Intravenous Iron Replacement Therapy Improves Cardiovascular Outcomes in Hemodialysis Patients

The Switch from Ferric Gluconate to Ferric Carboxymaltose in Hemodialysis Patients Acts on Iron Metabolism, Erythropoietin, and Costs: A Retrospective Analysis

Background and Objectives: Iron deficiency and anemia characterize patients on chronic hemodialysis (HD). Available intravenous iron agents, such as ferric gluconate (FG) and ferric carboxymaltose (FCM), vary in dosing regimens and safety profiles. The aim of the present study was to analyze the modification of the iron status, the correction of anemia, and the economic implications after the shift from FG to FCM therapy in chronic HD patients. We evaluated, during the study, the variations in iron metabolism, assessing ferritin and transferrin saturation, erythropoietin-stimulating agent (ESA) doses and the number of administrations, the effects on anemic status, and consequent costs. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was performed with a follow-up period of 24 months, enrolling forty-two HD patients. The enrolment phase started in January 2015, when patients were treated with iv FG, and continued until December 2015, when FG was discontinued, and, after a wash-out period, the same patients were treated with FCM. Results: The iron switch reduced the administered dose of ESA by 1610.500 UI (31% of reduction; p < 0.001) during the entire study period and reduced the erythropoietin resistance index (ERI) (10.1 ± 0.4 vs. 14.8 ± 0.5; p < 0.0001). The FCM group had the highest percentage of patients who did not require ESA treatment during the study period. The FCM patients were characterized by higher levels of iron (p = 0.04), ferritin (p < 0.001), and TSAT levels (p < 0.001) compared to the FG patients. The annual cost during FG infusion was estimated at EUR 105,390.2, while one year of treatment with FCM had a total cost of EUR 84,180.7 (a difference of EUR 21,209.51 (20%), saving EUR 42.1 per patient/month (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: FCM was a more effective treatment option than FG, reducing ESA dose requirements, increasing Hb levels, and improving iron status. The reduced ESA doses and the decreased number of patients needing ESA were the main factors for reducing overall costs.

Intravenous Iron-Carbohydrate Nanoparticles and Their Similars. What Do We Choose?

Anemia is highly prevalent worldwide and iron deficiency is the first cause. Iron deficiency has not only hematologic effects but also non-hematologic effects - immune, metabolic, cognitive dysfunctions and poor cardiovascular and renal outcomes - which generally precede anemia. Iron therapy not only significantly improves the hematological parameters but also has non-hematologic benefits. Given that its efficacy and safety has been revealed over the years, intravenous (IV) iron therapy is frequently used. Intravenous iron products are nanoparticles largely consisting in an iron core surrounded by a carbohydrate shell. They are classified as non-biological complex molecules, being different from small commonly used molecules, with properties and biological behavior impossible to be completely characterized only by physicochemical analysis. To date, there is no appropriate regulatory evaluation system for these medicines and several follow-on versions of the IV iron originators (e.g., iron sucrose) were approved using the same regulatory pathway as for generics. Because of this vulnerability in an adequate pathway for approval, both non-clinical and clinical studies suggested no therapeutic equivalence (thus no interchangeability) between iron sucrose originator (Venofer®), and iron sucrose similars. In this review we aimed to underline the importance of intravenous iron therapy as well as raise awareness regarding the differences between nanomedicines and their intended similar but not identical copies. The potential implications of these differences impact patients (safety, efficacy) but also the medical system (higher costs).

Iron Deficiency in CKD Without Concomitant Anemia

The physiological role of iron extends well beyond hematopoiesis. Likewise, the pathophysiological effects of iron deficiency (ID) extend beyond anemia. Although inextricably interrelated, ID and anemia of chronic kidney disease (CKD) are distinct clinical entities. For more than 3 decades, however, nephrologists have focused primarily on the correction of anemia. The achievement of target hemoglobin (Hgb) concentrations is prioritized over repletion of iron stores, and iron status is generally a secondary consideration only assessed in those patients with anemia. Historically, the correction of ID independent of anemia has not been a primary focus in the management of CKD. In contrast, ID is a key therapeutic target in the setting of heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); correction of ID in this population improves functional status and quality of life and may improve cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. Given the strong interrelationships between HF and CKD, it is reasonable to consider whether iron therapy alone may benefit those with CKD and evidence of ID irrespective of Hgb concentration. In this review, we differentiate anemia from ID by considering both epidemiologic and pathophysiological perspectives and by reviewing the evidence linking correction of ID to outcomes in patients with HF and/or CKD. Furthermore, we discuss existing gaps in evidence and provide proposals for future research and practical considerations for clinicians.