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

Hypersensitivity to Intravenous Iron Preparations

Intravenous iron is widely used for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia when adherence to oral iron replacement is poor. Acute hypersensitivity reactions during iron infusions are very rare but can be life threatening. Major risk factors for hypersensitivity reactions include a previous reaction to an iron infusion, a fast iron infusion rate, multiple drug allergies, atopic diseases, high serum tryptase levels, asthma, and urticaria. The management of iron infusions requires meticulous observation, and, in the event of an adverse reaction, prompt recognition and severity-related interventions by well-trained medical and nursing staff. Avoidance of IV iron products in patients with iron hypersensitivity reactions may not be considered as a standard practice.

Risks for Anaphylaxis With Intravenous Iron Formulations : A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The risks for anaphylaxis among intravenous (IV) iron products currently in use have not been assessed.

OBJECTIVE

To compare risks for anaphylaxis among 5 IV iron products that are used frequently.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study using a target trial emulation framework.

SETTING

Medicare fee-for-service data with Part D coverage between July 2013 and December 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

Older adults receiving their first administration of IV iron.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was the occurrence of anaphylaxis within 1 day of IV iron administration, ascertained using a validated case definition. Analysis was adjusted for 40 baseline covariates using inverse probability of treatment weighting. The adjusted incidence rates (IRs) for anaphylaxis per 10 000 first administrations and odds ratios (ORs) were computed.

RESULTS

The adjusted IRs for anaphylaxis per 10 000 first administrations were 9.8 cases (95% CI, 6.2 to 15.3 cases) for iron dextran, 4.0 cases (CI, 2.5 to 6.6 cases) for ferumoxytol, 1.5 cases (CI, 0.3 to 6.6 cases) for ferric gluconate, 1.2 cases (CI, 0.6 to 2.5 cases) for iron sucrose, and 0.8 cases (CI, 0.3 to 2.6 cases) for ferric carboxymaltose. Using iron sucrose as the referent category, the adjusted ORs for anaphylaxis were 8.3 (CI, 3.5 to 19.8) for iron dextran and 3.4 (CI, 1.4 to 8.3) for ferumoxytol. When cohort entry was restricted to the period after withdrawal of high-molecular-weight iron dextran from the U.S. market in 2014, the risk for anaphylaxis associated with low-molecular-weight iron dextran (OR, 8.4 [CI, 2.8 to 24.7]) did not change appreciably. Anaphylactic reactions requiring hospitalizations were observed only among patients using iron dextran or ferumoxytol.

LIMITATION

Generalizability to non-Medicare populations.

CONCLUSION

The rates of anaphylaxis were very low with all IV iron products but were 3- to 8-fold greater for iron dextran and ferumoxytol than for iron sucrose.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Validity of hospital ICD-10-GM codes to identify anaphylaxis

PURPOSE

Anaphylaxis (ANA) is an important adverse drug reaction. We examined positive predictive values (PPV) and other test characteristics of ICD-10-GM code algorithms for detecting ANA as used in a multinational safety study (PASS).

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study on routine data from a German academic hospital (2004-2019, age ≥ 18). Chart review was used for case verification. Potential cases were identified from the hospital administration system. The main outcome required at least one of the following: any type of specific in-hospital code (T78.2, T88.6, and T80.5) OR specific outpatient code in combination with a symptom code OR in-hospital non-specific code (T78.4, T88.7, and Y57.9) in combination with two symptom codes. PPV were calculated with 95% confidence interval. Sensitivity analyses modified type of codes, unit of analysis, verification criteria and time period. The most specific algorithm used only primary codes for ANA (numbers added in brackets).

RESULTS

Four hundred and sixteen eligible cases were evaluated, and 78 (37) potential ANA cases were identified. PPV were 62.8% (95% CI 51.1-73.5) (main) and 77.4% (58.9-90.4) (most specific). PPV from all modifications ranged from 12.9% to 80.6%. The sensitivity of the main algorithm was 66.2%, specificity 91.5%, and negative predictive value 92.6%. Corresponding figures for the most specific algorithm were 32.4%, 98.0%, and 87.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

The PPV of the main algorithm seems of acceptable validity for use in comparative safety research but will underestimate absolute risks by about a third. Restriction to primary discharge codes markedly improves PPV to the expense of reducing sensitivity.