Dataset Information

A Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Intravenous Iron Isomaltoside versus Oral Iron Sulfate in Patients with Nonmyeloid Malignancies and Anemia Receiving Chemotherapy: The PROFOUND Trial.

ABSTRACT: A safe alternative to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents to treat anemia is warranted in patients with cancer and anemia; thus the objective of this trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) iron isomaltoside with oral iron in patients with cancer and anemia by testing the noninferiority of IV versus oral iron.Phase III, prospective, open-label, comparative, randomized, noninferiority, multicenter trial.Forty-seven hospitals or private cancer clinics in Asia, the United States, and Europe.A total of 350 patients with cancer and anemia.Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to either intravenous iron isomaltoside or oral iron sulfate. Patients in the iron isomaltoside group were then randomized into an infusion subgroup (single intravenous infusions of a maximum dose of 1000 mg over 15 min) or a bolus injection subgroup (bolus injections of 500 mg over 2 min).The primary efficacy outcome was change in hemoglobin concentration from baseline to week 4. Changes in other relevant hematology variables, effect on quality of life, and safety outcomes were also assessed. The primary efficacy outcome was tested for noninferiority, whereas the remaining outcomes were tested for superiority. Iron isomaltoside was noninferior to oral iron in change in hemoglobin concentration from baseline to week 4 (difference estimate 0.016, 95% confidence interval -0.26 to 0.29, p<0.001). A faster onset of the hemoglobin response was observed with infusion of iron isomaltoside (superiority test: p=0.03 at week 1), and a sustained effect on hemoglobin level was shown in both the iron isomaltoside and oral iron treatment groups until week 24. A significant mean decrease in fatigue score was observed from baseline to week 12 in the iron isomaltoside group (p<0.001) but not in the oral iron group (p=0.057). A higher proportion of patients treated with oral iron experienced adverse drug reactions (18.8% vs 6.6%, p<0.001) and discontinued the trial due to intolerance (8.0% vs 0.9%, p=0.001). Transient hypophosphatemia (phosphate level less than 2 mg/dl) was reported at similar low frequencies among the groups: 7.1% in the iron isomaltoside infusion subgroup versus 8.5% in the iron isomaltoside bolus injection subgroup versus 5.4% in the oral iron group.This trial demonstrated comparable sustained increases in hemoglobin concentration over time with both iron isomaltoside and oral iron. Iron isomaltoside was better tolerated than oral iron, and fatigue was significantly decreased with iron isomaltoside. Low rates of clinically insignificant hypophosphatemia were reported in patients receiving both treatments.

SUBMITTER: Birgegard G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5071650 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Intravenous Iron Isomaltoside versus Oral Iron Sulfate in Patients with Nonmyeloid Malignancies and Anemia Receiving Chemotherapy: The PROFOUND Trial.

Birgegård Gunnar G Henry David D Glaspy John J Chopra Rakesh R Thomsen Lars L LL Auerbach Michael M

Pharmacotherapy 20160401 4

<h4>Study objective</h4>A safe alternative to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents to treat anemia is warranted in patients with cancer and anemia; thus the objective of this trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) iron isomaltoside with oral iron in patients with cancer and anemia by testing the noninferiority of IV versus oral iron.<h4>Design</h4>Phase III, prospective, open-label, comparative, randomized, noninferiority, multicenter trial.<h4>Setting</h4>Forty-seven hosp ...[more]

PMID: 26927900

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesIn the largest head-to-head comparison between an oral and an intravenous (IV) iron compound in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) so far, we strived to determine whether IV iron isomaltoside 1,000 is non-inferior to oral iron sulfate in the treatment of iron deficiency anemia (IDA).MethodsThis prospective, randomized, comparative, open-label, non-inferiority study was conducted at 36 sites in Europe and India. Patients with known intolerance to oral iron were excluded. A total of 338 IBD patients in clinical remission or with mild disease, a hemoglobin (Hb) <12 g/dl, and a transferrin saturation (TSAT) <20% were randomized 2:1 to receive either IV iron isomaltoside 1,000 according to the Ganzoni formula (225 patients) or oral iron sulfate 200 mg daily (equivalent to 200 mg elemental iron; 113 patients). An interactive web response system method was used to randomize the eligible patient to the treatment groups. The primary end point was change in Hb from baseline to week 8. Iron isomaltoside 1,000 and iron sulfate was compared by a non-inferiority assessment with a margin of -0.5 g/dl. The secondary end points, which tested for superiority, included change in Hb from baseline to weeks 2 and 4, change in s-ferritin, and TSAT to week 8, number of patients who discontinued study because of lack of response or intolerance of investigational drugs, change in total quality of life (QoL) score to weeks 4 and 8, and safety. Exploratory analyses included a responder analysis (proportion of patients with an increase in Hb ?2 g/dl after 8 weeks), the effect of regional differences and total iron dose level, and other potential predictors of the treatment response.ResultsNon-inferiority in change of Hb to week 8 could not be demonstrated. There was a trend for oral iron sulfate being more effective in increasing Hb than iron isomaltoside 1,000. The estimated treatment effect was -0.37 (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.80, 0.06) with P=0.09 in the full analysis set (N=327) and -0.45 (95% CI: -0.88, -0.03) with P=0.04 in the per protocol analysis set (N=299). In patients treated with IV iron isomaltoside 1,000, the mean change in s-ferritin concentration was higher with an estimated treatment effect of 48.7 (95% CI: 18.6, 78.8) with P=0.002, whereas the mean change in TSAT was lower with an estimated treatment effect of -4.4 (95% CI: -7.4, -1.4) with P=0.005, compared with patients treated with oral iron. No differences in changes of QoL were observed. The safety profile was similar between the groups. The proportion of responders with Hb ?2 g/dl (IV group: 67%; oral group: 61%) were comparable between the groups (P=0.32). Iron isomaltoside 1,000 was more efficacious with higher cumulative doses of >1,000 mg IV. Significant predictors of Hb response to IV iron treatment were baseline Hb and C-reactive protein (CRP).ConclusionsWe could not demonstrate non-inferiority of IV iron isomaltoside 1,000 compared with oral iron in this study. Based on the dose-response relationship observed with the IV iron compound, we suggest that the true iron demand of IV iron was underestimated by the Ganzoni formula in our study. Alternative calculations including Hb and CRP should be explored to gauge iron stores in patients with IBD.

Project description:BackgroundIron deficiency is common in pregnancy. If left untreated, iron deficiency can lead to iron deficiency anaemia, which is a condition related to maternal and neonatal morbidity. The prevalence of iron deficiency increases through the trimesters, which means that women with iron deficiency in the beginning of pregnancy also have a great risk of developing iron deficiency anaemia during pregnancy. Standard treatment is oral iron in individualised intensified doses based on screening values in 1st trimester. Maternal symptoms of iron deficiency and iron deficiency anaemia include fatigue, reduced physical performance, and restless legs syndrome (RLS). Severe anaemia may cause dizziness, dyspnea, palpitation, orthostatism, and syncope, and it decreases the woman's ability to cope with blood loss during delivery. The anaemia may also compromise contractility in the uterine musculature increasing the risk for prolonged labour, caesarean section, and postpartum haemorrhage. Foetal iron deficiency may cause low birthweight and adversely affect foetal and early childhood brain development with long-term deficits.MethodsIn this randomised comparative, open-label, single-centre, phase IV trial, 200 pregnant women between 14 and 21 weeks of gestation who have iron deficiency after 4 weeks of standard treatment will be randomised 1:1 to either a single 1000 mg dose of intravenously administered ferric derisomaltose/iron isomaltoside 1000 or a fixed dose of 100 mg oral ferrous fumarate containing 60 mg ascorbic acid. The primary endpoint is to prevent iron deficiency anaemia defined by a low level of haemoglobin throughout the trial. Other endpoints include other haematological indices of iron deficiency and anaemia, clinical outcomes by questionnaires, and collection of adverse events. Explorative endpoints by medical record follow-up include complications up to 7 days after delivery.DiscussionThis trial will provide evidence on how to prevent iron deficiency anaemia. The trial population represents a clinical reality where pregnant women often have sustained iron deficiency despite an increased oral iron dose. Thus, this evidence can be used to consider the optimal 2nd line of treatment in iron-deficient pregnant women.Trial registrationEuropean Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database 2017-000776-29. Registered on 3 May 2017. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03188445 . Registered on 15 June 2017.

Project description:ImportanceIntravenous iron enables rapid correction of iron-deficiency anemia, but certain formulations induce fibroblast growth factor 23-mediated hypophosphatemia.ObjectiveTo compare risks of hypophosphatemia and effects on biomarkers of mineral and bone homeostasis of intravenous iron isomaltoside (now known as ferric derisomaltose) vs ferric carboxymaltose.Design, setting, and participantsBetween October 2017 and June 2018, 245 patients aged 18 years and older with iron-deficiency anemia (hemoglobin level ≤11 g/dL; serum ferritin level ≤100 ng/mL) and intolerance or unresponsiveness to 1 month or more of oral iron were recruited from 30 outpatient clinic sites in the United States into 2 identically designed, open-label, randomized clinical trials. Patients with reduced kidney function were excluded. Serum phosphate and 12 additional biomarkers of mineral and bone homeostasis were measured on days 0, 1, 7, 8, 14, 21, and 35. The date of final follow-up was June 19, 2018, for trial A and May 29, 2018, for trial B.InterventionsIntravenous administration of iron isomaltoside, 1000 mg, on day 0 or ferric carboxymaltose, 750 mg, infused on days 0 and 7.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was the incidence of hypophosphatemia (serum phosphate level <2.0 mg/dL) between baseline and day 35.ResultsIn trial A, 123 patients were randomized (mean [SD] age, 45.1 [11.0] years; 95.9% women), including 62 to iron isomaltoside and 61 to ferric carboxymaltose; 95.1% completed the trial. In trial B, 122 patients were randomized (mean [SD] age, 42.6 [12.2] years; 94.1% women), including 61 to iron isomaltoside and 61 to ferric carboxymaltose; 93.4% completed the trial. The incidence of hypophosphatemia was significantly lower following iron isomaltoside vs ferric carboxymaltose (trial A: 7.9% vs 75.0% [adjusted rate difference, -67.0% {95% CI, -77.4% to -51.5%}], P < .001; trial B: 8.1% vs 73.7% [adjusted rate difference, -65.8% {95% CI, -76.6% to -49.8%}], P < .001). Beyond hypophosphatemia and increased parathyroid hormone, the most common adverse drug reactions (No./total No.) were nausea (iron isomaltoside: 1/125; ferric carboxymaltose: 8/117) and headache (iron isomaltoside: 4/125; ferric carboxymaltose: 5/117).Conclusions and relevanceIn 2 randomized trials of patients with iron-deficiency anemia who were intolerant of or unresponsive to oral iron, iron isomaltoside (now called ferric derisomaltose), compared with ferric carboxymaltose, resulted in lower incidence of hypophosphatemia over 35 days. However, further research is needed to determine the clinical importance of this difference.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT03238911 and NCT03237065.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with colorectal cancer have a high risk of iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) due to chronic tumour induced blood loss, a reduced dietary iron intake from poor nutrition or gastrointestinal malabsorption. This pilot, double blinded, randomised controlled trial (RCT) examined the effect and feasibility of using preoperative iron isomaltoside for treating iron deficiency anaemia.MethodsForty eligible adults with IDA were randomised to receive either intravenous iron isomaltoside (20 mg.kg-1 up to 1000 mg over 30 minutes) or usual preoperative care (control) three weeks before scheduled colorectal surgery. The primary outcomes were perioperative changes in haemoglobin and ferritin concentrations.ResultsThe recruitment rate was 78% of all eligible referred patients (1.9 patients/month). The haemoglobin and ferritin concentrations were higher in the iron isomaltoside group than the control group over the perioperative period (group*time interaction P = 0.042 and P < 0.001 respectively). Mean haemoglobin change from baseline to before surgery was higher in the iron isomaltoside group (7.8, 95% CI: 3.2 to 12.3 g.l-1) than the control group (1.7, 95% CI: -1.9 to 5.3 g.l-1) [mean difference 6.1, 95% CI: 0.3 to 11.8 g.l-1; P = 0.040]. The ferritin change from baseline to before surgery between groups was large in favour of the iron isomaltoside group (mean difference 296.9, 95% CI: 200.6 to 393.2 μg.l-1; P < 0.001]. There were no differences between groups in packed red blood cell transfusions needed, surgical complications, quality of recovery and days (alive and) at home within 30 days after surgery.ConclusionIron isomaltoside therapy was safe and had a minimal effect on perioperative changes in haemoglobin concentration. Given the slow recruitment and new evidence emerging during the conduct of this study, conducting a multi-centre RCT based on the current pilot trial protocol is unlikely to be feasible.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03565354.

Dataset Information

A Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Intravenous Iron Isomaltoside versus Oral Iron Sulfate in Patients with Nonmyeloid Malignancies and Anemia Receiving Chemotherapy: The PROFOUND Trial.

Publications

A Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Intravenous Iron Isomaltoside versus Oral Iron Sulfate in Patients with Nonmyeloid Malignancies and Anemia Receiving Chemotherapy: The PROFOUND Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets