Dataset Information

Use of intravenous iron and risk of anaphylaxis: A multinational observational post-authorisation safety study in Europe.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

This post-authorisation safety study estimated the risk of anaphylaxis in patients receiving intravenous (IV) iron in Europe, with interest in iron dextran and iron non-dextrans. Studies conducted in the United States have reported risk of anaphylaxis to IV iron ranging from 2.0 to 6.8 per 10 000 first treatments.

Methods

Cohort study of IV iron new users, captured mostly through pharmacy ambulatory dispensing, from populations covered by health and administrative data sources in five European countries from 1999 to 2017. Anaphylaxis events were identified through an algorithm that used parenteral penicillin as a positive control.

Results

A total of 304 210 patients with a first IV iron treatment (6367 iron dextran), among whom 13-16 anaphylaxis cases were identified and reported as a range to comply with data protection regulations. The pooled unadjusted incidence proportion (IP) ranged from 0.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2-0.9) to 0.5 (95% CI, 0.3-1.0) per 10 000 first treatments. No events were identified at first dextran treatments. There were 231 294 first penicillin treatments with 30 potential cases of anaphylaxis (IP = 1.2; 95% CI, 0.8-1.7 per 10 000 treatments).

Conclusion

We found an IP of anaphylaxis from 0.4 to 0.5 per 10 000 first IV iron treatments. The study captured only a fraction of IV iron treatments administered in hospitals, where most first treatments are likely to happen. Due to this limitation, the study could not exclude a differential risk of anaphylaxis between iron dextran and iron non-dextrans. The IP of anaphylaxis in users of penicillin was consistent with incidences reported in the literature.

SUBMITTER: Fortuny J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8457074 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe European post-authorisation study (EU PAS) register is a repository launched in 2010 by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). All EMA-requested PAS, commonly observational studies, must be recorded in this register. Multi-database studies (MDS) leveraging secondary data have become an important strategy to conduct PAS in recent years, as reflected by the type of studies registered in the EU PAS register.ObjectivesTo analyse and describe PAS in the EU PAS register, with focus on MDS.MethodsStudies in the EU PAS register from inception to 31st December 2018 were described concerning transparency, regulatory obligations, scope, study type (e.g., observational study, clinical trial, survey, systematic review/meta-analysis), study design, type of data collection and target population. MDS were defined as studies conducted through secondary use of >1 data source not linked at patient-level. Data extraction was carried out independently by 14 centres with expertise in pharmacoepidemiology, using publicly available information in the EU PAS register including study protocol, whenever available, using a standardised data collection form. For validation purposes, a second revision of key fields for a 15% random sample of studies was carried out by a different centre. The inter-rater reliability (IRR) was then calculated. Finally, to identify predictors of primary data collection-based studies/versus those based on secondary use of healthcare databases) or MDS (vs. non-MDS), odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated fitting univariate logistic regression models.ResultsOverall, 1426 studies were identified. Clinical trials (N = 30; 2%), systematic reviews/meta-analyses (N = 16; 1%) and miscellaneous study designs (N = 46; 3%) were much less common than observational studies (N = 1227; 86%). The protocol was available for 63% (N = 360) of 572 observational studies requested by a competent authority. Overall, 36% (N = 446) of observational studies were based fully or partially on primary data collection. Of 757 observational studies based on secondary use of data alone, 282 (37%) were MDS. Drug utilisation was significantly more common as a study scope in MDS compared to non-MDS studies. The overall percentage agreement among collaborating centres that collected the data concerning study variables was highest for study type (93.5%) and lowest for type of secondary data (67.8%).ConclusionsObservational studies were the most common type of studies in the EU PAS register, but 30% used primary data, which is more resource-intensive. Almost half of observational studies using secondary data were MDS. Data recording in the EU PAS register may be improved further, including more widespread availability of study protocols to improve transparency.

Project description:BackgroundAchondroplasia, caused by a pathogenic variant in the fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 gene, is the most common skeletal dysplasia. The Lifetime Impact of Achondroplasia Study in Europe (LIAISE; NCT03449368) aimed to quantify the burden of achondroplasia among individuals across a broad range of ages, including adults.MethodsDemographic, clinical and healthcare resource use data were collected from medical records of achondroplasia patients enrolled in 13 sites across six European countries in this retrospective, observational study. Descriptive statistics or event rates per 100 person-years were calculated and compared across age groups as well as by history of limb lengthening. Patient-reported outcomes (quality of life [QoL], pain, functional independence, work productivity and activity impairments) were evaluated using questionnaires at the time of enrolment. An exploratory analysis investigated correlations between height (z-score or centimetres) and patient-reported outcomes.ResultsOverall, 186 study patients were included, with a mean age of 21.7 ± 17.3 years (range 5.0-84.4). At least one complication or surgery was reported for 94.6% and 72.0% of patients, respectively, at a rate of 66.6 and 21.5 events per 100 person-years. Diverse medical and surgical complications were reported for all ages in a bimodal distribution, occurring more frequently in the youngest and oldest age groups. A total of 40 patients had previously undergone limb lengthening (capped at 20% per the study protocol). The most frequent surgery types varied by age, in line with complication profiles. Healthcare resource use was high across all age groups, especially among the youngest and oldest individuals, and did not differ substantially according to history of limb lengthening. Compared to general population values, patients reported impaired QoL particularly for physical functioning domains. In addition, patients reported difficulty carrying out daily activities independently and pain starting in childhood. Patient height correlated with multiple patient-reported outcomes.ConclusionsThe findings of this study suggest that, across an individual's lifetime, achondroplasia is associated with multisystem complications, reduced QoL and functionality, and increased pain. These results highlight the large amount of healthcare resources that individuals with achondroplasia require throughout their lifespans and provide novel insights into current achondroplasia management practices across Europe. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03449368, Submitted 14 December 2017 - prospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT03449368.

Project description:AIM:To pilot enhanced safety surveillance of seasonal influenza vaccine meeting the European Medicines Agency (EMA) requirement to rapidly detect a significant increase in the frequency or severity of adverse events of interest (AEIs), which may indicate risk from the new season's vaccine. STUDY DESIGN:A prospective passive enhanced safety surveillance combining data collection from adverse drug reaction (ADR) cards with automated collection of pseudonymised routinely collected electronic health record (EHR) data. This study builds on a feasibility study carried out at the start of the 2015/2016 influenza season. We will report influenza vaccine exposure and any AEIs reported via ADR card or recorded directly into the EHR, from the commencement of influenza vaccination and ends as specified by EMA (30 November 2016). SETTING:Ten volunteer English general practices, primarily using the GSK influenza vaccines. They had selected this vaccine in advance of the study. PARTICIPANTS:People who receive a seasonal influenza vaccine, in each age group defined in EMA interim guidance: 6?months to 5 years, 6-12 years, 13-17 years, 18-65 years and >65 years. OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome measure is the rate of AEIs occurring within 7 days postvaccination, using passive surveillance of general practitioner (GP) EHR systems enhanced by a card-based ADR reporting system. Extracted data will be presented overall by brand (Fluarix Tetra vs others), by age strata and risk groups. The secondary outcome measure is the vaccine uptake among the subjects registered in the enrolled general practices. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval was granted by the Proportionate Review Sub-committee of the North East-Newcastle & North Tyneside 2 on 5 August 2016. The study received approval from the Health Research Authority on 1 September 2016. We will produce an interim analysis within 8 weeks, and an end-of-study report, which will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals.

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:Anaemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD) is managed primarily with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and iron therapy. Following concerns around ESA therapy, intravenous (IV) iron is being administered more and more worldwide. However, it is still unclear whether this approach is safe at very high doses or in the presence of very high ferritin levels. Some observational studies have shown a relationship between either high ferritin level or high iron dose and increased risk of death, cardiovascular events, hospitalization or infection. Others have not been able to confirm these findings. However, they suffer from indication biases. On the other hand, the majority of randomized clinical trials have only a very short follow-up (and thus drug exposure) and are inadequate to assess the mortality risk. None of them have tested the role of different iron doses on hard end points. With the lack of clear evidence coming from well-designed and large-scale studies, several data suggest that excessive iron therapy may be toxic in several aspects, ranging from iron overload to tissue damage from labile iron. A number of experimental and clinical data suggest that either excessive iron therapy or iron overload may be a possible culprit of atherogenesis. The process seems to be mediated by oxidative stress. Iron therapy should also be used cautiously in the presence of active infections, since iron is essential for bacterial growth. Recently, the European Medicines Agency officially raised concerns about rare hypersensitivity reactions following IV iron administration. The balance has been in favour of benefits. In several European countries, this has created a lot of confusion and somewhat slowed the run towards excessive use. Altogether, IV iron remains a mainstay of anaemia treatment in CKD patients. However, in our opinion, its excessive use should be avoided, especially in patients with high ferritin levels and when ESA agents are not contraindicated.

Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:The safety of intravenous iron dosing in dialysis is uncertain. Higher-dose intravenous iron may be associated with a higher risk of infections, cardiovascular events, hospitalizations, and mortality. This systematic review aimed to determine the safety of higher-dose versus lower-dose intravenous iron, oral iron, or no iron supplementation in adult patients treated with dialysis. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS:We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and CINAHL from inception to January 6, 2017 for randomized, controlled trials and observational studies comparing higher-dose intravenous iron with lower-dose intravenous iron, oral iron, or no iron in patients treated with dialysis that had all-cause mortality, infection, cardiovascular events, or hospitalizations as outcomes. RESULTS:Of the 2231 eligible studies, seven randomized, controlled trials and 15 observational studies met inclusion criteria. The randomized, controlled trials showed no association between higher-dose intravenous iron (>400 mg/mo for most studies) and mortality (six studies; n=970; pooled relative risk, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.47 to 1.84; follow-up ranging from 35 days to 26 months) or infection (four studies; n=743; relative risk, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.74 to 1.41). The observational studies showed no association between higher-dose intravenous iron (>200 mg/mo for most studies) and mortality (eight studies; n=241,408; hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.98 to 1.21; follow-up ranging from 3 to 24 months), infection (eight studies; n=135,532; pooled hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.99 to 1.28), cardiovascular events (seven studies; n=135,675; hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.90 to 1.56), or hospitalizations (five studies; n=134,324; hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.19). CONCLUSIONS:Higher-dose intravenous iron does not seem to be associated with higher risk of mortality, infection, cardiovascular events, or hospitalizations in adult patients on dialysis. Strength of this finding is limited by small numbers of participants and events in the randomized, controlled trials and statistical heterogeneity in observational studies.