Sucrosomial® Iron: An Updated Review of Its Clinical Efficacy for the Treatment of Iron Deficiency

Iron deficiency (ID) and iron deficiency anemia (IDA) are highly prevalent worldwide. Oral iron salts, especially ferrous sulfate, are commonly used for the treatment of iron deficiency (ID). However, its use is associated with gastrointestinal side effects, thus compromising treatment compliance. Intravenous iron administration is a more costly and logistically complex alternative and is not risk-free, as infusion and hypersensitivity reactions may occur. Sucrosomial^® iron is an oral formulation consisting of ferric pyrophosphate conveyed by a phospholipid and sucrester matrix (sucrosome^®). Intestinal Sucrosomial^® iron absorption is mediated by enterocytes and M cells, through the paracellular and transcellular routes, and occurs mostly as intact particles. These pharmacokinetic properties of Sucrosomial^® iron result in higher iron intestinal absorption and excellent gastrointestinal tolerance compared to oral iron salts. The evidence derived from clinical studies supports the use of Sucrosomial^® iron as a valid first option for the treatment of ID and IDA, especially for subjects who are intolerant or refractory to conventional iron salts. Newer evidence also demonstrates the effectiveness of Sucrosomial^® iron, with a lower cost and fewer side effects, in certain conditions usually treated with IV iron in current clinical practice.

Management of Perioperative Iron Deficiency Anemia

Preoperative anemia affects 30-40% of patients undergoing major surgery and is an independent risk factor for perioperative blood transfusion, morbidity, and mortality. Absolute or functional iron deficiency is its leading cause. Nonanemic hematinic deficiencies are also prevalent and may hamper preoperative hemoglobin optimization and/or recovery from postoperative anemia. As modifiable risk factors, anemia and hematinic deficiencies should be detected and corrected prior to major surgical procedures. Postoperative anemia is even more common (up to 80-90%) due to surgery-associated blood loss, inflammation-induced blunted erythropoiesis, and/or preexisting anemia. Preoperative oral iron may have a role in mild-to-moderate anemia, provided there is sufficient time (6-8 weeks) and adequate tolerance of oral preparations. Postoperative oral iron is of little value and rife with gastrointestinal adverse events. Intravenous iron should preferentially be used in cases of moderate-to-severe iron deficiency anemia, concomitant use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, short time to surgery or nonelective procedures, and for postoperative anemia management. Minor infusion reactions to intravenous iron are rare, the incidence of severe anaphylactic reactions is extremely low, and there is no increase in infections with intravenous iron. Currently available intravenous iron formulations allowing administration of large single doses are preferred.

Sucrosomial® Iron: A New Generation Iron for Improving Oral Supplementation

Iron deficiency (ID) is usually treated with oral iron salts, but up to 50% of patients complain of gastrointestinal side effects, leading to reduced treatment compliance. Intravenous (IV) iron formulations are increasingly safer, but there is still a risk of infusion and hypersensitivity reactions and the need for a venous access and infusion monitoring. Sucrosomial® iron (SI) is an innovative oral iron formulation in which ferric pyrophosphate is protected by a phospholipid bilayer plus a sucrester matrix (sucrosome), which is absorbed through para-cellular and trans-cellular routes (M cells). This confers SI unique structural, physicochemical and pharmacokinetic characteristics, together with high iron bioavailability and excellent gastrointestinal tolerance. The analysis of available evidence supports oral SI iron as a valid option for ID treatment, which is more efficacious and better tolerated than oral iron salts. SI has also demonstrated similar effectiveness, with lower risks, in patients usually receiving IV iron (e.g., chronic kidney disease, cancer, bariatric surgery). Thus, oral SI emerges as a most valuable first option for treating ID, even more for subjects with intolerance to or inefficacy of iron salts. Moreover, SI should be also considered as an alternative to IV iron for initial and/or maintenance treatment in different patient populations.

Preoperative management of colorectal cancer-induced iron deficiency anemia in clinical practice: data from a large observational cohort

BACKGROUND

Preoperative anemia prevalence among colorectal cancer (CRC) patients is high and may adversely influence postoperative outcome. This study assesses the efficacy of a preoperative anemia managing protocol in CRC.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of consecutive CRC resections at two Spanish centers (January 2012 to December 2013). Preoperative anemia was defined as a hemoglobin (Hb) level of less than 13 g/dL and treated with intravenous iron (IVI) or standard care (oral iron or no iron). Red blood cell transfusion (RBCT) requirements was the primary outcome variable. Postoperative infection rate and length of hospital stay (LOS) were secondary outcome variables. Patients were managed with a restrictive transfusion trigger (Hb < 8 g/dL). Infection was diagnosed clinically and confirmed by laboratory, microbiologic, and/or radiologic evidence.

RESULTS

Overall, 322 of 571 patients (56%) presented with anemia: 232 received IVI and 90 standard care. There were differences in RBCT rate between no anemia and anemia (2% vs. 16%; p < 0.01), but not in postoperative infections (19% vs. 22%; p = NS) or LOS. Compared to those on standard care, anemic patients on IVI presented with lower Hb (10.8 g/dL vs. 12.0 g/dL; p < 0.001) at baseline, but similar Hb on day of surgery and Postoperative Day 30. There were no between-group differences in RBCT rates (16% vs. 17%; p = NS), but infection rates were lower among IVI-treated patients (18% vs. 29%; p < 0.05). No relevant IVI-related side effects were recorded.

CONCLUSION

Compared to standard care, IVI was more effective in treating preoperative anemia in CRC patients and appeared to reduce infection rate, although it did not reduce postoperative RBCT.

A fast-track anaemia clinic in the Emergency Department: feasibility and efficacy of intravenous iron administration for treating sub-acute iron deficiency anaemia

BACKGROUND

Clinically significant anaemia, requiring red blood cell transfusions, is frequently observed in Emergency Departments (ED). To optimise blood product use, we developed a clinical protocol for the management of iron-deficiency anaemia in a fast-track anaemia clinic within the ED.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From November 2010 to January 2014, patients presenting with sub-acute, moderate-to-severe anaemia (haemoglobin [Hb] <11 g/dL) and confirmed or suspected iron deficiency were referred to the fast-track anaemia clinic. Those with absolute or functional iron deficiency were given intravenous (IV) ferric carboxymaltose 500-1,000 mg/week and were reassessed 4 weeks after receiving the total iron dose. The primary study outcome was the haematological response (Hb≥12 g/dL and/or Hb increment ≥2 g/dL). Changes in blood and iron parameters, transfusion rates and IV iron-related adverse drug effects were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Two hundred and two anaemic patients with iron deficiency (150 women/52 men; mean age, 64 years) were managed in the fast-track anaemia clinic, and received a median IV iron dose of 1,500 mg (1,000-2,000 mg). Gastro-intestinal (44%) or gynaecological (26%) bleeding was the most frequent cause of the anaemia. At follow-up (183 patients), the mean Hb increment was 3.9±2.2 g/dL; 84% of patients were classified as responders and blood and iron parameters normalised in 90%. During follow-up, 35 (17%) patients needed transfusions (2 [range: 1-3] units per patient) because they had low Hb levels, symptoms of anaemia and/or were at risk. Eight mild and one moderate, self-limited adverse drug effects were witnessed.

DISCUSSION

Our data support the feasibility of a clinical protocol for management of sub-acute anaemia with IV iron in the ED. IV iron was efficacious, safe and well tolerated. Early management of anaemia will improve the use of blood products in the ED.

"Patient blood management" in orthopaedic surgery

Orthopaedic and trauma surgical procedures (OTS) can lead to significant blood losses and acute postoperative anaemia, which in many cases requires allogeneic blood transfusions (ABT). The clinical, economic and logistical disadvantages of ABT have promoted the development of multidisciplinary and multimodal programs generically known as Patient Blood Management (PBM) programs, which have as their objective to reduce or eliminate the need for ABT and improve clinical outcomes. These programs are supported by the implementation of four groups of perioperative measures: (1) use of restrictive transfusion criteria; (2) stimulation of erythropoiesis; (3) reduction of bleeding; and (4) autologous blood transfusion. In this article, a review is presented of the effectiveness, safety and recommendations of applicable strategies in OTS, as well as the barriers and requirements to the development and implementation of PBM programs in this surgical specialty.

Perioperative intravenous iron: an upfront therapy for treating anaemia and reducing transfusion requirements

Perioperative anaemia, with iron deficiency being its leading cause, is a frequent condition among surgical patients, and has been linked to increased postoperative morbidity and mortality, and decreased quality of life. Postoperative anaemia is even more frequent and is mainly caused by perioperative blood loss, aggravated by inflammation-induced blunting of erythropoiesis. Allogenic transfusion is commonly used for treating acute perioperative anaemia, but it also increases the rate of morbidity and mortality in surgical and critically ill patients. Thus, overall concerns about adverse effects of both preoperative anaemia and allogeneic transfusion have prompted the review of transfusion practice and the search for safer and more biologically rational treatment options. In this paper, the role of intravenous iron therapy (mostly with iron sucrose and ferric carboxymaltose), as a safe and efficacious tool for treating anaemia and reducing transfusion requirements in surgical patients, as well as in other medical areas, has been reviewed. From the analysis of published data and despite the lack of high quality evidence in some areas, it seems fair to conclude that perioperative intravenous iron administration, with or without erythropoiesis stimulating agents, is safe, results in lower transfusion requirements and hastens recovery from postoperative anaemia. In addition, some studies have reported decreased rates of postoperative infection and mortality, and shorter length of hospital stay in surgical patients receiving intravenous iron.

Iron deficiency and anaemia in bariatric surgical patients: causes, diagnosis and proper management

Obesity-induced chronic inflammation leads to activation of the immune system that causes alterations of iron homeostasis including hypoferraemia, iron-restricted erythropoiesis, and finally mild-to-moderate anaemia. Thus, preoperative anaemia and iron deficiency are common among obese patients scheduled for bariatric surgery (BS). Assessment of patients should include a complete haematological and biochemical laboratory work-up, including measurement of iron stores, vitamin B12 and folate. In addition, gastrointestinal evaluation is recommended for most patients with iron-deficiency anaemia. On the other hand, BS is a long-lasting inflammatory stimulus in itself and entails a reduction of the gastric capacity and/or exclusion from the gastrointestinal tract which impair nutrients absorption, including dietary iron. Chronic gastrointestinal blood loss and iron-losingenteropathy may also contribute to iron deficiency after BS. Perioperative anaemia has been linked to increased postoperative morbidity and mortality and decreased quality of life after major surgery, whereas treatment of perioperative anaemia, and even haematinic deficiency without anaemia, has been shown to improve patient outcomes and quality of life. However, long-term follow-up data in regard to prevalence, severity, and causes of anaemia after BS are mostly absent. Iron supplements should be administered to patients after BS, but compliance with oral iron is no good. In addition, once iron deficiency has developed, it may prove refractory to oral treatment. In these situations, IV iron (which can circumvent the iron blockade at enterocytes and macrophages) has emerged as a safe and effective alternative for perioperative anaemia management. Monitoring should continue indefinitely even after the initial iron repletion and anaemia resolution, and maintenance IV iron treatment should be provided as required. New IV preparations, such ferric carboxymaltose, are safe, easy to use and up to 1000 mg can be given in a single session, thus providing an excellent tool to avoid or treat iron deficiency in this patient population.

Efficacy and safety of intravenous iron therapy as an alternative/adjunct to allogeneic blood transfusion

Anaemia is a common condition among patients admitted to hospital medicosurgical departments, as well as in critically ill patients. Anaemia is more frequently due to absolute iron deficiency (e.g. chronic blood loss) or functional iron deficiency (e.g. chronic inflammatory states), with other causes being less frequent. In addition, preoperative anaemia is one of the major predictive factors for perioperative blood transfusion. In surgical patients, postoperative anaemia is mainly caused by perioperative blood loss, and it might be aggravated by inflammation-induced inhibition of erythropoietin and functional iron deficiency (a condition that cannot be corrected by the administration of oral iron). All these mechanisms may be involved in the anaemia of the critically ill. Intravenous iron administration seems to be safe, as very few severe side-effects were observed, and may result in hastened recovery from anaemia and lower transfusion requirements. However, it is noteworthy that many of the recommendations given for intravenous iron treatment are not supported by a high level of evidence and this must be borne in mind when making decisions regarding its application to a particular patient. Nonetheless, this also indicates the need for further large, randomized controlled trials on the safety and efficacy of intravenous iron for the treatment of anaemia in different clinical settings.