Anemia and iron management

Iron Therapy Challenges for the Treatment of Nondialysis CKD Patients

The clinical consequences of untreated, severe anemia in patients with nondialysis CKD can be significant, but disparities exist in the anemia treatment guidelines and position papers issued from working groups and associations across the world. These differ in hemoglobin target and iron levels and their emphasis on various iron markers and other clinical outcomes. Not surprisingly, disparities are observed in anemia treatment strategies among patients with nondialysis CKD across different areas of the world. Over the past decade, the prescription and dosage of both iron therapies and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents have shifted, with notable regional differences observed. Moreover, there is ongoing debate regarding oral versus intravenous administration of iron. Compared with oral iron therapy, which often leads to gastrointestinal adverse events, low patient adherence, and low efficacy, intravenous iron administration has been associated with potential serious adverse events, such as anaphylaxis. New iron-based compounds and drugs currently under development are reviewed to describe their potential benefits in the treatment of anemia in patients with CKD. New oral compounds, including iron-based phosphate binders, heme iron polypeptide, and liposomal iron, show different rates of absorption with possibly different efficacy and improved tolerability. These new potential therapies offer health care providers additional anemia treatment options for their patients with CKD; however, the management of anemia in the CKD population continues to present challenges that require prospective studies to identify the optimal iron therapy for patients.

Infection risk with bolus versus maintenance iron supplementation in hemodialysis patients

Intravenous iron may promote bacterial growth and impair host defense, but the risk of infection associated with iron supplementation is not well defined. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of hemodialysis patients to compare the safety of bolus dosing, which provides a large amount of iron over a short period of time on an as-needed basis, with maintenance dosing, which provides smaller amounts of iron on a regular schedule to maintain iron repletion. Using clinical data from 117,050 patients of a large US dialysis provider merged with data from Medicare's ESRD program, we estimated the effects of iron dosing patterns during repeated 1-month exposure periods on risks of mortality and infection-related hospitalizations during the subsequent 3 months. Of 776,203 exposure/follow-up pairs, 13% involved bolus dosing, 49% involved maintenance dosing, and 38% did not include exposure to iron. Multivariable additive risk models found that patients receiving bolus versus maintenance iron were at increased risk of infection-related hospitalization (risk difference [RD], 25 additional events/1000 patient-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 16 to 33) during follow-up. Risks were largest among patients with a catheter (RD, 73 events/1000 patient-years; 95% CI, 48 to 99) and a recent infection (RD, 57 events/1000 patient-years; 95% CI, 19 to 99). We also observed an association between bolus dosing and infection-related mortality. Compared with no iron, maintenance dosing did not associate with increased risks for adverse outcomes. These results suggest that maintenance iron supplementation may result in fewer infections than bolus dosing, particularly among patients with a catheter.