Treating critically ill anaemic patients with erythropoietin: why not?

Erythropoietin to treat anaemia in critical care patients: a multicentre feasibility study

Anaemia is common and associated with poor outcomes during and after critical illness. The use of erythropoietin to treat such anaemia is controversial with older studies showing mixed results. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the feasibility of performing a large multicentre randomised controlled trial of erythropoietin in this setting. We randomly allocated patients staying in the ICU for ≥ 72 h with haemoglobin ≤ 120 g.l-1 to either a weekly injection of erythropoietin (40,000 iu, maximum of five injections) or placebo (saline). The primary endpoint was feasibility (as measured by recruitment, randomisation and follow-up rates, and protocol compliance). Secondary endpoints included biological efficacy and clinical outcomes. Forty-two participants were recruited and randomly allocated, all participants received the allocated intervention, but one withdrew their consent and refused the use of their data, leaving 20 in the erythropoietin group and 21 in placebo group. Follow-up was completed for all patients who survived. The overall recruitment rate was 73.7% with 8.4 participants recruited on average per month. The last haemoglobin measured before hospital discharge (or death) was similar between the groups with a mean (SD) haemoglobin of 107 (21) vs. 95 (25) g.l-1 , mean difference (95%CI) 11 (-4-26), g.l-1 , p = 0.154. A large, multicentre randomised controlled trial of erythropoietin to treat anaemia in ICU patients is feasible and necessary to determine effects of erythropoietin on mortality in ICU anaemic patients.

Impact of treating iron deficiency, diagnosed according to hepcidin quantification, on outcomes after a prolonged ICU stay compared to standard care: a multicenter, randomized, single-blinded trial

BACKGROUND

Anemia is a significant problem in patients on ICU. Its commonest cause, iron deficiency (ID), is difficult to diagnose in the context of inflammation. Hepcidin is a new marker of ID. We aimed to assess whether hepcidin levels would accurately guide treatment of ID in critically ill anemic patients after a prolonged ICU stay and affect the post-ICU outcomes.

METHODS

In a controlled, single-blinded, multicenter study, anemic (WHO definition) critically ill patients with an ICU stay ≥ 5 days were randomized when discharge was expected to either intervention by hepcidin treatment protocol or control. In the intervention arm, patients were treated with intravenous iron (1 g of ferric carboxymaltose) when hepcidin was < 20 μg/l and with intravenous iron and erythropoietin for 20 ≤ hepcidin < 41 μg/l. Control patients were treated according to standard care (hepcidin quantification remained blinded). Primary endpoint was the number of days spent in hospital 90 days after ICU discharge (post-ICU LOS). Secondary endpoints were day 15 anemia, day 30 fatigue, day 90 mortality and 1-year survival.

RESULTS

Of 405 randomized patients, 399 were analyzed (201 in intervention and 198 in control arm). A total of 220 patients (55%) had ID at discharge (i.e., a hepcidin < 41 μg/l). Primary endpoint was not different (medians (IQR) post-ICU LOS 33(13;90) vs. 33(11;90) days for intervention and control, respectively, median difference - 1(- 3;1) days, p = 0.78). D90 mortality was significantly lower in intervention arm (16(8%) vs 33(16.6%) deaths, absolute risk difference - 8.7 (- 15.1 to - 2.3)%, p = 0.008, OR 95% IC, 0.46, 0.22-0.94, p = 0.035), and one-year survival was improved (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Treatment of ID diagnosed according to hepcidin levels did not reduce the post-ICU LOS, but was associated with a significant reduction in D90 mortality and with improved 1-year survival in critically ill patients about to be discharged after a prolonged stay.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrial.gov NCT02276690 (October 28, 2014; retrospectively registered).