Phase III, randomized study of the effects of parenteral iron, oral iron, or no iron supplementation on the erythropoietic response to darbepoetin alfa for patients with chemotherapy-associated anemia

Functional iron deficiency anemia in patients with cancer

Anemia is frequently observed in patients with cancer owing to anticancer chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and inflammatory responses. This often leads to functional iron deficiency, characterized by adequate iron stores but impaired use of iron for red blood cell production. This condition, termed functional iron deficiency anemia (IDA), is identified by a ferritin level of 30-500 µg/dL and a transferrin saturation < 50%. Functional iron deficiency often develops with the prolonged use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, leading to a diminished response to anemia treatment. Although oral iron supplementation is common, intravenous iron is more effective and recommended in such cases. Recent studies have shown that ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) is effective in treating functional IDA in patients with cancer. However, because of its potential to induce asymptomatic severe phosphate deficiency, it is important to closely monitor phosphate levels in patients receiving FCM.

Update on iron supplementation in patients with cancer-related anemia

INTRODUCTION

Numerous clinical trials affirm the efficacy and safety of IV iron to treat cancer-related anemia (CRA). Nonetheless, evaluation and treatment of CRA remains suboptimal.

AREAS COVERED

This review summarizes CRA therapy with a focus on iron deficiency and its treatment. The literature search was conducted using the National Library of Medicine (PubMed) database from 2004 to 2024. Topics reviewed include CRA pathophysiology, laboratory diagnosis of iron deficiency, a summary of clinical trial results using IV iron to treat CRA, and safety aspects.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite overwhelming positive efficacy and safety data, IV iron remains underutilized to treat CRA. This is likely due to persistent (unfounded) concerns about IV iron safety and lack of physician awareness of newer clinical trial data. This leads to poor patient quality of life and patient exposure to anemia treatments that have greater safety risks than IV iron. Solutions to this problem include increased educational efforts and considering alternative treatment models in which other providers separately manage CRA. The recent availability of new oral iron therapy products that are effective in treating anemia of inflammation has the potential to dramatically simplify the treatment of CRA.

A meta-analysis on the risk of infection associated with intravenous iron therapy in cancer-associated anaemia: a double-edged sword?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The increased use of i.v. iron in the treatment of cancer-associated anemia raises concerns about its risk of infectious complications. High levels of circulating iron could increase the risk of infection by compromising natural defence mechanisms and promoting pathogen growth. Since the risk of infection is particularly high in the oncological population, we have examined whether the use of i.v. iron increases the risk of infectious complications among cancer patients.

FINDINGS

Among 18 randomized trials in our systematic review, only 8 reported infectious complications, with no significant difference linked to the type of i.v. iron preparation. Two trials showed a statistically significant increase in infectious complications, one trial found a lower risk, while the remaining 5 reported no significant difference. Our meta-analysis revealed a numerical increase in infectious complications in the i.v. iron group, but the lack of statistical significance and significant heterogeneity among the trials limit definitive conclusions on the actual infection risk.

SUMMARY

Our findings suggest some increased risk in infectious complications after the administration of i.v. iron for cancer associated anaemia. However, i.v. iron therapy appears generally safe and effective in cancer-associated anaemia.

Intravenous Iron Therapy to Treat Anemia in Oncology: A Mapping Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Anemia is a common problem when patients present with cancer, and it can worsen during treatment. Anemia can directly impact the cognitive and physical quality of life and may impair fitness for oncological therapy. The most common cause of anemia is iron deficiency. Newer intravenous (IV) iron formulations offer a safe and rapidly effective treatment option. We performed a systematic mapping review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating intravenous iron therapy in patients with cancer and anemia and their outcomes. A total of 23 RCTs were identified. The median number of patients enrolled was 104 (IQR: 60-134). A total of 5 were focused on surgical outcomes (4 preoperative, 1 postoperative), and 15 were in adjuvant therapies for a variety of tumor types (breast, colorectal, lung, gynecological, myeloid, and lymphomas), 10 of which were in combination with erythropoietin-stimulating agents (ESAs) therapy, 2 in radiotherapy, and 1 in palliative care. Overall, the studies reported that the use of IV iron increased hemoglobin concentration and decreased transfusion rates during different cancer treatment regimes. IV iron can be administered safely throughout the cancer treatment pathway from primary surgery to the palliative setting. More studies are needed to demonstrate net clinical outcomes.

Intravenous iron versus oral iron versus no iron with or without erythropoiesis- stimulating agents (ESA) for cancer patients with anaemia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Anaemia is common among cancer patients and they may require red blood cell transfusions. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and iron might help in reducing the need for red blood cell transfusions. However, it remains unclear whether the combination of both drugs is preferable compared to using one drug.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the effect of intravenous iron, oral iron or no iron in combination with or without ESAs to prevent or alleviate anaemia in cancer patients and to generate treatment rankings using network meta-analyses (NMAs).

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies by searching bibliographic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase; until June 2021). We also searched various registries, conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing intravenous, oral or no iron, with or without ESAs for the prevention or alleviation of anaemia resulting from chemotherapy, radiotherapy, combination therapy or the underlying malignancy in cancer patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes were on-study mortality, number of patients receiving red blood cell transfusions, number of red blood cell units, haematological response, overall mortality and adverse events. We conducted NMAs and generated treatment rankings. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Ninety-six trials (25,157 participants) fulfilled our inclusion criteria; 62 trials (24,603 participants) could be considered in the NMA (12 different treatment options). Here we present the comparisons of ESA with or without iron and iron alone versus no treatment. Further results and subgroup analyses are described in the full text. On-study mortality We estimated that 92 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia died up to 30 days after the active study period. Evidence from NMA (55 trials; 15,074 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (12 of 1000; risk ratio (RR) 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.29; low certainty) or oral iron (34 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.01 to 27.38; low certainty) may decrease or increase and ESA alone (103 of 1000; RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.35; moderate certainty) probably slightly increases on-study mortality. Additionally, treatment with intravenous iron alone (271 of 1000; RR 2.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 12.34; low certainty) may increase and oral iron alone (24 of 1000; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.00 to 19.73; low certainty) may increase or decrease on-study mortality. Haematological response We estimated that 90 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia had a haematological response. Evidence from NMA (31 trials; 6985 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (604 of 1000; RR 6.71, 95% CI 4.93 to 9.14; moderate certainty), ESA and oral iron (527 of 1000; RR 5.85, 95% CI 4.06 to 8.42; moderate certainty), and ESA alone (467 of 1000; RR 5.19, 95% CI 4.02 to 6.71; moderate certainty) probably increases haematological response. Additionally, treatment with oral iron alone may increase haematological response (153 of 1000; RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.69 to 4.20; low certainty). Red blood cell transfusions We estimated that 360 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia needed at least one transfusion. Evidence from NMA (69 trials; 18,684 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (158 of 1000; RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.63; moderate certainty), ESA and oral iron (144 of 1000; RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.66; moderate certainty) and ESA alone (212 of 1000; RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.69; moderate certainty) probably decreases the need for transfusions. Additionally, treatment with intravenous iron alone (268 of 1000; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.28; low certainty) and with oral iron alone (333 of 1000; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.57; low certainty) may decrease or increase the need for transfusions. Overall mortality We estimated that 347 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia died overall. Low-certainty evidence from NMA (71 trials; 21,576 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (507 of 1000; RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.43) or oral iron (482 of 1000; RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.22) and intravenous iron alone (521 of 1000; RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.63 to 3.56) or oral iron alone (534 of 1000; RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.56) may decrease or increase overall mortality. Treatment with ESA alone may lead to little or no difference in overall mortality (357 of 1000; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.10; low certainty). Thromboembolic events We estimated that 36 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia developed thromboembolic events. Evidence from NMA (50 trials; 15,408 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (66 of 1000; RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.41; moderate certainty) probably slightly increases and with ESA alone (66 of 1000; RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.47; high certainty) slightly increases the number of thromboembolic events. None of the trials reported results on the other comparisons. Thrombocytopenia or haemorrhage We estimated that 76 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia developed thrombocytopenia/haemorrhage. Evidence from NMA (13 trials, 2744 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA alone probably leads to little or no difference in thrombocytopenia/haemorrhage (76 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.48; moderate certainty). None of the trials reported results on other comparisons. Hypertension We estimated that 10 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia developed hypertension. Evidence from NMA (24 trials; 8383 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA alone probably increases the number of hypertensions (29 of 1000; RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.19 to 7.25; moderate certainty). None of the trials reported results on the other comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When considering ESAs with iron as prevention for anaemia, one has to balance between efficacy and safety. Results suggest that treatment with ESA and iron probably decreases number of blood transfusions, but may increase mortality and the number of thromboembolic events. For most outcomes the different comparisons within the network were not fully connected, so ranking of all treatments together was not possible. More head-to-head comparisons including all evaluated treatment combinations are needed to fill the gaps and prove results of this review.

Randomized trial of sucrosomial iron supplementation in patients with chemotherapy-related anemia treated with ESA

BACKGROUND

Iron supplementation improves the erythropoiesis-stimulating agents' (ESAs) response in chemotherapy-related anemia. The primary aim of our study is to assess the efficacy of sucrosomial iron, a new oral iron formulation, in cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia treated with ESAs. The secondary objectives included the efficacy into two subgroups of patients (iron replete and functional iron deficiency) between the two study arms, safety and the effect on transfusion need.

METHODS

In this randomized, multicentre, open-label, phase III clinical trial, 60 cancer patients were enrolled. Each patient was randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 12 weeks of oral sucrosomial iron at the dose of 30 mg daily in combination with ESAs or no supplementation to ESA treatment. The endpoint considered for efficacy was the proportion of patients achieving complete hematological response at 12 weeks (increase in Hb > 2 g/dL from baseline, without RBC transfusions in the previous 28 days or achieving Hb ≥ 12 g/dL).

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant association between oral sucrosomial iron supplementation in combination with ESAs and the achievement of a complete hematological response. This response was achieved within 12 weeks by 31% of patients in the control group and by 52% of patients supplemented with oral sucrosomial iron. A trend of greater response in sucrosomial iron arm was found in both subgroups. No difference was observed about safety and transfusion need.

CONCLUSIONS

Sucrosomial iron is well tolerated and its combination with ESAs improves the hematological response in cancer patients with chemotherapy-related anemia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE OF REGISTRATION

This study has been reviewed by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo Foundation, Pavia, Italy (28/04/2015; prot. N. 20,150,002,059), and by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the other Italian oncological centers involved in this study.

The addition of oral iron improves chemotherapy-induced anemia in patients receiving erythropoiesis-stimulating agents

Although many studies have shown that supplementation with iron and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) is frequently used for managing chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA), optimal combination therapy using these agents together to ameliorate anemia is not well characterized. To assess the effects of ESA combined with oral or intravenous (IV) iron on relieving CIA, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched for articles. Data collected in the articles were meta-analyzed using RevMan 5.3 software with a random-effects model. Our comprehensive search yielded 1666 potentially relevant trials. A total of 41 trials randomizing 4200 patients with CIA fulfilled inclusion criteria, including 34 Chinese articles and 7 English articles. Meta-analysis showed that treatment with both ESA and iron more effectively improved CIA relative to iron supplementation alone, with increased hemoglobin, hematocrit, red blood cell count and haematopoietic response rate. Subgroup analyses revealed iron administration, both oral and IV iron, improved anemia in ESA-treated cancer patients with CIA. Our analysis demonstrates that iron supplementation combined with ESA more effectively ameliorates CIA relative to iron supplementation alone, without regard to whether IV or oral iron was used. Together, our findings may contribute to the clinical treatment of CIA using iron therapy with or without ESA. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

[G-CSF for prophylaxis of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia, anemia in cancer : Guidelines on supportive treatment part 1]

Infections in patients with neutropenia following chemotherapy are mostly manifested as fever (febrile neutropenia, FN). Some of the most important determinants of the risk of FN are the type of chemotherapy, the dose intensity and patient-specific factors. When the risk of FN is 20% or more granulopoiesis is prophylactically stimulated with granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) after the treatment. Anemia should always be clarified and if necessary be treated according to the cause when symptomatic. If an absolute or functional iron deficiency is present, intravenous iron substitution is mostly necessary. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents can be used after chemotherapy with hemoglobin (Hb) levels less than 10 g/dl (6.2 mmol/l). In cases of chronic anemia and Hb levels less than 7-8 g/dl (<4.3-5.0 mmol/l) the indications for transfusion of erythrocyte concentrates should be assessed primarily based on the individual clinical symptoms.

Risk of Infection Associated With Administration of Intravenous Iron: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Intravenous iron is recommended by many clinical guidelines based largely on its effectiveness in reducing anemia. However, the association with important safety outcomes, such as infection, remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the risk of infection associated with intravenous iron compared with oral iron or no iron.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from 1966 to January 31, 2021. Ongoing trials were sought from ClinicalTrials.gov, CENTRAL, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Search Registry Platform.

STUDY SELECTION

Pairs of reviewers identified RCTs that compared intravenous iron with oral iron or no iron across all patient populations, excluding healthy volunteers. Nonrandomized studies published since January 1, 2007, were also included. A total of 312 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane recommendations, and the quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Two reviewers extracted data independently. A random-effects model was used to synthesize data from RCTs. A narrative synthesis was performed to characterize the reporting of infection.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was risk of infection. Secondary outcomes included mortality, hospital length of stay, and changes in hemoglobin and red blood cell transfusion requirements. Measures of association were reported as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences.

RESULTS

A total of 154 RCTs (32 920 participants) were included in the main analysis. Intravenous iron was associated with an increased risk of infection when compared with oral iron or no iron (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.31; I2 = 37%; moderate certainty of evidence). Intravenous iron also was associated with an increase in hemoglobin (mean difference, 0.57 g/dL; 95% CI, 0.50-0.64 g/dL; I2 = 94%) and a reduction in the risk of requiring a red blood cell transfusion (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76-0.89; I2 = 15%) when compared with oral iron or no iron. There was no evidence of an effect on mortality or hospital length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this large systematic review and meta-analysis, intravenous iron was associated with an increased risk of infection. Well-designed studies, using standardized definitions of infection, are required to understand the balance between this risk and the potential benefits.

The frequency of medical reversals in a cross-sectional analysis of high-impact oncology journals, 2009-2018

Background

Identifying ineffective practices that have been used in oncology is important in reducing wasted resources and harm. We sought to examine the prevalence of practices that are being used but have been shown in RCTs to be ineffective (medical reversals) in published oncology studies.

Methods

We cross-sectionally analyzed studies published in three high-impact oncology medical journals (2009–2018). We abstracted data relating to the frequency and characterization of medical reversals.

Results

Of the 64 oncology reversals, medications (44%) represented the most common intervention type (39% were targeted). Fourteen (22%) were funded by pharmaceutical/industry only and 56% were funded by an organization other than pharmaceutical/industry. The median number of years that the practice had been in use prior to the reversal study was 9 years (range 1–50 years).

Conclusion

Here we show that oncology reversals most often involve the administration of medications, have been practiced for years, and are often identified through studies funded by non-industry organizations.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08632-8.

Experimental Drugs for Chemotherapy- and Cancer-Related Anemia

Anemia in cancer patients is a relevant condition complicating the course of the neoplastic disease. Overall, we distinguish the anemia which arises under chemotherapy as pure adverse event of the toxic effects of the drugs used, and the anemia induced by the tumour-associated inflammation, oxidative stress, and systemic metabolic changes, which can be worsened by the concomitant anticancer treatments. This more properly cancer-related anemia depends on several overlapping mechanism, including impaired erythropoiesis and functional iron deficiency, which make its treatment more difficult. Standard therapies approved and recommended for cancer anemia, as erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and intravenous iron administration, are limited to the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia, preferably in patients with advanced disease, in view of the still unclear effect of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents on tumour progression and survival. Outside the use of chemotherapy, there are no recommendations for the treatment of cancer-related anemia. For a more complete approach, it is fundamentally a careful evaluation of the type of anemia and iron homeostasis, markers of inflammation and changes in energy metabolism. In this way, anemia management in cancer patient would permit a tailored approach that could give major benefits. Experimental drugs targeting hepcidin and activin II receptor pathways are raising great expectations, and future clinical trials will confirm their role as remedies for cancer-related anemia. Recent evidence on the effect of integrated managements, including nutritional support, antioxidants and anti-inflammatory substances, for the treatment of cancer anemia are emerging. In this review article, we show standard, innovative, and experimental treatment used as remedy for anemia in cancer patients.

How I treat cancer-associated anemia

Despite increasing use of targeted therapies to treat cancer, anemia remains a common complication of cancer therapy. Physician concerns about the safety of intravenous (IV) iron products and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) have resulted in many patients with cancer receiving no or suboptimal anemia therapy. In this article, we present 4 patient cases that illustrate both common and complex clinical scenarios. We first present a review of erythropoiesis and then describe our approach to cancer-associated anemia by identifying the contributing causes before selecting specific treatments. We summarize clinical trial data affirming the safety and efficacy of currently available IV iron products used to treat cancer-associated anemia and illustrate how we use commonly available laboratory tests to assess iron status during routine patient management. We compare adverse event rates associated with IV iron vs red cell transfusion and discuss using first-line IV iron monotherapy to treat anemic patients with cancer, which decreases the need for ESAs. A possible mechanism behind ESA-induced tumor progression is discussed. Finally, we review the potential of novel therapies such as ascorbic acid, prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors, activin traps, hepcidin, and bone morphogenetic protein antagonists in treating cancer-associated anemia.

Cancer Related Anemia: An Integrated Multitarget Approach and Lifestyle Interventions

Cancer is often accompanied by worsening of the patient's iron profile, and the resulting anemia could be a factor that negatively impacts antineoplastic treatment efficacy and patient survival. The first line of therapy is usually based on oral or intravenous iron supplementation; however, many patients remain anemic and do not respond. The key might lie in the pathogenesis of the anemia itself. Cancer-related anemia (CRA) is characterized by a decreased circulating serum iron concentration and transferrin saturation despite ample iron stores, pointing to a more complex problem related to iron homeostatic regulation and additional factors such as chronic inflammatory status. This review explores our current understanding of iron homeostasis in cancer, shedding light on the modulatory role of hepcidin in intestinal iron absorption, iron recycling, mobilization from liver deposits, and inducible regulators by infections and inflammation. The underlying relationship between CRA and systemic low-grade inflammation will be discussed, and an integrated multitarget approach based on nutrition and exercise to improve iron utilization by reducing low-grade inflammation, modulating the immune response, and supporting antioxidant mechanisms will also be proposed. Indeed, a Mediterranean-based diet, nutritional supplements and exercise are suggested as potential individualized strategies and as a complementary approach to conventional CRA therapy.

Iron Supplementation Interferes With Immune Therapy of Murine Mammary Carcinoma by Inhibiting Anti-Tumor T Cell Function

Iron is both, an essential compound for many metabolic processes, and iron deficiency can impact on the proliferation of cells including lymphocytes but also tumor cells. On the other hand, excess iron-catalyzed radical formation can induce cellular toxicity which has been previously demonstrated for T cells in hereditary iron overload. Despite these interconnections, little is known on the effects of clinically approved intravenous iron supplements for curing cancer-related anemia, on T cell differentiation, tumor proliferation, anti-tumor T cell responses and, of clinical importance, on efficacy of cancer immunotherapies. Herein, we analyzed the effects of intravenous iron supplementation on T cell function and on the effectiveness of anti-cancer chemotherapy with IL-2/doxorubicin or immunotherapy with checkpoint-inhibitor anti-PD-L1 in C57Bl/6N female mice with implanted E0771 mammary carcinomas. We found that iron application resulted to an increased availability of iron in the tumor microenvironment and stimulation of tumor growth. In parallel, iron application inhibited the activation, expansion and survival of cytotoxic CD8⁺ T cells and of CD4⁺ T helper cells type 1 and significantly reduced the efficacy of the investigated anti-cancer treatments. Our results indicate that iron administration has a tumor growth promoting effect and impairs anti-cancer responses of tumor infiltrating T lymphocytes along with a reduced efficacy of anti-cancer therapies. Iron supplementation in cancer patients, especially in those treated with immunotherapies in a curative setting, may be thus used cautiously and prospective studies have to clarify the impact of such intervention on the outcome of patients.

Safety of dietary supplements use among patients with cancer: A systematic review

Dietary supplements (DS) are commonly taken by patients with cancer, but safety of DS use remains unclear. A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts and Alt HealthWatch databases from inception through October 12, 2018. Included studies were limited to clinical trials including patients with cancer, DS products as interventions, evaluation of safety endpoints of DS use, and published in English. Sixty-five studies were included to evaluate 20 different DS among patients with 12 types of cancer. Botanical DS (n = 13), vitamins (n = 8), and probiotics/synbiotics (n = 7) were the top 3 types of DS evaluated in these trials. Majority of studied DS appeared safe. Among 19 trials including patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, most (n = 18) of studied DS (e.g., vitamins, botanical, omega-3 fatty acid) were found to be safe. Evaluation of DS use and its safety should be regularly incorporated in clinical trials among patients with cancer.

Management of anemia in patients with cancer: 2019 Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) guidelines

This article summarizes the latest Italian Medical Oncology Association (AIOM) guidelines on the management of cancer-related and chemotherapy-related anemia with a particular attention to the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and iron supplementation.

Hospital cost associated with anemia in elective colorectal surgery: a historical cohort study

PURPOSE

Anemia is highly prevalent in the colorectal surgery population, affecting 30-70% of patients. Anemia is associated with significant morbidity and mortality; however, there is a lack of evidence on how much anemia impacts healthcare costs. This study aims to determine the hospital cost of index surgical admission, postoperative length of stay, and transfusion rate associated with preoperative anemia in elective major colorectal surgery.

METHODS

This historical cohort study included 851 adult inpatients having elective colorectal surgery at a tertiary care academic health sciences network between April 2010 and February 2016. Anemia was defined as hematocrit ≤ 39%. The primary outcome was total hospital costs standardized to 2016 CAD. Secondary outcomes were postoperative length of stay and transfusion. Multivariable regression analyses and propensity score methods were used to measure adjusted associations between anemia and outcomes.

RESULTS

Before surgery, 381/851 (45%) patients were anemic. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) cost of index admission for an elective colorectal surgery was 20,040 (23,219) CAD. Anemia was associated with an adjusted 14% relative increase in costs (95% confidence interval [CI], 6 to 23; P < 0.001). The total hospitalization cost attributable to anemia was 3,027 CAD (95% CI, 2,670 to 3,388). Hospital costs and length of stay were highly associated; anemia was associated with an 18% increase in length of stay (95% CI, 7 to 30; P < 0.001) and increased transfusion rates (risk ratio, 4.7; 95% CI, 2.71 to 8.33; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Over 2,600 CAD per index surgical admission is attributable to preoperative anemia. Preoperative interventions with per patient cost of less than 2,600 CAD could be cost effective at the hospital level.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03476707); registered 26 March, 2018.

The Role of Intravenous Iron in the Treatment of Anemia Associated with Cancer and Chemotherapy

Cancer-related anemia (CRA) is a commonly occurring problem for patients with cancer regardless of whether they are receiving treatment with chemotherapy or immunotherapy. It may result from one or more processes (decreased production, increased destruction, or increased loss of red blood cells, RBC). Perturbations in iron availability form the primary basis for anemia in many patients with cancer-related anemia. Functional iron deficiency (FID) anemia is a condition in which the patient has adequate or increased iron stores, but this iron pool is not available for erythropoiesis. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) were the original treatment for FID; over time, however, if the supply of iron cannot keep pace with increased RBC synthesis driven by ESAs, FID may eventually lead to the lack or loss of ESA responsiveness. Subsequent clinical trials reported that intravenous (IV) iron could enhance the erythropoietic response to ESAs. This chapter reviews the pathogenesis of FID and summarizes the literature on the treatment of cancer- and chemotherapy-induced anemia. Clinical trials using IV iron with or without ESAs are reviewed in addition to the currently available IV iron products. The consensus conclusions from these trials, as well as guideline recommendations, support the use of IV iron in these patients to enhance ESA responsiveness, decrease ESA dosage, and reduce RBC transfusions. Little data have been published on the long-term safety of IV iron or its impact on tumor growth. This paper also briefly explores novel approaches for the treatment of FID anemia, which has relevance in treating not only cancer patients but also patients with benign inflammatory disorders.

Pathogenesis and Treatment Options of Cancer Related Anemia: Perspective for a Targeted Mechanism-Based Approach

Cancer-related anemia (CRA) is a common sign occurring in more than 30% of cancer patients at diagnosis before the initiation of antineoplastic therapy. CRA has a relevant influence on survival, disease progression, treatment efficacy, and the patients' quality of life. It is more often detected in patients with advanced stage disease, where it represents a specific symptom of the neoplastic disease, as a consequence of chronic inflammation. In fact, CRA is characterized by biological and hematologic features that resemble those described in anemia associated to chronic inflammatory disease. Proinflammatory cytokine, mainly IL-6, which are released by both tumor and immune cells, play a pivotal action in CRA etiopathogenesis: they promote alterations in erythroid progenitor proliferation, erythropoietin (EPO) production, survival of circulating erythrocytes, iron balance, redox status, and energy metabolism, all of which can lead to anemia. The discovery of hepcidin allowed a greater knowledge of the relationships between immune cells, iron metabolism, and anemia in chronic inflammatory diseases. Additionally, chronic inflammation influences a compromised nutritional status, which in turn might induce or contribute to CRA. In the present review we examine the multifactorial pathogenesis of CRA discussing the main and novel mechanisms by which immune, nutritional, and metabolic components affect its onset and severity. Moreover, we analyze the status of the art and the perspective for the treatment of CRA. Notably, despite the high incidence and clinical relevance of CRA, controlled clinical studies testing the most appropriate treatment for CRA are scarce, and its management in clinical practice remains challenging. The present review may be useful to indicate the development of an effective approach based on a detailed assessment of all factors potentially involved in the pathogenesis of CRA. This mechanism-based approach is essential for clinicians to plan a safe, targeted, and successful therapy, thereby promoting a relevant amelioration of patients' quality of life.

DAHANCA 10 - Effect of darbepoetin alfa and radiotherapy in the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. A multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial by the Danish head and neck cancer group

PURPOSE

To evaluate if correction of low hemoglobin (Hb) levels by means of darbepoetin alfa improves the outcomes of radiotherapy in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients eligible for primary radiotherapy and who had Hb values below 14.0 g/dl were randomized to receive accelerated fractionated radiotherapy with or without darbepoetin alfa. Patients also received the hypoxic radiosensitizer nimorazole. Darbepoetin alfa was given weekly during radiotherapy or until the Hb value exceeded 15.5 g/dl.

RESULTS

Following a planned interim analysis which showed inferiority of the experimental treatment the trial was stopped after inclusion of 522 patients (of a planned intake of 600). Of these, 513 were eligible for analysis (254 patients treated with darbepoetin alfa and 259 patients in the control group). Overall, the patients were distributed according to the stratification parameters (gender, T and N staging, tumor site). Treatment with darbepoetin alfa increased the Hb level to the planned value in 81% of the patients. The compliance was good without excess serious adverse events. The results showed a poorer outcome with a 5-year cumulative loco-regional failure rate of 47% vs. 34%, Hazard Ratio (HR): 1.53 [1.16-2.02], for the darbepoetin alfa vs. control arm, respectively. This was also seen for the endpoints of event-free survival (HR: 1.36 [1.09-1.69]), disease-specific death (HR: 1.43 [1.08-1.90]), and overall survival (HR: 1.30 [1.02-1.64]). There was no enhanced risk of cardio-vascular events observed in the experimental arm or any significant differences in acute or late radiation related morbidity. All univariate analyses were confirmed in a multivariate setting.

CONCLUSION

Correction of the Hb level with darbepoetin alfa during radiotherapy of patients with HNSCC resulted in a significantly poorer tumor control and survival.

Statistical controversies in clinical research: Value of adverse events relatedness to study treatment: analyses of data from randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials

Background

Collection and reporting of adverse events (AEs) and their relatedness to study treatment, known commonly as attribution, in clinical trials is mandated by regulatory agencies (the National Cancer Institute and the Food and Drug Administration). Attribution is assigned by the treating physician using judgment based on various factors including patient's baseline status, disease history, and comorbidity as well as knowledge about the safety profile of the study treatments. We evaluate the patterns of AE attribution (unrelated, unlikely, possibly, probably, and definitely related to the treatment) in treatment, symptom intervention (cancer patients) and cancer prevention (participants at high risk for cancer) setting.

Materials and methods

Nine multicenter placebo-controlled trials (two treatment, two symptom intervention, and five cancer prevention) were analysed separately (2155 patients). Frequency and severity of AEs were summarized by arm. Attribution and percentage of repeated AEs whose attribution changed overtime were summarized for the placebo arms. Percentage of physician over- or under-reporting of AE relatedness was calculated for the treatment arms using the placebo arm as the reference.

Results

Across all trials and settings, a very high proportion of AEs reported as related to treatment were classified as possibly related, a significant proportion of AEs in the placebo arm were incorrectly reported as related to treatment, and clinician-reported attribution over-estimated the rate of AEs related to treatment. Fatigue, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, and neurosensory were the common AEs that were over reported by clinician as related to treatment.

Conclusions

These analyses demonstrate that assigning causality to AE is a complex and difficult process that produces unreliable and subjective data. In randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials where data are available to objectively assess relatedness of AE to treatment, attribution assignment should be eliminated.

Phase III randomized trial comparing intravenous to oral iron in patients with cancer-related iron deficiency anemia not on erythropoiesis stimulating agents

AIM

We aimed to find the optimal route of iron supplementation in patients with malignancy and iron deficiency (true or functional) anemia not receiving erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESA).

METHODS

Adult patients with malignancy requiring chemotherapy, hemoglobin (Hb) <12 g/dL and serum ferritin <100 mcg/mL, transferrin saturation <20% or hypochromic red blood cells >10% were randomized to intravenous (IV) iron sucrose or oral ferrous sulfate. The primary endpoint was change in Hb from baseline to 6 weeks. Secondary endpoints included blood transfusion, quality of life (QoL), toxicity, response and overall survival.

RESULTS

A total of 192 patients were enrolled over 5 years: 98 on IV arm and 94 on oral arm. Median age was 51 years; over 95% patients had solid tumors. The mean absolute increase in Hb at 6 weeks was 0.11 g/dL (standard deviation [SD]: 1.48) in IV arm and -0.16 g/dL (SD: 1.36) in oral arm, P = 0.23. Twenty-three percent patients on IV iron and 18% patients on oral iron had a rise in Hb of ≥1 g/dL at 6 weeks, P = 0.45. Thirteen patients (13.3%) on the IV iron arm and 14 patients (14.9%) on the oral arm required blood transfusion, P = 1.0. Gastrointestinal toxicity (any grade) developed in 41% patients on IV iron and 44% patients on oral iron, P = 1.0. 5 patients on IV iron and none on oral iron had hypersensitivity, P = 0.06. QoL was not significantly different between the two arms.

CONCLUSION

IV iron was not superior to oral iron in patients with malignancy on chemotherapy and iron deficiency anemia.

A retrospective open-label uncontrolled study of Epoetin zeta on the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia in solid tumors

PURPOSE

This is a single-center uncontrolled retrospective study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the biosimilar epoetin zeta after approval in chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA).

METHODS

Patients screened were >18 years old suffering from solid malignancies and CIA with Hg ≤10 or <11 g/dl if symptomatic anemia. Patients had measurable disease by TNM and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG). Patients were treated for at least 12 weeks and the primary endpoint was to determine the incidence of blood transfusions, and secondarily, the overall safety and efficacy defined as ≥1 g/dl rise in Hb concentration or ≥40,000 cells/μl rise in reticulocyte count. Quality of life was assessed with ECOG performance status (PS) and functional assessment of cancer therapy-anemia (FACT-An) score.

RESULTS

1287 patients with median Hb 9.3 g/dl (range 8.3-10.6) were enrolled and included in the evaluation. Median age was 63 years (range 33-78). 74% of patients were stage III/IV. Patients received epoetin zeta subcutaneously at fixed 40,000-IU once weekly. Blood transfusions were given in 178 patients (13.8%; 95% CI 11.9-15.6%). Appropriate response was observed in 79% patients by week 4, 87% by week 8, and 91% by week 12. A mean Hb increase of 2.5 g/dl was observed by week 12 which correlated with an improvement in PS and Fact-An score. Thrombotic events occurred in 5.2% (95% CI 3.4-7.1%) of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Epoetin zeta is effective in palliation and treatment of CIA in patients with solid tumors. Overall, it is well tolerated and safe even in patients with increased disease burden.

Anemia management in cancer patients with chronic kidney disease

Anemia is a common complication of cancer and chronic kidney disease (CKD) associated with decreased physical performance as well as poor prognosis for life expectancy. Renal and cancer-induced anemia share common features regarding pathogenesis and therapeutic strategies. It is typically treated with iron substitution, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) and in refractory cases with red blood cell transfusions. However, studies of the past few years unveiled numerous setbacks in the use of ESAs. These included a higher risk of cerebrovascular events and increased mortality without the improvement of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with CKD. Moreover, particularly negative results were observed in patients with previous cancer history under ESA therapy. These unfavorable findings have forced the clinicians to reevaluate the management of renal anemia. This led to decrease of ESA usage, while iron substitution and alternative therapeutic options gained more significance. Iron supplementation is also accompanied with certain risks ranging from gastrointestinal complications to severe allergic reactions and increased rate of infections. Furthermore, the evaluation of the long-term safety of excessive iron therapy is still lacking, especially in CKD patients with cancer. In the absence of these clinical studies, this review aims to summarize the currently available therapeutic strategies in anemia management of CKD patients with concomitant cancer.

Combination with intravenous iron supplementation or doubling erythropoietin dose for patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia inadequately responsive to initial erythropoietin treatment alone: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Erythropoietin (EPO) is a commonly used option in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anaemia (CIA). However, ∼30-50% of patients fail to achieve an adequate response after initial treatment. Prior studies have demonstrated that intravenous iron might synergistically improve therapeutic response to EPO treatment in this patient population.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will perform this multicentre, randomised, open-label, parallel-group, active controlled non-inferiority study to compare the two combination therapies of EPO plus intravenous iron regimen versus doubling the dose of EPO in patients with CIA who have an inadequate response to initial EPO treatment at a routine dose. A total of 603 patients with an increase in haemoglobin (Hb) <1 g/dL will be enrolled and randomised to one of the three study treatment groups at a 1:1:1 ratio Group 1: EPO treatment at the original dose plus intravenous iron dextran 200 mg every 3 weeks (Q3W) for 15 weeks; Group 2: EPO treatment at the original dose plus intravenous iron dextran 100 mg, twice a week for 5 weeks; Group 3: the control group, doubling the EPO dose without preplanned iron supplementation. The primary outcome measure to compare is the Hb response rate at week 15 and the secondary end points involve therapeutic blood transfusions. Time-to-progression, adverse events and quality of life will also be evaluated.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

All participants will provide informed consent; the study protocol has been approved by the independent ethics committee of Shanghai East Hospital. This study would clearly demonstrate the potential benefit of combining epoetin treatment with intravenous iron supplementation. Findings will be shared with participating hospitals, policymakers and the academic community to promote the clinical management of CIA in China.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02731378.

Iron deficiency in cancer patients

Anemia is a frequent complication in cancer patients, both at diagnosis and during treatment, with a multifactorial etiology in most cases. Iron deficiency is among the most common causes of anemia in this setting and can develop in nearly half of patients with solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. Surprisingly, this fact is usually neglected by the attending physician in a way that proper and prompt investigation of the iron status is either not performed or postponed. In cancer patients, functional iron deficiency is the predominant mechanism, in which iron availability is reduced due to disease or the therapy-related inflammatory process. Hence, serum ferritin is not reliable in detecting iron deficiency in this setting, whereas transferrin saturation seems more appropriate for this purpose. Besides, lack of bioavailable iron can be further worsened by the use of erythropoiesis stimulating agents that increase iron utilization in the bone marrow. Iron deficiency can cause anemia or worsen pre-existing anemia, leading to a decline in performance status and adherence to treatment, with possible implications in clinical outcome. Due to its frequency and importance, treatment of this condition is already recommended in many specialty guidelines and should be performed preferably with intravenous iron. The evidences regarding the efficacy of this treatment are solid, with response gain when combined with erythropoiesis stimulating agents and significant increments in hemoglobin as monotherapy. Among intravenous iron formulations, slow release preparations present more favorable pharmacological characteristics and efficacy in cancer patients.

A double-blind, randomized, and active-controlled phase III study of Herbiron drink in the treatment of iron-deficiency anemia in premenopausal females in Taiwan

Background

About 468 million non-pregnant women are estimated to suffer from iron-deficiency anemia (IDA) worldwide. The highest prevalence of IDA occurs in the Taiwanese population.

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of Herbiron to increase iron absorption in women with IDA.

Design

Phase III double-blind, randomized, active-controlled, and parallel comparative study enrolled 124 patients with IDA and consisted of a 2-week run-in period, randomization, 12 weeks of supplementation, and 4 weeks of follow-up. The treatment group received Herbiron drink 50 mL p.o., b.i.d., before meals (daily iron intake: 21 mg/day) plus placebo tablets. The control group received a ferrous sulfate tablet, t.i.d., plus placebo 50-mL drink before meals (daily iron intake: 195 mg/day).

Results

Both treatments significantly improved hemoglobin and all secondary efficacy endpoints. Most IDA patients treated with Herbiron or ferrous sulfate finished the study in the normal range. Ferrous sulfate treatment induced a rapid rate of hemoglobin synthesis, which plateaued by week 8, whereas Herbiron treatment increased the rate of hemoglobin synthesis more slowly, likely due to its nine-fold lower iron content. Gastrointestinal adverse events (diarrhea, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, and nausea) but not infectious adverse events were significantly more common in the ferrous sulfate group (n=11, 18.3%) than those in the Herbiron group (n=1, 1.6%) (p=0.004).

Conclusion

Twelve weeks of Herbiron treatment delivering 21mg of iron or ferrous sulfate treatment delivering 195 mg of iron induced normal hemoglobin levels in 62 or 91% of non-pregnant women with IDA in Taiwan, respectively, suggesting dose-dependent and bioavailability effects.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of iron therapy in anaemic adults without chronic kidney disease: updated and abridged Cochrane review

AIMS

Anaemia is increasingly recognized as having an independent impact upon patient outcomes in cardiac disease. The role of novel iron therapies to treat anaemia is increasing. This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses the efficacy and safety of iron therapies for the treatment of adults with anaemia.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Electronic databases and search engines were searched as per Cochrane methodology. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of iron vs. inactive control or placebo, as well as alternative formulations, doses, and routes in anaemic adults without chronic kidney disease or in the peri-partum period were eligible. The primary outcome of interest was mortality at 1 year. Secondary outcomes were blood transfusion, haemoglobin levels, quality of life, serious adverse events, and length of hospital stay. A total of 64 RCTs (including five studies of heart failure patients) comprising 9004 participants were included. None of the studies was at a low risk of bias. There were no statistically significant differences in mortality between iron and inactive control. Both oral and parenteral iron significantly reduced the proportion of patients requiring blood transfusion compared with inactive control [risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-0.90; and RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.97, respectively]. Haemoglobin was increased more by both oral and parenteral iron compared with inactive control [mean difference (MD) 0.91 g/dL, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.35; and MD 1.04, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.57, respectively], and parenteral iron demonstrated a greater increase when compared with oral iron (MD 0.53 g/dL, 95% CI 0.31-0.75). In all comparisons, there were no differences in the results comparing patients with and without heart failure.

CONCLUSION

Both oral and parenteral iron are shown to decrease the proportion of people who require blood transfusion and increase haemoglobin levels, without any benefit on mortality. Further trials at a low risk of bias, powered to measure clinically significant endpoints, are still required.

The role of iron in the management of chemotherapy-induced anemia in cancer patients receiving erythropoiesis-stimulating agents

BACKGROUND

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are commonly used to treat chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). However, about half of patients do not benefit.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms related to the use of iron as a supplement to ESA and iron alone compared with ESA alone in the management of CIA.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for relevant trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (issue 1 January 2016), MEDLINE (1950 to February 2016), and www.clinicaltrials.gov without using any language limits.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 'iron plus ESA' or 'iron alone' versus 'ESA alone' in people with CIA were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs (12 comparisons) comparing ESA plus iron versus ESA alone enrolling 2087 participants. We did not find any trial comparing iron alone versus ESAs alone in people with CIA. None of the included RCTs reported overall survival. There was a beneficial effect of iron supplementation to ESAs compared with ESAs alone on hematopoietic response (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 1.26; P < 0.0001; 1712 participants; 11 comparisons; high-quality evidence). Assuming a baseline risk of 35% to 80% for hematopoietic response without iron supplementation, between seven and 16 patients should be treated to achieve hematopoietic response in one patient. In subgroup analyses, RCTs that used intravenous (IV) iron favored ESAs and iron (RR 1.20 (95% CI 1.10 to 1.31); P < 0.00001; 1321 participants; eight comparisons), whereas we found no evidence for a difference in hematopoietic response in RCTs using oral iron (RR 1.04 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.24); P = 0.68; 391 participants; three comparisons). There was no evidence for a difference between the subgroups of IV and oral iron (P = 0.16). There was no evidence for a difference between the subgroups of types of iron (P = 0.31) and types of ESAs (P = 0.16) for hematopoietic response.The iron supplementation to ESAs might be beneficial as fewer participants treated with iron supplementation required red blood cell (RBC) transfusions compared to the number of participants treated with ESAs alone (RR 0.74 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.92); P = 0.007; 1719 participants; 11 comparisons; moderate-quality evidence). Assuming a baseline risk of 7% to 40% for RBC transfusion without iron supplementation, between 10 and 57 patients should be treated to avoid RBC transfusion in one patient.We found no evidence for a difference in the median time to hematopoietic response with addition of iron to ESAs (hazard ratio (HR) 0.93 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.28); P = 0.65; 1042 participants; seven comparisons; low-quality evidence). In subgroup analyses, RCTs in which dextran (HR 0.95 (95% CI 0.36 to 2.52); P = 0.92; 340 participants; three comparisons), sucrose iron (HR 1.15 (95% CI 0.60 to 2.21); P = 0.67; 102 participants; one comparison) and sulfate iron (HR 1.24 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.56); P = 0.06; 55 participants; one comparison) were used showed no evidence for difference between iron supplementation versus ESAs alone compared with RCTs in which gluconate (HR 0.78 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.94); P = 0.01; 464 participants; two comparisons) was used for median time to hematopoietic response (P = 0.02). There was no evidence for a difference between the subgroups of route of iron administration (P = 0.13) and types of ESAs (P = 0.46) for median time to hematopoietic response.Our results indicated that there could be improvement in the hemoglobin (Hb) levels with addition of iron to ESAs (mean difference (MD) 0.48 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.86); P = 0.01; 827 participants; seven comparisons; low-quality evidence). In RCTs in which IV iron was used there was evidence for a difference (MD 0.84 (95% CI 0.21 to 1.46); P = 0.009; 436 participants; four comparisons) compared with oral iron (MD 0.07 (95% CI -0.19 to 0.34); P = 0.59; 391 participants; three comparisons) for mean change in Hb level (P = 0.03). RCTs in which dextran (MD 1.55 (95% CI 0.62 to 2.47); P = 0.001; 102 participants; two comparisons) was used showed evidence for a difference with iron supplementation versus ESAs alone compared with RCTs in which gluconate (MD 0.54 (95% CI -0.15 to 1.22); P = 0.12; 334 participants; two comparisons) and sulfate iron (MD 0.07 (95% CI -0.19 to 0.34); P = 0.59; 391 participants; three comparisons) were used for mean change in Hb level (P = 0.007). RCTs in which epoetin was used showed evidence for a difference with iron supplementation versus ESAs alone (MD 0.77 (95% CI 0.25 to 1.29); P = 0.004; 337 participants; five comparisons) compared with darbepoetin use (MD 0.10 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.33); P = 0.38; 490 participants; two comparisons) for mean change in Hb level (P = 0.02).We found no evidence for a difference in quality of life with addition of iron to ESAs (standardized mean difference 0.01 (95% CI -0.10 to 0.12); P = 0.88; 1124 participants; three RCTs; high-quality evidence).We found no evidence for a difference in risk of grade III-IV thromboembolic events (RR 0.95 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.65); P = 0.85; 783 participants; three RCTs; moderate-quality evidence). The incidence of treatment-related mortality (TRM) was 0% (997 participants; four comparisons; high-quality evidence).Other common adverse events included vomiting, asthenia, and leukopenia, and were similar in both arms.Overall the risk of bias across outcomes was high to low. Since the included RCTs had shorter follow-up duration (up to 20 weeks), the long-term effects of iron supplementation are unknown. Our main reasons for downgrading the quality of evidence were inconsistency across the included studies and imprecision of results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review shows that addition of iron to ESAs offers superior hematopoietic response, reduces the risk of RBC transfusions, and improves Hb levels, and appears to be well tolerated. None of the included RCTs reported overall survival. We found no evidence for a difference in quality of life with iron supplementation.

Iron metabolism and iron supplementation in cancer patients

Iron deficiency and iron deficiency-associated anemia are common complications in cancer patients. Most iron deficient cancer patients present with functional iron deficiency (FID), a status with adequate storage iron, but insufficient iron supply for erythroblasts and other iron dependent tissues. FID is the consequence of the cancer-associated cytokine release, while in absolute iron deficiency iron stores are depleted resulting in similar but often more severe symptoms of insufficient iron supply. Here we present a short review on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, clinical symptoms, and treatment of iron deficiency in cancer patients. Special emphasis is given to intravenous iron supplementation and on the benefits and limitations of different formulations. Based on these considerations and recommendations from current international guidelines we developed recommendations for clinical practice and classified the level of evidence and grade of recommendation according to the principles of evidence-based medicine.

Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of iron deficiency across indications: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of iron deficiency (ID) vary widely across indications.

OBJECTIVE

We reviewed all available guidelines on the management of ID worldwide.

DESIGN

A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE and in main professional association websites, limited to documents published between 1 January 2004 and 30 June 2014.

RESULTS

Of 127 guidelines identified, 29 were selected, involving 29 professional associations and issued from the United States (n = 8), Europe (n = 6), Britain (n = 4), Canada (n = 3), international organizations (n = 2), France (n = 2), Poland (n = 1), Australia (n = 1), Mexico (n = 1), and Japan (n = 1). A total of 22 and 27 guidelines provided recommendations on diagnosis and treatment of ID, respectively. To define ID, all guidelines recommended a concentration for serum ferritin. One-half of them (10 of 22) proposed transferrin saturation (TSAT) as an alternative or complementary diagnostic test. To treat ID, most of the guidelines (18 of 27) recommended preferentially the oral route if possible, particularly in children and in women in the pre- or postpregnancy period. Iron supplementation should be administered intravenously according to 13 of 27 guidelines, particularly in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) (n = 7) and chemotherapy-induced anemia (n = 5). Treatment targets for ID included an increase in hemoglobin concentrations to 10-12 g/dL or normalization (n = 8) and serum ferritin >100 μg/L (n = 7) or 200 μg/L (n = 4). For the latter, in some situations, such as CKD, ferritin concentrations should not exceed 500 μg/L (n = 5) or 800 μg/L (n = 5). Only 9 guidelines recommended TSAT as a target, proposing various thresholds ranging from 20% to 50%.

CONCLUSIONS

It appears that for the diagnosis of ID, a cutoff of 100 μg/L for serum ferritin concentration should be considered in most conditions and 20% for TSAT, except in particular situations, including young healthy women with heavy menstrual flow. New indications of intravenous iron supplementation are emerging.

A randomized comparison of once weekly epoetin alfa to extended schedule epoetin or darbepoetin in chemotherapy-associated anemia

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) epoetin alfa (EA) and darbepoetin alfa (DA) increase hemoglobin (Hb) levels and reduce red blood cell (RBC) transfusion requirements in patients with cancer chemotherapy-associated anemia (CAA). Extended-interval ESA dosing (administration less than once weekly) is common with DA, but previous studies suggested that EA might also be administered less often than weekly. In this multicenter prospective trial, 239 CAA patients with Hb <10.5 g/dL were randomized to receive EA 40,000 U subcutaneously once weekly ("40K" arm), EA 80,000 U every 3 weeks ("80K"), EA 120,000 U every 3 weeks ("120K" arm), or DA 500 mcg every 3 weeks ("DA"), for 15 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving Hb ≥ 11.5 g/dL or increment of Hb > 2.0 g/dL from baseline without transfusion. Secondary endpoints included transfusion requirements, adverse events (AEs), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). There were no significant differences between treatment arms in the proportion of patients achieving Hb response (68.9% for 40K, 61.7% for 80K, 65.5% for 120K, and 66.7% for DA; P > 0.41 for all comparisons) or requiring RBC transfusion, but the median Hb increment from baseline was higher in the 40K and DA arms compared to the two extended dosing EA arms, and Hb response was achieved soonest in the weekly EA arm. There were no differences in PROs or AEs. The FDA-approved schedules tested-weekly EA 40,000 U, and every 3 week DA 500 mcg-are reasonable standards for CAA therapy.

Experimental and investigational therapies for chemotherapy-induced anemia

INTRODUCTION

In cancer patients, anemia is frequently observed, particularly as a consequence to chemotherapy (chemotherapy-induced anemia, CIA). CIA is treated with Red Blood Cell transfusions and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). However, the use of ESAs in anemic cancer patients is associated with reduced survival time and time to progression. Consequently, new therapeutic options are needed.

AREAS COVERED

In this article, the authors discuss new erythroid-enhancing agents (EEAs) that act differently to erythropoietin. Specifically, the article summarizes the early clinical development of activin antagonists (Sotatercep [ACE-011] and ACE-536) and hepcidin antagonists [NOX-H94]).

EXPERT OPINION

Both Activin RIIA trap agents and hepcidin inhibitors are promising new EEAs, but their safety profile, and their impact on treating CIA, needs to be carefully assessed in controlled clinical trials over longer periods of time. It is also important to carefully evaluate CIA patients to properly assess the physiopathological mechanisms responsible for the development of their anemic condition and provide patients with the most appropriate treatment plan.

Hypersensitivity from intravenous iron products

In the last several years, intravenous therapy with iron products has been more widely used. Although it has been a standard procedure in dialysis-associated anemia since the early 1990s, its use is expanding to a host of conditions associated with iron deficiency, especially young women with heavy uterine bleeding and pregnancy. Free iron is associated with unacceptable high toxicity inducing severe, hemodynamically significant symptoms. Subsequently, formulations that contain the iron as an iron carbohydrate nanoparticle have been designed. With newer formulations, including low-molecular-weight iron dextran, iron sucrose, ferric gluconate, ferumoxytol, iron isomaltoside, and ferric carboxymaltose, serious adverse events are rare.

Pre-operative anaemia

Pre-operative anaemia is a relatively common finding, affecting a third of patients undergoing elective surgery. Traditionally associated with chronic disease, management has historically focused on the use of blood transfusion as a solution for anaemia in the peri-operative period. Data from large series now suggest that anaemia is an independent risk associated with poor outcome in both cardiac and non-cardiac surgery. Furthermore, blood transfusion does not appear to ameliorate this risk, and in fact may increase the risk of postoperative complications and hospital length of stay. Consequently, there is a need to identify, diagnose and manage pre-operative anaemia to reduce surgical risk. Discoveries in the pathways of iron metabolism have found that chronic disease can cause a state of functional iron deficiency leading to anaemia. The key iron regulatory protein hepcidin, activated in response to inflammation, inhibits absorption of iron from the gastrointestinal tract and further reduces bioavailability of iron stores for red cell production. Consequently, although iron stores (predominantly ferritin) may be normal, the transport of iron either from the gastrointestinal tract or iron stores to the bone marrow is inhibited, leading to a state of 'functional' iron deficiency and subsequent anaemia. Since absorption from the gastrointestinal tract is blocked, increasing oral iron intake is ineffective, and studies are now looking at the role of intravenous iron to treat anaemia in the surgical setting. In this article, we review the incidence and impact of anaemia on the pre-operative patient. We explain how anaemia may be caused by functional iron deficiency, and how iron deficiency anaemia may be diagnosed and treated.

The safety of intravenous iron preparations: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To amass all available evidence regarding the safety of intravenous (IV) iron preparations to provide a true balance of efficacy and safety.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized clinical trials comparing IV iron to another comparator. All electronic databases until January 1, 2014, were reviewed. Primary outcome was occurrence of severe adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and other adverse events (AEs). Subgroup analysis was performed on the basis of type of IV iron, comparator, treated condition, and system involved.

RESULTS

A total of 103 trials published between 1965 through 2013 were included. A total of 10,390 patients were treated with IV iron compared with 4044 patients treated with oral iron, 1329 with no iron, 3335 with placebo, and 155 with intramuscular iron. There was no increased risk of SAEs with IV iron (relative risk [RR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.93-1.17; I(2)=9%). Subgroup analysis revealed a decreased rate of SAEs when IV iron was used to treat heart failure (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.29-0.70; I(2)=0%). Severe infusion reactions were more common with IV iron (RR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.43-4.28; I(2)=0%). There was no increased risk of infections with IV iron. Gastrointestinal AEs were reduced with IV iron.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous iron therapy is not associated with an increased risk of SAEs or infections. Infusion reactions are more pronounced with IV iron.

Iron therapy in anaemic adults without chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Anaemia affects about a quarter of the world's population. An estimated 50% of anaemic people have anaemia due to iron deficiency.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of iron therapies for the treatment of adults with anaemia who are not pregnant or lactating and do not have chronic kidney disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the search on 11 July 2013. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid SP), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus (EBSCO Host), the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science (ISI WOS) Scientific Citation Index (SCI)-EXPANDED (1970) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index (CPCI)-Science (1990) and Clinicaltrials.gov; we also screened reference lists. An updated search was run on 24 November 2014 but the results have not yet been incorporated into the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently selected references for further assessment by going through all titles and abstracts. Further selection was based on review of full-text articles for selected references.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted study data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary outcomes and the mean difference (MD) or the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. We performed meta-analysis when possible, when I(2) was less than or equal to 80% using a fixed-effect or random-effects model, using Review Manager software. The range of point estimates for individual studies is presented when I(2) > 80%.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in this systematic review 4745 participants who were randomly assigned in 21 trials. Trials were conducted in a wide variety of clinical settings. Most trials included participants with mild to moderate anaemia and excluded participants who were allergic to iron therapy. All trials were at high risk of bias for one or more domains. We compared both oral iron and parenteral iron versus inactive controls and compared different iron preparations.The comparison between oral iron and inactive control revealed no evidence of clinical benefit in terms of mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.61; four studies, N = 659; very low-quality evidence). The point estimate of the mean difference in haemoglobin levels in individual studies ranged from 0.3 to 3.1 g/dL higher in the oral iron group than in the inactive control group. The proportion of participants who required blood transfusion was lower with oral iron than with inactive control (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.99; three studies, N = 546; very low-quality evidence). Evidence was inadequate for determination of the effect of parenteral iron on mortality versus oral iron (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.56 to 3.94; 10 studies, N = 2141; very low-quality evidence) or inactive control (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.69; six studies, N = 1009; very low-quality evidence). Haemoglobin levels were higher with parenteral iron than with oral iron (MD -0.50 g/dL, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.27; six studies, N = 769; very low-quality evidence). The point estimate of the mean difference in haemoglobin levels in individual studies ranged between 0.3 and 3.0 g/dL higher in the parenteral iron group than in the inactive control group. Differences in the proportion of participants requiring blood transfusion between parenteral iron and oral iron groups (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.58; two studies, N = 371; very low-quality evidence) or between parenteral iron groups and inactive controls (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.06; eight studies, N = 1315; very low-quality evidence) were imprecise. Average blood volume transfused was less in the parenteral iron group than in the oral iron group (MD -0.54 units, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.12; very low-quality evidence) based on one study involving 44 people. Differences between therapies in quality of life or in the proportion of participants with serious adverse events were imprecise (very low-quality evidence). No trials reported severe allergic reactions due to parenteral iron, suggesting that these are rare. Adverse effects related to oral iron treatment included nausea, diarrhoea and constipation; most were mild.Comparisons of one iron preparation over another for mortality, haemoglobin or serious adverse events were imprecise. No information was available on quality of life. Thus, little evidence was found to support the use of one preparation or regimen over another.Subgroup analyses did not reveal consistent results; therefore we were unable to determine whether iron is useful in specific clinical situations, or whether iron therapy might be useful for people who are receiving erythropoietin.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

• Very low-quality evidence suggests that oral iron might decrease the proportion of people who require blood transfusion, and no evidence indicates that it decreases mortality. Oral iron might be useful in adults who can tolerate the adverse events, which are usually mild.• Very low-quality evidence suggests that intravenous iron results in a modest increase in haemoglobin levels compared with oral iron or inactive control without clinical benefit.• No evidence can be found to show any advantage of one iron preparation or regimen over another.• Additional randomised controlled trials with low risk of bias and powered to measure clinically useful outcomes such as mortality, quality of life and blood transfusion requirements are needed.

The role of inflammation, iron, and nutritional status in cancer-related anemia: results of a large, prospective, observational study

Anemia in oncology patients is often considered a side effect of cancer therapy; however, it may occur before any antineoplastic treatment (cancer-related anemia). This study was aimed to evaluate the prevalence of cancer-related anemia in a large cohort of oncology patients and whether inflammation and malnutrition were predictive of its development and severity. The present study included 888 patients with cancer at different sites between May 2011 and January 2014. Patients were assessed at diagnosis before any cancer treatment. The prevalence of anemia according to the main clinical factors (tumor site, stage and performance status) was analyzed. In each patient markers of inflammation, iron metabolism, malnutrition and oxidative stress as well as the modified Glasgow prognostic score, a combined index of malnutrition and inflammation, were assessed and their role in predicting hemoglobin level was evaluated. The percentage of anemic patients was 63% with the lowest hemoglobin levels being found in the patients with most advanced cancer and compromised performance status. Hemoglobin concentration differed by tumor site and was lowest in patients with ovarian cancer. Hemoglobin concentration was inversely correlated with inflammatory markers, hepcidin, ferritin, erythropoietin and reactive oxygen species, and positively correlated with leptin, albumin, cholesterol and antioxidant enzymes. In multivariate analysis, stage, interleukin-6 and leptin were independent predictors of hemoglobin concentration. Furthermore, hemoglobin was inversely dependent on modified Glasgow Prognostic Score. In conclusion, cancer-related anemia is a multifactorial problem with immune, nutritional and metabolic components that affect its severity. Only a detailed assessment of the pathogenesis of cancer-related anemia may enable clinicians to provide safe and effective individualized treatment.

A European patient record study on diagnosis and treatment of chemotherapy-induced anaemia

Purpose

Patients with cancer frequently experience chemotherapy-induced anaemia (CIA) and iron deficiency. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), iron supplementation and blood transfusions are available therapies. This study evaluated routine practice in CIA management.

Methods

Medical oncologists and/or haematologists from nine European countries (n = 375) were surveyed on their last five cancer patients treated for CIA (n = 1,730). Information was collected on tests performed at diagnosis of anaemia, levels of haemoglobin (Hb), serum ferritin and transferrin saturation (TSAT), as well as applied anaemia therapies.

Results

Diagnostic tests and therapies for CIA varied across Europe. Anaemia and iron status were mainly assessed by Hb (94 %) and ferritin (48 %) measurements. TSAT was only tested in 14 %. At anaemia diagnosis, 74 % of patients had Hb ≤10 g/dL, including 15 % with severe anaemia (Hb <8 g/dL). Low-iron levels (ferritin ≤100 ng/mL) were detected in 42 % of evaluated patients. ESA was used in 63 % of patients, blood transfusions in 52 % and iron supplementation in 31 % (74 % oral, 26 % intravenous iron). Only 30 % of ESA-treated patients received a combination of ESA and iron supplementation. Blood transfusions formed part of a regular anaemia treatment regimen in 76 % of transfused patients. Management practices were similar in 2009 and 2011.

Conclusion

Management of anaemia and iron status in patients treated for CIA varies substantially across Europe. Iron status is only assessed in half of the patients. In contrast to clinical evidence, iron treatment is underutilised and mainly based on oral iron supplementation. Implementation of guidelines needs to be increased to minimize the use of blood transfusions.

Perioperative anemia management in colorectal cancer patients: A pragmatic approach

Anemia, usually due to iron deficiency, is highly prevalent among patients with colorectal cancer. Inflammatory cytokines lead to iron restricted erythropoiesis further decreasing iron availability and impairing iron utilization. Preoperative anemia predicts for decreased survival. Allogeneic blood transfusion is widely used to correct anemia and is associated with poorer surgical outcomes, increased post-operative nosocomial infections, longer hospital stays, increased rates of cancer recurrence and perioperative venous thromboembolism. Infections are more likely to occur in those with low preoperative serum ferritin level compared to those with normal levels. A multidisciplinary, multimodal, individualized strategy, collectively termed Patient Blood Management, minimizes or eliminates allogeneic blood transfusion. This includes restrictive transfusion policy, thromboprophylaxis and anemia management to improve outcomes. Normalization of preoperative hemoglobin levels is a World Health Organization recommendation. Iron repletion should be routinely ordered when indicated. Oral iron is poorly tolerated with low adherence based on published evidence. Intravenous iron is safe and effective but is frequently avoided due to misinformation and misinterpretation concerning the incidence and clinical nature of minor infusion reactions. Serious adverse events with intravenous iron are extremely rare. Newer formulations allow complete replacement dosing in 15-60 min markedly facilitating care. Erythropoiesis stimulating agents may improve response rates. A multidisciplinary, multimodal, individualized strategy, collectively termed Patient Blood Management used to minimize or eliminate allogeneic blood transfusion is indicated to improve outcomes.