M Alan Brookhart1, Janet K Freburger2, Alan R Ellis2, Wolfgang C Winkelmayer3, Lily Wang2, Abhijit V Kshirsagar4. 1. Department of Epidemiology, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health UNC Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. Electronic address: mabrook@email.unc.edu. 2. Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 3. Selzman Institute for Kidney Health, Section of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX. 4. University of North Carolina Kidney Center, UNC School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite different pharmacologic properties, little is known about the comparative safety of sodium ferric gluconate versus iron sucrose in hemodialysis patients. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using the clinical database of a large dialysis provider (2004-2005) merged with administrative data from the US Renal Data System. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 66,207 patients with Medicare coverage who received center-based hemodialysis. PREDICTORS: Iron formulation use assessed during repeated 1-month exposure periods (n=278,357). OUTCOMES: All-cause mortality, infection-related hospitalizations and mortality, and cardiovascular-related hospitalizations and mortality occurring during a 3-month follow-up period. MEASUREMENTS: For all outcomes, we estimated 90-day risk differences between the formulations using propensity score weighting of Kaplan-Meier functions, which controlled for a wide range of demographic, clinical, and laboratory variables. Risk differences were also estimated within various clinically important subgroups. RESULTS: Ferric gluconate was administered in 11.4%; iron sucrose, in 48.9%; and no iron in 39.7% of the periods. Risks for most study outcomes did not differ between ferric gluconate and iron sucrose; however, among patients with a hemodialysis catheter, use of ferric gluconate was associated with a slightly decreased risk for both infection-related death (risk difference, -0.3%; 95% CI, -0.5% to 0.0%) and infection-related hospitalization (risk difference, -1.5%; 95% CI, -2.3% to -0.6%). Bolus dosing was associated with an increase in infection-related events among both ferric gluconate and iron sucrose users. LIMITATIONS: Residual confounding and outcome measurement error. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the 2 iron formulations studied exhibited similar safety profiles; however, ferric gluconate was associated with a slightly decreased risk for infection-related outcomes compared to iron sucrose among patients with a hemodialysis catheter. These associations should be explored further using other data or study designs.
BACKGROUND: Despite different pharmacologic properties, little is known about the comparative safety of sodium ferric gluconate versus iron sucrose in hemodialysis patients. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using the clinical database of a large dialysis provider (2004-2005) merged with administrative data from the US Renal Data System. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 66,207 patients with Medicare coverage who received center-based hemodialysis. PREDICTORS: Iron formulation use assessed during repeated 1-month exposure periods (n=278,357). OUTCOMES: All-cause mortality, infection-related hospitalizations and mortality, and cardiovascular-related hospitalizations and mortality occurring during a 3-month follow-up period. MEASUREMENTS: For all outcomes, we estimated 90-day risk differences between the formulations using propensity score weighting of Kaplan-Meier functions, which controlled for a wide range of demographic, clinical, and laboratory variables. Risk differences were also estimated within various clinically important subgroups. RESULTS:Ferric gluconate was administered in 11.4%; iron sucrose, in 48.9%; and no iron in 39.7% of the periods. Risks for most study outcomes did not differ between ferric gluconate and iron sucrose; however, among patients with a hemodialysis catheter, use of ferric gluconate was associated with a slightly decreased risk for both infection-related death (risk difference, -0.3%; 95% CI, -0.5% to 0.0%) and infection-related hospitalization (risk difference, -1.5%; 95% CI, -2.3% to -0.6%). Bolus dosing was associated with an increase in infection-related events among both ferric gluconate and iron sucrose users. LIMITATIONS: Residual confounding and outcome measurement error. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the 2 iron formulations studied exhibited similar safety profiles; however, ferric gluconate was associated with a slightly decreased risk for infection-related outcomes compared to iron sucrose among patients with a hemodialysis catheter. These associations should be explored further using other data or study designs.
Authors: Wolfgang C Winkelmayer; Benjamin A Goldstein; Aya A Mitani; Victoria Y Ding; Medha Airy; Sreedhar Mandayam; Tara I Chang; M Alan Brookhart; Steven Fishbane Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2017-01-04 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Tomas Ganz; George R Aronoff; Carlo A J M Gaillard; Lawrence T Goodnough; Iain C Macdougall; Gert Mayer; Graça Porto; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer; Jay B Wish Journal: Kidney Med Date: 2020-03-27