Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Iron Therapy for HCV-Positive Haemodialysis Patients

When should iron supplementation in dialysis patients be avoided, minimized or withdrawn?

Parenteral iron is used to restore the body's iron pool before and during erythropoiesis‐stimulating agent (ESA) therapy; together these agents form the backbone of anemia management in end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) patients undergoing hemodialysis. ESRD patients receiving chronic intravenous iron products, which exceed their blood loss are exposed to an increased risk of positive iron balance. Measurement of the liver iron concentration (LIC) reflects total body iron stores in patients with secondary hemosiderosis and genetic hemochromatosis. Recent studies of LIC in hemodialysis patients, measured by quantitative MRI and magnetic susceptometry, have demonstrated a high risk of iron overload in dialysis patients treated with IV iron products at doses advocated by current anemia management guidelines for dialysis patients. Liver iron overload causes increased production of hepcidin and elevated plasma levels, which can activate macrophages of atherosclerotic plaques. This mechanism may explain the results of 3 long‐term epidemiological studies which showed the association of excessive IV iron doses with increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among hemodialysis patients. A more physiological approach of iron therapy in ESRD is needed. Peritoneal dialysis patients, hemodialysis patients infected with hepatitis C virus, and hemodialysis patients with ferritin above 1000 μg/L without a concomitant inflammatory state, all require specific and cautious iron management. Two recent studies have shown that most hemodialysis patients will benefit from lower maintenance IV iron dosages; their results are applicable to American hemodialysis patients. Novel pharmacometric and economic approaches to iron therapy and anemia management are emerging which are designed to lessen the potential side effects of excessive IV iron while maintaining hemoglobin stability without an increase in ESA dosing.

Impact of iatrogenic iron overload on the course of hepatitis C in the dialysis population: A plea for caution

About 2.5% of the world population, corresponding to about 177 million individuals, are infected by hepatitis C virus (HCV), a small, single-stranded RNA virus. The prevalence of HCV infection among dialysis patients in Japan, Europe, and North America during the 2012 to 2015 period was found to be 8.7% in the DOPPS study. Nosocomial HCV spread in hemodialysis facilities still occurs. Increased hepatic tissue iron has been shown to play a deleterious role in the course of hepatitis C, favor development of fibrosis and cirrhosis and possibly increase the risk of liver cancer in the general population. Regular loss of blood in the hemodialysis circuit, in routine blood sampling for laboratory tests (for uremia monitoring), and in gut due to uremic enteropathy, invariably results in iron deficiency for which patients are commonly treated with intravenous (IV) iron preparations. Data on the effects of IV iron in hemodialysis patients with hepatitis C are limited (2 studies) and strongly suggest that parenteral iron may contribute to hepatocellular injury. Iatrogenic iron overload is extremely prevalent among hemodialysis population worldwide. Iron overload and toxicity has emerged as one of the most controversial topic in the management of anemia in dialysis patients. Given the known impact of iron in promoting growth and virulence of HCV and the associated liver disease, it is necessary to use iron therapy cautiously and closely monitor plasma markers of iron metabolism and liver iron stores non-invasively by means of MRI to avoid iron overload in this vulnerable population.

Iron inhibits replication of infectious hepatitis C virus in permissive Huh7.5.1 cells

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Chronic infection with hepatitis C virus (HCV) is often associated with elevated hepatic iron levels. Excess iron is known to promote oxidative stress and exacerbate liver disease. Nevertheless, biochemical studies in subgenomic HCV replicon systems showed that iron can also suppress the expression of viral RNA and proteins by inhibiting the enzymatic activity of the RNA polymerase NS5B. To explore the physiological relevance of this response, we evaluated the effects of iron during infection of permissive Huh7.5.1 hepatoma cells with HCV.

METHODS

We utilized Fe-SIH (iron complexed with salicylaldehyde isonicotinoyl hydrazone), a cell permeable and highly efficient iron donor.

RESULTS

Treatments of infected cells with Fe-SIH drastically reduced the expression of viral proteins (core and NS3) and RNA, in a dose-dependent manner. The inhibition was dramatic when Fe-SIH was administered simultaneously with the HCV inoculum or early afterwards, while pre-treatment of cells with Fe-SIH before infection failed to elicit antiviral responses. Iron chelation with SIH did not significantly alter the expression of viral proteins.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data establish a critical role of hepatic iron concentration on the progression of HCV infection, and are consistent with iron-mediated inactivation of NS5B.

Intravenous iron therapy restores functional iron deficiency induced by infliximab

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Infliximab (IFX) and iron sucrose (FeS) are of high value in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We aimed to assess the relative role of both therapies in IBD related anaemia and their safety when used in combination.

METHODS

IBD patients with anaemia receiving a first series of FeS infusions in addition to IFX were prospectively followed. We investigated serum kinetics of erythropoietin (EPO), soluble transferrin receptors (sTFRs) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF).

RESULTS

Data analysis included 87 patients of whom 49.4% achieved the target Hb level of 12.0 g/dL. IFX resulted in a significant increase of EPO and sTFR compared to baseline pre-IFX levels (p=0.029 and p=0.005 respectively) and after a 12-week combined FeS and IFX treatment, EPO and sTFR levels dropped significantly compared to pre-FeS levels (p<0.001 for both). Infusion related adverse events were recorded in 2 IFX treated patients (2.3%, 0.7% of the infusions) and were mild. Disease activity and quality of life were not affected.

CONCLUSIONS

In anaemic IBD patients treated with IFX, combined administration of FeS is safe. Infliximab significantly increases serum EPO and sTFR levels resulting in an increased functional iron deficiency, which is restored after combined treatment with I.V. iron sucrose.