METHODS: The study was conducted in a Malaysian tertiary hospital for a period of 1 year. Forty pregnant women with IDA between 24 and 38 weeks of gestation were randomized into two groups receiving treatment with either ISC or LMWID.

RESULTS: No significant difference was found between the groups in terms of demographic data, parity, and mean gestational age. A mean total of 835 ± 150 mg doses of ISC and 656 ± 382 mg doses of LMWID were administered (P = 0.0001). Adverse events were reported in five patients who received LMWID and none in those treated with ISC (P = 0.024). The mean hemoglobin (Hb) level increment 2 weeks post treatment was higher among those who received ISC than in those who received LMWID. The ISC group demonstrated an increase of 1.91 ± 1.10 g/dL (from 8.43 ± 1.03 g/dL to 10.29 ± 0.90 g/dL) compared with the LMWID group at 1.39 ± 0.54 g/dL (from 8.61 ± 0.70 g/dL to 9.92 ± 0.88 g/dL, P = 0.023). All participants in both groups delivered at term. The estimated blood loss during delivery was significantly higher in the LMWID group (359 ± 247 mL) than in the ISC group (280 ± 100 mL, P = 0.026). Otherwise, no significant difference was observed in terms of Hb level during delivery and the perinatal outcomes for both groups.

METHODS: We conducted a systematic review from PubMed and Scopus to identify the cost-effectiveness analyses of MMS compared to IFA for pregnant women up to January 2024. Data extraction included specific study characteristics, input parameters, cost elements, cost-effectiveness results, and key drivers of uncertainty. This systematic review adhered to The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.

RESULTS: After removing 111 duplicates and following the screening process on the title and abstract of 1201 records, resulting in 125 full-text articles assessed for eligibility, a total of 5 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. All included studies were from low- and middle-income countries and demonstrated that MMS compared to IFA for pregnant women is cost-effective and even very cost-effective in some countries. All included studies implemented cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and estimated its cost-effectiveness using incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per disability-adjusted life years (DALY) averted. Results suggested that the transition from IFA to MMS was cost-effective. The range of ICER per DALY averted in this study is USD 3.62 to USD 1024, depending on the scenario. Overall, the main determinant influencing cost-effectiveness was the cost of MMS procurement.

CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight that transitioning from IFA to MMS in certain conditions has been proven cost-effective, emphasizing this intervention's economic viability. MMS price and micronutrient deficiency-related disease burden are important determinants in assessing cost-effectiveness.

METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study. Data on the Framingham risk score, waist-height measurement, and the 6-minute walk test (heart-rate recovery) were collected from 134 working women.

RESULTS: The mean age of the participants was 39.13 ± 7.06 years. The results showed that the waist-to-height ratio had a weak but significant correlation with Framingham risk score (r = 0.18). However, heart rate recovery showed a negative correlation (r = -0.029) with the Framingham risk score.