anemias, nutritional anemias, uremia, pregnancy, and acute blood loss. However, reports on the effects of iron deficiency anemia on HbA1c levels are inconsistent. We conducted a study to analyze the effects of iron deficiency anemia on HbA1c levels and to assess whether treatment of iron deficiency anemia affects HbA1c levels. METHODS: Fifty patients confirmed to have iron deficiency anemia were enrolled in this study. HbA1c and absolute HbA1c levels were measured both at baseline and at 2 months after treatment, and these values were compared with those in the control population. RESULTS: The mean baseline HbA1c level in anemic patients (4.6%) was significantly lower than that in the control group (5.5%, p<0.05). A significant increase was observed in the patients' absolute HbA1c levels at 2 months after treatment (0.29 g/dL vs. 0.73 g/dL, p<0.01). There was a significant difference between the baseline values of patients and controls (0.29 g/dL vs. 0.74 g/dL, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to the observations of previous studies, ours showed that HbA1c levels and absolute HbA1c levels increased with treatment of iron deficiency anemia. This could be attributable to nutritional deficiency and/or certain unknown variables. Further studies are warranted.
Adolescent ; Adult ; Anemia, Iron-Deficiency/*blood/drug therapy ; Child ; Female ; Ferritins/blood ; Hemoglobin A, Glycosylated/*analysis ; Hemoglobins/analysis ; Humans ; Iron/therapeutic use ; Male ; Time Factors

Purpose: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) provides higher dose to target volumes and limits the dose to normal tissues. IMRT may be applied using either simultaneous integrated boost (SIB-IMRT) or sequential boost (SEQ-IMRT) technique. The objectives of this study were to compare acute toxicity and objective response rates between SIB-IMRT and SEQ-IMRT in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer. Materials and Methods: Total 110 patients with locally advanced carcinoma of oropharynx, hypopharynx, and larynx were randomized equally into the two arms (SIB-IMRT vs. SEQ-IMRT). Patients in SIB-IMRT arm received dose of 66 Gy in 30 fractions, 5 days a week, over 6 weeks. SEQ-IMRT arm’s patients received 70 Gy in 35 fractions over 7 weeks. Weekly concurrent cisplatin chemotherapy was given in both arms. Patients were assessed for acute toxicities during the treatment and for objective response at 3 months after the radiotherapy. Results: Grade 3 dysphagia was significantly more with SIB-IMRT compared to SEQ-IMRT (72% vs. 41.2%; p = 0.006) but other toxicities including mucositis, dermatitis, xerostomia, weight-loss, incidence of nasogastric tube intubation and hospitalization for supportive management were similar in both the arms. Patients in SIB-IMRT arm showed better treatment-compliance and had significantly less treatment-interruption compared to SEQ-IMRT arm (p = 0.028). Objective response rates were similar in both the arms (p = 0.783). Conclusion Concurrent chemoradiation with SIB-IMRT for locally advanced head and neck cancer is well-tolerated and results in better treatment-compliance, similar objective response rates, comparable incidence of mucositis and higher incidence of grade 3 dysphagia compared to SEQ-IMRT.

Purpose: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) provides higher dose to target volumes and limits the dose to normal tissues. IMRT may be applied using either simultaneous integrated boost (SIB-IMRT) or sequential boost (SEQ-IMRT) technique. The objectives of this study were to compare acute toxicity and objective response rates between SIB-IMRT and SEQ-IMRT in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer. Materials and Methods: Total 110 patients with locally advanced carcinoma of oropharynx, hypopharynx, and larynx were randomized equally into the two arms (SIB-IMRT vs. SEQ-IMRT). Patients in SIB-IMRT arm received dose of 66 Gy in 30 fractions, 5 days a week, over 6 weeks. SEQ-IMRT arm’s patients received 70 Gy in 35 fractions over 7 weeks. Weekly concurrent cisplatin chemotherapy was given in both arms. Patients were assessed for acute toxicities during the treatment and for objective response at 3 months after the radiotherapy. Results: Grade 3 dysphagia was significantly more with SIB-IMRT compared to SEQ-IMRT (72% vs. 41.2%; p = 0.006) but other toxicities including mucositis, dermatitis, xerostomia, weight-loss, incidence of nasogastric tube intubation and hospitalization for supportive management were similar in both the arms. Patients in SIB-IMRT arm showed better treatment-compliance and had significantly less treatment-interruption compared to SEQ-IMRT arm (p = 0.028). Objective response rates were similar in both the arms (p = 0.783). Conclusion Concurrent chemoradiation with SIB-IMRT for locally advanced head and neck cancer is well-tolerated and results in better treatment-compliance, similar objective response rates, comparable incidence of mucositis and higher incidence of grade 3 dysphagia compared to SEQ-IMRT.