Dataset Information

Randomized double-blind safety comparison of intravenous iron dextran versus iron sucrose in an adult non-hemodialysis outpatient population: A feasibility study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Intravenous iron therapy is a treatment option for iron deficient patients who are intolerant to oral iron or where oral iron is ineffective, but with possible adverse effects. Currently, prospective studies comparing different intravenous iron formulations are needed to determine safety and efficacy of these agents. METHODS:We conducted a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess the feasibility of a trial comparing the safety of high molecular weight intravenous iron dextran, Infufer®, with intravenous iron sucrose, Venofer®, in non-hemodialysis adult outpatients. Primary outcome was the occurrence of immediate severe drug reactions. RESULTS:We enrolled 143 patients in a one-year period. Overall, 45/143 (31.5 %) patients (20 iron dextran, 25 iron sucrose) developed 48 infusion reactions (14 immediate, 28 delayed, and 3 both). The risk of an immediate reaction was similar in both groups, 9/73 (12.3 %) iron dextran versus 8/70 (11.4 %) iron sucrose, RR?=?0.93 (95 % CI; 0.38 to 2.27). The risk of a delayed reaction was significantly higher in the iron sucrose group 22/70 (31.4 %) versus the iron dextran group 9/73 (12.3 %), RR?=?2.55 (95 % CI; 1.26 to 5.15; p?=?0.0078). CONCLUSION:In this limited feasibility study, no major differences in immediate reactions were seen, but a significantly higher number of delayed reactions were seen in the iron sucrose group. Further, under our assumptions and design a full RCT to evaluate the safety of different intravenous iron preparations is not feasible. Future studies should consider modifying the clinical outcomes, utilize multiple centers, and consider other emerging parenteral iron formulations. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT005936197 January 3, 2008).

SUBMITTER: Louzada ML

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4788943 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Randomized double-blind safety comparison of intravenous iron dextran versus iron sucrose in an adult non-hemodialysis outpatient population: A feasibility study.

Louzada Martha L ML Hsia Cyrus C CC Al-Ani Fatimah F Ralley Fiona F Xenocostas Anargyros A Martin Janet J Connelly Sarah E SE Chin-Yee Ian H IH Minuk Leonard L Lazo-Langner Alejandro A

BMC hematology 20160311

<h4>Background</h4>Intravenous iron therapy is a treatment option for iron deficient patients who are intolerant to oral iron or where oral iron is ineffective, but with possible adverse effects. Currently, prospective studies comparing different intravenous iron formulations are needed to determine safety and efficacy of these agents.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess the feasibility of a trial comparing the safety of high molec ...[more]

PMID: 26973791

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIron deficiency anaemia (IDA) is a major health issues and common type of nutritional deficiency worldwide. For IDA treatment, intravenous (IV) iron is a useful therapy.ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy and cost-effectiveness (CE) of intravenous (IV) Ferric Carboxymaltose (FCM) versus IV Iron Sucrose (IS) in treating IDA.Data sourcesElectronic medical record i.e. Cerner® system.Target populationAdults patients with iron deficiency anaemia.Time horizonA 12-month period (01/01/2018-31/12/2018).PerspectiveHamad Medical Corporation (HMC, a public hospital).InterventionIV Ferric Carboxymaltose versus IV Iron Sucrose.Outcome measuresWith regard to responses to treatment i.e., efficacy of treatment with FCM & IS in IDA patients, hemoglobin (Hgb), ferritin, and transferrin saturation (TSAT) levels were the primary outcomes. Additionally, the researchers also collected levels of iron, platelet, white blood cell (WBC), red blood cell (RBC), mean corpuscular hemoglobin (MCH), and mean corpuscular volume (MCV). The costs i.e. resources consumed (obtained from NCCCR-HMC) and the CE of FCM versus IS were the secondary outcomes.Results of base-case analysisThere was a significant improvement in Hgb, RBC and MCH levels in the IS group than the FCM group. The overall cost of IS therapy was significantly higher than FCM. The medication cost for FCM was approximately 6.5 times higher than IS, nonetheless, it is cheaper in terms of bed cost and nursing cost. The cost effectiveness (CE) ratio illustrated that FCM and IS were significantly different in terms of Hgb, ferritin and MCH levels. Further, Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) indicated that further justifications and decisions need to be made for FCM when using Hgb, iron, TSAT, MCH and MCV levels as surrogate outcomes.Results of sensitivity analysisNot applicable.LimitationsThe study did not consider the clinical or humanistic outcome.ConclusionsThe higher cost of FCM versus IS can be offset by savings in healthcare personnel time and bed space. ICER indicated that further justifications and decisions need to be made for FCM when using Hgb, iron, TSAT, MCH and MCV levels as surrogate outcomes.

Project description:Background and objectivesClinical trials assessing effects of larger cumulative iron exposure with outcomes are lacking, and observational studies have been limited by assessment of short-term exposure only and/or failure to assess cause-specific mortality. The associations between short- and long-term iron exposure on all-cause and cause-specific mortality were examined.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsThe study included 14,078 United States patients on dialysis initiating dialysis between 2003 and 2008. Intravenous iron dose accumulations over 1-, 3-, and 6-month rolling windows were related to all-cause, cardiovascular, and infection-related mortality in Cox proportional hazards models that used marginal structural modeling to control for time-dependent confounding.ResultsPatients in the 1-month model cohort (n=14,078) were followed a median of 19 months, during which there were 27.6% all-cause deaths, 13.5% cardiovascular deaths, and 3% infection-related deaths. A reduced risk of all-cause mortality with receipt of >150-350 (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.64 to 0.95) or >350 mg (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.62 to 0.99) intravenous iron compared with >0-150 mg over 1 month was observed. There was no relation of 1-month intravenous iron dose with cardiovascular or infection-related mortality and no relation of 3- or 6-month cumulative intravenous iron dose with all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. There was a nonstatistically significant increase in infection-related mortality with receipt of >1050 mg intravenous iron in 3 months (hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.87 to 3.28) and >2100 mg in 6 months (hazard ratio, 1.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.73 to 3.46).ConclusionsAmong patients on incident dialysis, receipt of ≤ 1050 mg intravenous iron in 3 months or 2100 mg in 6 months was not associated with all-cause, cardiovascular, or infection-related mortality. However, nonstatistically significant findings suggested the possibility of infection-related mortality with receipt of >1050 mg in 3 months or >2100 mg in 6 months. Randomized clinical trials are needed to assess the safety of exposure to greater cumulative intravenous iron doses.

Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Intravenous iron therapy for chronic anemia management is largely driven by dosing protocols that differ in intensity with respect to dosing approach (i.e., dose, frequency, and duration). Little is known about the safety of these protocols. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS:Using clinical data from a large United States dialysis provider linked to health care utilization data from Medicare, we constructed a cohort of patients with ESKD aged ?65 years who initiated and continued center-based hemodialysis for ?90 days between 2009 and 2012, and initiated at least one of the five common intravenous iron administration strategies; ranked by intensity (the amount of iron given at moderate-to-high iron indices), the order of strategies was 3 (least intensive), 2 (less intensive), 1 (reference), 4 (more intensive), and 5 (most intensive). We estimated the effect of continuous exposure to these strategies on cumulative risks of mortality and infection-related events with dynamic Cox marginal structural models. RESULTS:Of 13,249 eligible patients, 1320 (10%) died and 1627 (12%) had one or more infection-related events during the 4-month follow-up. The most and least commonly initiated strategy was strategy 2 and 5, respectively. Compared with the reference strategy 1, more intensive strategies (4 and 5) demonstrated a higher risk of all-cause mortality (e.g., most intensive strategy 5: 60-day risk difference: 1.3%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.8% to 2.1%; 120-day risk difference: 3.1%; 95% CI, 1.0% to 5.6%). Similarly, higher risks were observed for infection-related morbidity and mortality among more intensive strategies (e.g., strategy 5: 60-day risk difference: 1.8%; 95% CI, 1.2% to 2.6%; 120-day risk difference: 4.3%; 95% CI, 2.2% to 6.8%). Less intensive strategies (2 and 3) demonstrated lower risks of all-cause mortality and infection-related events. CONCLUSIONS:Among dialysis patients surviving 90 days, subsequent intravenous iron administration strategies promoting more intensive iron treatment at moderate-to-high iron indices levels are associated with higher risks of mortality and infection-related events.

Project description:BackgroundPreoperative anaemia affects a high proportion of patients undergoing major elective surgery and is associated with poor outcomes. We aimed to test the hypothesis that intravenous iron given to anaemic patients before major open elective abdominal surgery would correct anaemia, reduce the need for blood transfusions, and improve patient outcomes.MethodsIn a double-blind, parallel-group randomised trial, we recruited adult participants identified with anaemia at preoperative hospital visits before elective major open abdominal surgery at 46 UK tertiary care centres. Anaemia was defined as haemoglobin less than 130 g/L for men and 120 g/L for women. We randomly allocated participants (1:1) via a secure web-based service to receive intravenous iron or placebo 10-42 days before surgery. Intravenous iron was administered as a single 1000 mg dose of ferric carboxymaltose in 100 mL normal saline, and placebo was 100 mL normal saline, both given as an infusion over 15 min. Unblinded study personnel prepared and administered the study drug; participants and other clinical and research staff were blinded to treatment allocation. Coprimary endpoints were risk of the composite outcome of blood transfusion or death, and number of blood transfusions from randomisation to 30 days postoperatively. The primary analysis included all randomly assigned patients with data available for the primary endpoints; safety analysis included all randomly assigned patients according to the treatment received. This study is registered, ISRCTN67322816, and is closed to new participants.FindingsOf 487 participants randomly assigned to placebo (n=243) or intravenous iron (n=244) between Jan 6, 2014, and Sept 28, 2018, complete data for the primary endpoints were available for 474 (97%) individuals. Death or blood transfusion occurred in 67 (28%) of the 237 patients in the placebo group and 69 (29%) of the 237 patients in the intravenous iron group (risk ratio 1·03, 95% CI 0·78-1·37; p=0·84). There were 111 blood transfusions in the placebo group and 105 in the intravenous iron group (rate ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·68-1·43; p=0·93). There were no significant differences between the two groups for any of the prespecified safety endpoints.InterpretationPreoperative intravenous iron was not superior to placebo to reduce need for blood transfusion when administered to patients with anaemia 10-42 days before elective major abdominal surgery.FundingUK National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Program.

Dataset Information

Randomized double-blind safety comparison of intravenous iron dextran versus iron sucrose in an adult non-hemodialysis outpatient population: A feasibility study.

Publications

Randomized double-blind safety comparison of intravenous iron dextran versus iron sucrose in an adult non-hemodialysis outpatient population: A feasibility study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets