George R Bailie1, Jan-Jaap Verhoef. 1. Albany College of Pharmacy & Health Sciences, Albany, New York 12208, USA. george.bailie@acphs.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have compared rates of adverse events between intravenous (IV) iron preparations; however, there has been no comparison of adverse event rates by country and population. OBJECTIVES: To compare rates of adverse events to IV iron products by country and population. METHODS: All adverse events reported from 18 countries from January 1, 2003 to June 30, 2009 were obtained for iron dextran (ID), iron sucrose (IS), IS similars (ISS), and sodium ferric gluconate (FG). Rates of all adverse events and serious adverse events (anaphylaxis plus other serious allergic reactions) were calculated as number of events per gram of iron sold (gFe) per million inhabitants (mil) × 10-3. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for the risks of adverse events between products. RESULTS: Iron use ranged from 1 gFe/mil (Poland) to 48,674 gFe/mil (Italy). Rates of all adverse events (reports/gFe/mil × 10-3) varied: for IS, it ranged from 0 (Poland, Austria, Czech Republic) to 1,222 (Ireland); for FG, from 3.3 (Czech Republic) to 183.6 (United States); for ID, from 0.9 (Turkey) to 46,875 (Switzerland). There were no reports of adverse events in ISS. In a subset of countries that used 2 or more iron products and had more than 1 serious adverse event, rates (reports/gFe/mil × 10-3) of all adverse events and serious adverse events were lowest for IS (39.8 and 1.7), intermediate for FG (54.8 and 4.5), and greatest for ID (337.7 and 20.5). IS had lower risks for all adverse events (OR, 0.63; P<.0001) and serious adverse events (OR, 0.31; P=.001) versus FG, and for all adverse events (OR, 0.13; P<.0001) and serious adverse events (OR, 0.07; P<.0001) versus ID. FG had lower risks for all adverse events (OR, 0.20; P<.0001) and serious adverse events (OR, 0.24; P<.0001) versus ID. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable international variation existed in the extent and choice of iron product and adverse event reporting, suggesting under-reporting in some instances. Clinicians should appreciate the differential risks between available products, and should critically review local reporting practices.
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have compared rates of adverse events between intravenous (IV) iron preparations; however, there has been no comparison of adverse event rates by country and population. OBJECTIVES: To compare rates of adverse events to IV iron products by country and population. METHODS: All adverse events reported from 18 countries from January 1, 2003 to June 30, 2009 were obtained for iron dextran (ID), iron sucrose (IS), IS similars (ISS), and sodium ferric gluconate (FG). Rates of all adverse events and serious adverse events (anaphylaxis plus other serious allergic reactions) were calculated as number of events per gram of iron sold (gFe) per million inhabitants (mil) × 10-3. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for the risks of adverse events between products. RESULTS:Iron use ranged from 1 gFe/mil (Poland) to 48,674 gFe/mil (Italy). Rates of all adverse events (reports/gFe/mil × 10-3) varied: for IS, it ranged from 0 (Poland, Austria, Czech Republic) to 1,222 (Ireland); for FG, from 3.3 (Czech Republic) to 183.6 (United States); for ID, from 0.9 (Turkey) to 46,875 (Switzerland). There were no reports of adverse events in ISS. In a subset of countries that used 2 or more iron products and had more than 1 serious adverse event, rates (reports/gFe/mil × 10-3) of all adverse events and serious adverse events were lowest for IS (39.8 and 1.7), intermediate for FG (54.8 and 4.5), and greatest for ID (337.7 and 20.5). IS had lower risks for all adverse events (OR, 0.63; P<.0001) and serious adverse events (OR, 0.31; P=.001) versus FG, and for all adverse events (OR, 0.13; P<.0001) and serious adverse events (OR, 0.07; P<.0001) versus ID. FG had lower risks for all adverse events (OR, 0.20; P<.0001) and serious adverse events (OR, 0.24; P<.0001) versus ID. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable international variation existed in the extent and choice of iron product and adverse event reporting, suggesting under-reporting in some instances. Clinicians should appreciate the differential risks between available products, and should critically review local reporting practices.
Authors: Rodolfo F Rivera; Davide Guido; Lucia Del Vecchio; Enzo Corghi; Marco D'Amico; Corrado Camerini; Donatella Spotti; Andrea Galassi; Claudio Pozzi; Giovanni Cancarini; Giuseppe Pontoriero; Francesco Locatelli Journal: J Nephrol Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 3.902
Authors: J Szebeni; S Fishbane; M Hedenus; S Howaldt; F Locatelli; S Patni; D Rampton; G Weiss; J Folkersen Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2015-10-25 Impact factor: 8.739
Authors: Iain C Macdougall; Josep Comin-Colet; Christian Breymann; Donat R Spahn; Ioannis E Koutroubakis Journal: Adv Ther Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Joan Fortuny; Gero von Gersdorff; Régis Lassalle; Marie Linder; Jetty Overbeek; Jonas Reinold; Gunnar Toft; Antje Timmer; Jochen Dress; Patrick Blin; Cécile Droz-Perroteau; Vera Ehrenstein; Carla Franzoni; Ron Herings; Bianca Kollhorst; Nicholas Moore; Ingvild Odsbu; Susana Perez-Gutthann; Tania Schink; Katherine Rascher; Lawrence Rasouliyan; Kenneth J Rothman; Nuria Saigi-Morgui; Mathias Schaller; Elisabeth Smits; Michael Forstner; Jacques Bénichou; Andreas J Bircher; Edeltraut Garbe; David S Rampton; Lia Gutierrez Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 2.890