Iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) remains prevalent in Australia and worldwide, especially among high‐risk groups. IDA may be effectively diagnosed in most cases by full blood examination and serum ferritin level. Serum iron levels should not be used to diagnose iron deficiency. Although iron deficiency may be due to physiological demands in growing children, adolescents and pregnant women, the underlying cause(s) should be sought. Patients without a clear physiological explanation for iron deficiency (especially men and postmenopausal women) should be evaluated by gastroscopy/colonoscopy to exclude a source of gastrointestinal bleeding, particularly a malignant lesion. Patients with IDA should be assessed for coeliac disease. Oral iron therapy, in appropriate doses and for a sufficient duration, is an effective first‐line strategy for most patients. In selected patients for whom intravenous (IV) iron therapy is indicated, current formulations can be safely administered in outpatient treatment centres and are relatively inexpensive. Red cell transfusion is inappropriate therapy for IDA unless an immediate increase in oxygen delivery is required, such as when the patient is experiencing end‐organ compromise (eg, angina pectoris or cardiac failure), or IDA is complicated by serious, acute ongoing bleeding. Consensus methods for administration of available IV iron products are needed to improve the utilisation of these formulations in Australia and reduce inappropriate transfusion. New‐generation IV products, supported by high‐quality evidence of safety and efficacy, may facilitate rapid administration of higher doses of iron, and may make it easier to integrate IV iron replacement into routine care.

No abstract

The saving of many lives in history has been duly credited to blood transfusions. What is frequently overlooked is the fact that, in light of a wealth of evidence as well as other management options, a therapy deemed suitable yesterday may no longer be the first choice today. Use of blood has not been based upon scientific evaluation of benefits, but mostly on anecdotal experience and a variety of factors are challenging current practice. Blood is a precious resource with an ever limiting supply due to the aging population. Costs have also continually increased due to advances (and complexities) in collection, testing, processing and administration of transfusion, which could make up 5% of the total health service budget. Risks of transfusions remain a major concern, with advances in blood screening and processing shifting the profile from infectious to non‐infectious risks. Most worrying though, is the accumulating literature demonstrating a strong (often dose‐dependent) association between transfusion and adverse outcomes. These include increased length of stay, postoperative infection, morbidity and mortality. To this end, a recent international consensus conference on transfusion outcomes (ICCTO) concluded that there was little evidence to corroborate that blood would improve patients’ outcomes in the vast majority of clinical scenarios in which transfusions are currently routinely considered; more appropriate clinical management options should be adopted and transfusion avoided wherever possible. On the other hand, there are patients for whom the perceived benefits of transfusion are likely to outweigh the potential risks. Consensus guidelines for blood component therapy have been developed to assist clinicians in identifying these patients and most of these guidelines have long advocated more conservative ‘triggers’ for transfusion. However, significant variation in practice and inappropriate transfusions are still prevalent. The ‘blood must always be good philosophy’ continues to permeate clinical practice. An alternative approach, however, is being adopted in an increasing number of centres. Experience in managing Jehovah’s Witness patients has shown that complex care without transfusion is possible and results are comparable with, if not better than those of transfused patients. These experiences and rising awareness of downsides of transfusion helped create what has become known as ‘patient blood management’. Principles of this approach include optimizing erythropoiesis, reducing surgical blood loss and harnessing the patient’s physiological tolerance of anaemia. Treatment is tailored to the individual patient, using a multidisciplinary team approach and employing a combination of modalities. Results have demonstrated reduction of transfusion, improved patient outcomes and patient satisfaction. Significant healthcare cost savings have also followed. Despite the success of patient blood management programmes and calls for practice change, the potential and actual harm to patients caused through inappropr...