Intravenous iron administration strategies and anemia management in hemodialysis patients

Low hemoglobin at hemodialysis initiation: an international study of anemia management and mortality in the early dialysis period

Background

Anemia at hemodialysis (HD) initiation is common. Correcting low hemoglobin (Hgb) before HD initiation may improve survival by avoiding potential harms of chronic anemia, high doses of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and intravenous (IV) iron in the early HD period, and/or rapid Hgb rise.

Methods

We included 4604 incident HD patients from 21 countries in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study Phases 4–5 (2009–15). Because low Hgb at HD start may reflect comorbidity or ESA hyporesponse, we restricted our analysis to the 80% of patients who achieved Hgb ≥10 g/dL 91–120 days after HD start (Month 4).

Results

About 53% of these patients had Hgb <10 g/dL in Month 1 (<30 days after HD start); they were younger with a similar comorbidity profile (versus Hgb ≥10 g/dL). Month 1 Hgb was associated with first-year HD mortality (adjusted hazard ratio for 1 g/dL higher Hgb was 0.89; 95% confidence interval: 0.81–0.97), despite minimal differences in Month 4 Hgb. Patients with lower Hgb in Month 1 received higher doses of ESA, but not IV iron, over the first 3 months of HD. Results were consistent when excluding catheter users or adjusting for IV iron and ESA dose over the first 3 months.

Conclusions

Even among patients with Hgb ≥10 g/dL 3 months later, anemia at HD initiation was common and associated with elevated mortality. A more proactive approach to anemia management in advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) may thus improve survival on HD, though long-term prospective studies of non-dialysis CKD patients are needed.

Safety of Dynamic Intravenous Iron Administration Strategies in Hemodialysis Patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Intravenous iron therapy for chronic anemia management is largely driven by dosing protocols that differ in intensity with respect to dosing approach (i.e., dose, frequency, and duration). Little is known about the safety of these protocols.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Using clinical data from a large United States dialysis provider linked to health care utilization data from Medicare, we constructed a cohort of patients with ESKD aged ≥65 years who initiated and continued center-based hemodialysis for ≥90 days between 2009 and 2012, and initiated at least one of the five common intravenous iron administration strategies; ranked by intensity (the amount of iron given at moderate-to-high iron indices), the order of strategies was 3 (least intensive), 2 (less intensive), 1 (reference), 4 (more intensive), and 5 (most intensive). We estimated the effect of continuous exposure to these strategies on cumulative risks of mortality and infection-related events with dynamic Cox marginal structural models.

RESULTS

Of 13,249 eligible patients, 1320 (10%) died and 1627 (12%) had one or more infection-related events during the 4-month follow-up. The most and least commonly initiated strategy was strategy 2 and 5, respectively. Compared with the reference strategy 1, more intensive strategies (4 and 5) demonstrated a higher risk of all-cause mortality (e.g., most intensive strategy 5: 60-day risk difference: 1.3%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.8% to 2.1%; 120-day risk difference: 3.1%; 95% CI, 1.0% to 5.6%). Similarly, higher risks were observed for infection-related morbidity and mortality among more intensive strategies (e.g., strategy 5: 60-day risk difference: 1.8%; 95% CI, 1.2% to 2.6%; 120-day risk difference: 4.3%; 95% CI, 2.2% to 6.8%). Less intensive strategies (2 and 3) demonstrated lower risks of all-cause mortality and infection-related events.

CONCLUSIONS

Among dialysis patients surviving 90 days, subsequent intravenous iron administration strategies promoting more intensive iron treatment at moderate-to-high iron indices levels are associated with higher risks of mortality and infection-related events.

Evaluation of iron stores in hemodialysis patients on maintenance ferric Carboxymaltose dosing

Background

Iron is administered intravenously (IV) to many dialysis patients at regular intervals and iron stores are evaluated through periodic measurements of ferritin and transferrin saturation (TSAT). In patients without kidney diseases, large single doses of IV iron lead to a transient rise in serum ferritin that does not reflect iron stores. It is not known whether and to what extent smaller IV iron doses used to maintain adequate stores in hemodialysis patients lead to transient spurious elevations of ferritin and TSAT.

Methods

Ferritin and TSAT were serially determined over four weeks after the administration of ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) in hemodialysis patients on a stable maintenance FCM dosing regimen of 100 mg or 200 mg every four weeks.

Results

Ferritin values increased by 113 ± 72.2 μg/l (P < 0.001) from baseline to the peak value and remained significantly elevated until two weeks after the administration of 100 mg FCM (n = 19). After the administration of 200 mg FCM (n = 12), ferritin values increased by 188.5 ± 67.56 μg/l (P < 0.001) and remained significantly elevated by the end of week three. TSAT values increased by 12.0 ± 9.7% (P < 0.001) and 23.1 ± 20.4% (P = 0.002) in patients receiving 100 or 200 mg FCM, respectively, and returned to baseline within four days.

Conclusions

IV administration of FCM at doses of 100 or 200 mg in hemodialysis patients leads to dose-dependent transient ferritin elevations of extended duration. Temporal coordination of blood sampling for iron status evaluation with the maintenance IV iron dosing schedule is advisable.

Trial registration

ISRCTN12825165 (retrospectively registered 01/02/2019).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12882-019-1263-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Achievement of renal anemia KDIGO targets by two different clinical strategies - a European hemodialysis multicenter analysis

Background

The optimal treatment algorithm for iron therapy and the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) in anemic hemodialysis (HD) patients has not been established. Hemoglobin (Hb) target levels can be achieved through more frequent intravenous (IV) iron use with lower ESA dose, or with less iron dosing but higher ESA. ESA therapy to correct anemia may result in severe arterial and venous thrombotic complications and the evidence base evaluating hard clinical outcomes related to the use of IV iron is sparse.

Methods

A total of 1247 maintenance HD patients from 12 dialysis centers in Portugal (n = 730) and Poland (n = 517) were considered. We assessed achievement of KDIGO renal anemia targets with focus on treatment strategies, which typically differ between countries. In Poland the use and dose of IV iron was 35–72% higher than that in Portugal (p <  0.001) during three consecutive months; use and dose of ESA was 61% higher in Portugal (5034 vs 3133 IU (adjusted)/week, p <  0.001).

Results

Mean Hb concentration was similar (11.0 vs 11.0 g/dL) in patients treated in both countries and the proportion of patients within KDIGO anemia target was 69.5% in Poland vs 65.8% in Portugal (NS). Ferritin and TSAT levels and the proportion of patients with TSAT > 20 and > 50% were both significantly higher in patients in Poland (88.8 and 14.6%) than in Portugal (76.3 and 5.7% respectively, p <  0.001). Significantly more patients in Poland had a ferritin concentration > 800 μg/L (35.6%) compared to Portugal (15.8%, p <  0.001). The ESA resistance index (ERI) was significantly higher in patients treated in Portugal (p <  0.001). Correlation analyses showed confounding by treatment indication in unadjusted models. Multiple and logistic regression analyses showed that with ferritin within KDIGO recommended range of 200–800 μg/L the odds for Hb within guidelines increased significantly. Annual gross mortality was 16% in Poland and 13% in Portugal (NS); there were no differences in cause-specific mortality.

Conclusions

Administration of high doses of IV iron in routine clinical HD practice may not be associated with considerable harm. However, large randomized controlled trials are needed to provide absolute evidence of iron safety.

Intravenous Irons: From Basic Science to Clinical Practice

Iron is an essential trace mineral necessary for life, and iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) is one of the most common haematological problems worldwide, affecting a sixth of the global population. Principally linked to poverty, malnutrition and infection in developing countries, in Western countries the pathophysiology of IDA is primarily linked to blood loss, malabsorption and chronic disease. Oral iron replacement therapy is a simple, inexpensive treatment, but is limited by gastrointestinal side effects that are not inconsequential to some patients and are of minimal efficacy in others. Third generation intravenous (IV) iron therapies allow rapid and complete replacement dosing without the toxicity issues inherent with older iron preparations. Their characteristic, strongly-bound iron-carbohydrate complexes exist as colloidal suspensions of iron oxide nanoparticles with a polynuclear Fe(III)-oxyhydroxide/oxide core surrounded by a carbohydrate ligand. The physicochemical differences between the IV irons include mineral composition, crystalline structure, conformation, size and molecular weight, but the most important difference is the carbohydrate ligand, which influences complex stability, iron release and immunogenicity, and which is a unique feature of each drug. Recent studies have highlighted different adverse event profiles associated with third-generation IV irons that reflect their different structures. The increasing clinical evidence base has allayed safety concerns linked to older IV irons and widened their clinical use. This review considers the properties of the different IV irons, and how differences might impact current and future clinical practice.

Safety of intravenous iron in hemodialysis patients

Among end-stage renal disease patients maintained by hemodialysis, anemia has been managed primarily through erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and intravenous (IV) iron. Following concerns about the cardiovascular (CV) safety of ESAs and changes in the reimbursement policies in Medicare's ESRD program, the use of IV iron has increased. IV iron supplementation promotes hemoglobin production and reduces ESA requirements, yet there exists relatively little evidence on the long-term safety of iron supplementation in hemodialysis patients. Labile iron can induce oxidative stress and is also essential in bacterial growth, leading to concerns about IV iron use and risk of CV events and infections in hemodialysis patients. Existing randomized controlled trials provide little evidence about safety due to insufficient power and short follow-up; recent observational studies have been inconsistent, but some have associated iron exposure with increased risk of infections and CV events. Given the widespread use and potential safety concerns related to IV iron, well-designed large prospective studies are needed to assess to identify optimal strategies for iron administration that maximize its benefits while avoiding potential risks.