COMPARATIVE EFFICACY AND PHARMACOKINETICS OF LIPOSOMAL IRON VERSUS CHELATED IRON (FERROUS BISGLYCINATE): A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF ADVANCED ORAL DELIVERY SYSTEMS

Iron deficiency (ID) and iron deficiency anemia (IDA) remain significant global health concerns, often requiring oral iron supplementation. However, traditional iron salts are frequently associated with poor bioavailability and high rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. This review compares two advanced delivery systems designed to overcome these limitations: Chelated Iron (Ferrous Bisglycinate Chelate) and Liposomal Iron. Ferrous Bisglycinate is a stable amino acid chelate that protects iron from dietary inhibitors and enhances absorption through the enterocyte membrane. In contrast, Liposomal Iron encapsulates iron within a phospholipid bilayer, allowing for a unique absorption pathway through microfold (M) cells and the lymphatic system. Clinical data indicates that both formulations provide superior hematological recovery compared to ferrous sulfate at lower elemental doses. While Ferrous Bisglycinate is highly effective for nutritional deficiency and pregnancy, Liposomal Iron demonstrates a distinct advantage in iron-refractory cases—such as chronic kidney disease or inflammatory bowel disease—by bypassing the hepcidin-mediated absorption block. Furthermore, both forms significantly improve patient compliance; Ferrous Bisglycinate reduces mucosal irritation, while Liposomal Iron offers a tolerability profile nearly identical to a placebo. This review concludes that the choice between these two forms should be guided by the patient’s inflammatory status and history of oral iron tolerance.