Dataset Information

Risk of Infection Associated With Administration of Intravenous Iron: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Intravenous iron is recommended by many clinical guidelines based largely on its effectiveness in reducing anemia. However, the association with important safety outcomes, such as infection, remains uncertain.

Objective

To examine the risk of infection associated with intravenous iron compared with oral iron or no iron.

Data sources

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from 1966 to January 31, 2021. Ongoing trials were sought from ClinicalTrials.gov, CENTRAL, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Search Registry Platform.

Study selection

Pairs of reviewers identified RCTs that compared intravenous iron with oral iron or no iron across all patient populations, excluding healthy volunteers. Nonrandomized studies published since January 1, 2007, were also included. A total of 312 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility.

Data extraction and synthesis

Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane recommendations, and the quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Two reviewers extracted data independently. A random-effects model was used to synthesize data from RCTs. A narrative synthesis was performed to characterize the reporting of infection.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was risk of infection. Secondary outcomes included mortality, hospital length of stay, and changes in hemoglobin and red blood cell transfusion requirements. Measures of association were reported as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences.

Results

A total of 154 RCTs (32 920 participants) were included in the main analysis. Intravenous iron was associated with an increased risk of infection when compared with oral iron or no iron (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.31; I2 = 37%; moderate certainty of evidence). Intravenous iron also was associated with an increase in hemoglobin (mean difference, 0.57 g/dL; 95% CI, 0.50-0.64 g/dL; I2 = 94%) and a reduction in the risk of requiring a red blood cell transfusion (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76-0.89; I2 = 15%) when compared with oral iron or no iron. There was no evidence of an effect on mortality or hospital length of stay.

Conclusions and relevance

In this large systematic review and meta-analysis, intravenous iron was associated with an increased risk of infection. Well-designed studies, using standardized definitions of infection, are required to understand the balance between this risk and the potential benefits.

SUBMITTER: Shah AA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8590171 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectivesThe 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, & measurementsWe 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.ResultsOf 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).ConclusionsHigher-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.

Project description:BackgroundIt is unclear whether vasopressors can be safely administered through a peripheral intravenous (PIV). Systematic review and meta-analysis methodology was used to examine the incidence of local anatomic adverse events associated with PIV vasopressor administration in patients of any age cared for in any acute care environment.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched without restriction from inception to October 2019. References of included studies and related reviews, as well as relevant conference proceedings were also searched. Studies were included if they were: (1) cohort, quasi-experimental, or randomized controlled trial study design; (2) conducted in humans of any age or clinical setting; and (3) reported on local anatomic adverse events associated with PIV vasopressor administration. Risk of bias was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials or the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for prevalence studies where appropriate. Incidence estimates were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were used to explore sources of heterogeneity.ResultsTwenty-three studies were included in the systematic review, of which 16 and 7 described adults and children, respectively. Meta-analysis from 11 adult studies including 16,055 patients demonstrated a pooled incidence proportion of adverse events associated with PIV vasopressor administration as 1.8% (95% CI 0.1-4.8%, I2 = 93.7%). In children, meta-analysis from four studies and 388 patients demonstrated a pooled incidence proportion of adverse events as 3.3% (95% CI 0.0-10.1%, I2 = 82.4%). Subgroup analyses did not detect any statistically significant effects associated with stratification based on differences in clinical location, risk of bias or design between studies, PIV location and size, or vasopressor type or duration. Most studies had high or some concern for risk of bias.ConclusionThe incidence of adverse events associated with PIV vasopressor administration is low. Additional research is required to examine the effects of PIV location and size, vasopressor type and dose, and patient characteristics on the safety of PIV vasopressor administration.

Project description:ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review of randomized trials comparing oral vs intravenous (IV) iron therapy to treat postpartum anemia.Data sourcesData sources were as follows: PubMed (1972-2017); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL (1972-2017); CINAHL (1972-2017); Web of Science; Excerpta Medica Database, and EMBASE (1972-2017).Study eligibility criteriaWe included randomized trials comparing oral vs IV iron monotherapy to treat postpartum anemia (classified as a hemoglobin <12 g/dL).Study appraisal and synthesis methodsStudy quality was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. The primary outcome was hemoglobin concentration at 6 weeks postpartum. Secondary outcomes included hemoglobin concentration at 1-5 weeks postpartum, ferritin concentration at 1-6 weeks postpartum, and maternal adverse outcomes. For meta-analysis, mean differences and odds ratios using a random effects model were calculated. Risk of heterogeneity was reported as I2.ResultsA total of 15 randomized trials met our inclusion criteria (n = 1001 and 1 181 women receiving oral iron and IV iron, respectively); 4 studies reported data for our primary outcome. We observed higher postpartum week 6 hemoglobin concentrations in the IV iron group compared to the oral iron group (mean difference, 0.9 g/dL; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.4-1.3; P = .0003). Compared to oral iron, women receiving IV iron had higher hemoglobin concentrations at postpartum weeks 1, 2, and 3; higher ferritin concentrations at postpartum weeks 1, 2, 4, and 6; an increased likelihood of skin flushing (odds ratio [OR], 6.95; 95% CI, 1.56-31.03; P = .01; I2 = 0%); and a decreased likelihood of constipation (OR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.03-0.21; P < .00001, I2 = 27%) and dyspepsia (OR, 0.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.42; P = .004; I2 = 0%). The reported event rate for anaphylaxis among women receiving IV iron was 0.6%.ConclusionIn this systematic review, among women with postpartum anemia, hemoglobin concentrations at 6 weeks postpartum were almost 1 g/dL higher in women who received IV iron compared to oral iron. The safety profile of IV iron was also reassuring. Given the weaker hemoglobin response and higher risk of gastrointestinal side effects with oral iron use, our findings suggest that IV iron be considered as a viable treatment option for postpartum iron deficiency anemia.

Project description:Iron is an essential nutrient for oxygen supply and aerobic metabolism. Iron deficiency impacts cellular respiration and mitochondrial energy metabolism, which can lead to reduced skeletal muscle function and muscle mass, causing sarcopenia. Intravenous iron offers the ability to rapidly correct iron deficiency, but the functional impact on patient mental and physical health is unclear. We assessed the effects of intravenous iron therapy on physical function and quality of life in the treatment of adults with non-anaemic iron deficiency. An update and reanalysis of a previously published Cochrane systematic review was performed to assess randomized controlled trials that compared any intravenous iron preparation with placebo in adults. The primary functional outcome measure was physical performance as defined by the trial authors. Secondary outcome measures included fatigue and quality-of-life scores, and adverse effects at the end of follow-up. Biochemical efficacy was assessed by change in serum ferritin and haemoglobin concentration levels. Twenty-one randomized controlled trials, comprising 3514 participants, were included. Intravenous iron compared with placebo resulted in significantly increased physical function measured by mean peak oxygen consumption (mean difference [MD] 1.77 mL/kg/min, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57 to 2.97). An overall improvement in fatigue was seen (standardized MD 0.30, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.09) but no overall difference in quality of life (MD 0.15, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.31). Biochemically, intravenous iron resulted in improved serum ferritin (MD 245.52 μg/L, 95% CI 152.1 to 338.9) and haemoglobin levels (MD 4.65 g/L, 95% CI 2.53 to 6.78). There was a higher risk of developing mild adverse events in the intravenous iron group compared with the placebo group (risk ratio 1.77, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.83); however, no differences were seen in serious adverse events (risk difference 0, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01). The quality of evidence was rated 'low' and 'very low' for all outcome variables, except for fatigue, mainly due to most studies being judged as having a high risk of bias. In non-anaemic iron-deficient adults, the use of intravenous iron compared with placebo improved physical function and reduced fatigue scores. However, we remain uncertain about the efficacy in this population due to low-quality evidence, and there is a need for further studies to address potential impact on overall quality of life.

Project description:BackgroundTreatment of preoperative anemia with intravenous iron is common within elective surgical care pathways. It is plausible that this treatment may improve care for people with hip fractures many of whom are anemic because of pre-existing conditions, fractures, and surgery.ObjectiveTo review the evidence for intravenous iron administration on outcomes after hip fracture.DesignWe followed a predefined protocol and conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of intravenous iron to treat anemia before and after emergency hip fracture surgery. The planned primary outcome was a difference in length of stay between those treated with intravenous iron and the control group. Other outcomes analyzed were 30-day mortality, requirement for blood transfusion, changes in quality of life, and hemoglobin concentration on discharge from the hospital.Data sourcesEMBASE, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library (CENTRAL, DARE) databases, Clinicaltrials.gov, and ISRCTN trial registries. Date of final search March 2022.Eligibility criteriaAdult patients undergoing urgent surgery for hip fracture. Studies considered patients who received intravenous iron and were compared with a control group.ResultsFour randomized controlled trials (RCT, 732 patients) and nine cohort studies (2986 patients) were included. The RCTs were at low risk of bias, and the nonrandomized studies were at moderate risk of bias. After metanalysis of the RCTs there was no significant difference in the primary outcome, length of hospital stay, between the control group and patients receiving intravenous iron (mean difference: -0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]; -1.20 to 0.03; I 2 = 30%, p = 0.23). Intravenous iron was not associated with a difference in 30-day mortality (n = 732, OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.62-2.1; I 2 = 0%, p = 0.50), nor with the requirement for transfusion (n = 732, OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.63-1.14; I 2 = 0%, p < 0.01) in the analyzed RCTs. Functional outcomes and quality of life were variably reported in three studies.ConclusionThe evidence on the use of intravenous iron in patients with hip fracture is low quality and shows no difference in length of acute hospital stay and transfusion requirements in this population. Improved large, multicentre, high-quality studies with patient-centered outcomes will be required to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of this treatment.

Project description:Perioperative anemia frequently occurs in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of perioperative intravenous iron therapy (IVIT) on transfusion and recovery profiles during orthopedic surgery. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar for eligible clinical trials (randomized controlled trials, RCTs; case-control studies, CCSs) in comparing IVIT and no iron therapy, up to September 2018. Primary outcomes were the effects of IVIT on the proportion of patients transfused and units of red blood cells (RBCs) transfused perioperatively. Secondary outcomes were the effects of IVIT on recovery profiles, such as length of hospital stay (LOS), post-operative infection, and mortality. Subgroup analysis was performed based on iron dose (low: ≤ 300 mg, high: > 400 mg), IVIT period (pre-operative, post-operative, perioperative), and study design. We identified 12 clinical trials (4 RCTs with 616 patients and 8 CCSs with 1,253 patients). IVIT significantly reduced the proportion of patients transfused by 31% (RR, 0.69; P = 0.0002), and units of RBCs transfused by 0.34 units/person (MD, -0.34; P = 0.0007). For subgroup analysis by iron dose, low- or high-dose IVIT significantly reduced the proportion of patients transfused (RR, 0.73, P = 0.005; RR, 0.68, P = 0.008), and RBC units transfused (MD, -0.47, P < 0.0001; MD, -0.28, P = 0.04). For subgroup analysis by period, IVIT administered post-operatively significantly reduced the proportion of patients transfused (post-operative: RR, 0.60, P = 0.002; pre-operative: RR, 0.74, P = 0.06) and RBC units transfused (post-operative: MD, -0.44, P <0.00001; pre-operative: MD, -0.29, P = 0.06). For subgroup analysis by study design, IVIT decreased the proportion of patients transfused and RBC units transfused in the group of CCSs, but IVIT in the group of RCTs did not. IVIT significantly shortened LOS by 1.6 days (P = 0.0006) and reduced post-operative infections by 33% (P = 0.01). IVIT did not change mortality. Perioperative IVIT during orthopedic surgery, especially post-operatively, appears to reduce the proportion of patients transfused and units of RBCs transfused, with shorter LOS and decreased infection rate, but no change in mortality rate. These were only found in CCSs and not in RCTs due to the relatively small number of RCTs with low to high risk of bias.