Literature DB >> 30365356

Intravenous Iron in Patients Undergoing Maintenance Hemodialysis.

Iain C Macdougall1, Claire White1, Stefan D Anker1, Sunil Bhandari1, Kenneth Farrington1, Philip A Kalra1, John J V McMurray1, Heather Murray1, Charles R V Tomson1, David C Wheeler1, Christopher G Winearls1, Ian Ford1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Intravenous iron is a standard treatment for patients undergoing hemodialysis, but comparative data regarding clinically effective regimens are limited.
METHODS: In a multicenter, open-label trial with blinded end-point evaluation, we randomly assigned adults undergoing maintenance hemodialysis to receive either high-dose iron sucrose, administered intravenously in a proactive fashion (400 mg monthly, unless the ferritin concentration was >700 μg per liter or the transferrin saturation was ≥40%), or low-dose iron sucrose, administered intravenously in a reactive fashion (0 to 400 mg monthly, with a ferritin concentration of <200 μg per liter or a transferrin saturation of <20% being a trigger for iron administration). The primary end point was the composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, or death, assessed in a time-to-first-event analysis. These end points were also analyzed as recurrent events. Other secondary end points included death, infection rate, and dose of an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent. Noninferiority of the high-dose group to the low-dose group would be established if the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio for the primary end point did not cross 1.25.
RESULTS: A total of 2141 patients underwent randomization (1093 patients to the high-dose group and 1048 to the low-dose group). The median follow-up was 2.1 years. Patients in the high-dose group received a median monthly iron dose of 264 mg (interquartile range [25th to 75th percentile], 200 to 336), as compared with 145 mg (interquartile range, 100 to 190) in the low-dose group. The median monthly dose of an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent was 29,757 IU in the high-dose group and 38,805 IU in the low-dose group (median difference, -7539 IU; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9485 to -5582). A total of 320 patients (29.3%) in the high-dose group had a primary end-point event, as compared with 338 (32.3%) in the low-dose group (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.00; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.04 for superiority). In an analysis that used a recurrent-events approach, there were 429 events in the high-dose group and 507 in the low-dose group (rate ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.92). The infection rate was the same in the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing hemodialysis, a high-dose intravenous iron regimen administered proactively was superior to a low-dose regimen administered reactively and resulted in lower doses of erythropoiesis-stimulating agent being administered. (Funded by Kidney Research UK; PIVOTAL EudraCT number, 2013-002267-25 .).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30365356     DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1810742

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  93 in total

1.  Intravenous Iron Use in the Care of Patients with Kidney Disease.

Authors:  Iain C Macdougall
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2019-06-07       Impact factor: 8.237

Review 2.  Post-PIVOTAL Iron Dosing with Maintenance Hemodialysis.

Authors:  David Collister; Navdeep Tangri
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2019-06-10       Impact factor: 8.237

3.  At the Crossroads for Intravenous Iron Dosing.

Authors:  Abhijit V Kshirsagar; Xiaojuan Li; Bruce M Robinson; M Alan Brookhart
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 10.121

4.  The Value of Intravenous Iron: Beyond the Cave of Speculation.

Authors:  Daniel W Coyne; Steven Fishbane
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2020-04-06       Impact factor: 10.121

5.  Infectious complications and mortality associated with the use of IV iron therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sohail Abdul Salim; Wisit Cheungpasitporn; Ahmad Elmaraezy; Omar Jawafi; Md Rahman; Narothama Reddy Aeddula; Raghavendra Tirupathi; Tibor Fülöp
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2019-09-04       Impact factor: 2.370

6.  Testing two (of several) intravenous iron dosing strategies in hemodialysis.

Authors:  Margaret K Yu; Glenn M Chertow
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-07

7.  Iron Sucrose: A Double-Edged Sword in High Phosphate Media-Induced Vascular Calcification.

Authors:  Ping Wang; Chengkun Guo; Hui Pan; Wangshan Chen; Dan Peng
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  2021-01-13       Impact factor: 4.333

8.  Intravenous Iron Dosing and Infection Risk in Patients on Hemodialysis: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of the PIVOTAL Trial.

Authors:  Iain C Macdougall; Sunil Bhandari; Claire White; Stefan D Anker; Kenneth Farrington; Philip A Kalra; Patrick B Mark; John J V McMurray; Chante Reid; Michele Robertson; Charles R V Tomson; David C Wheeler; Christopher G Winearls; Ian Ford
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2020-04-06       Impact factor: 10.121

9.  New diagnostic tools for delineating iron status.

Authors:  Yelena Z Ginzburg
Journal:  Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program       Date:  2019-12-06

10.  Management of iron deficiency.

Authors:  Shuoyan Ning; Michelle P Zeller
Journal:  Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program       Date:  2019-12-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.