Cargando…

Randomized double-blind safety comparison of intravenous iron dextran versus iron sucrose in an adult non-hemodialysis outpatient population: A feasibility study

BACKGROUND: Intravenous iron therapy is a treatment option for iron deficient patients who are intolerant to oral iron or where oral iron is ineffective, but with possible adverse effects. Currently, prospective studies comparing different intravenous iron formulations are needed to determine safety...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Louzada, Martha L., Hsia, Cyrus C., Al-Ani, Fatimah, Ralley, Fiona, Xenocostas, Anargyros, Martin, Janet, Connelly, Sarah E., Chin-Yee, Ian H., Minuk, Leonard, Lazo-Langner, Alejandro
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4788943/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26973791
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12878-016-0046-8
_version_ 1782420796514238464
author Louzada, Martha L.
Hsia, Cyrus C.
Al-Ani, Fatimah
Ralley, Fiona
Xenocostas, Anargyros
Martin, Janet
Connelly, Sarah E.
Chin-Yee, Ian H.
Minuk, Leonard
Lazo-Langner, Alejandro
author_facet Louzada, Martha L.
Hsia, Cyrus C.
Al-Ani, Fatimah
Ralley, Fiona
Xenocostas, Anargyros
Martin, Janet
Connelly, Sarah E.
Chin-Yee, Ian H.
Minuk, Leonard
Lazo-Langner, Alejandro
author_sort Louzada, Martha L.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Intravenous iron therapy is a treatment option for iron deficient patients who are intolerant to oral iron or where oral iron is ineffective, but with possible adverse effects. Currently, prospective studies comparing different intravenous iron formulations are needed to determine safety and efficacy of these agents. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess the feasibility of a trial comparing the safety of high molecular weight intravenous iron dextran, Infufer®, with intravenous iron sucrose, Venofer®, in non-hemodialysis adult outpatients. Primary outcome was the occurrence of immediate severe drug reactions. RESULTS: We enrolled 143 patients in a one-year period. Overall, 45/143 (31.5 %) patients (20 iron dextran, 25 iron sucrose) developed 48 infusion reactions (14 immediate, 28 delayed, and 3 both). The risk of an immediate reaction was similar in both groups, 9/73 (12.3 %) iron dextran versus 8/70 (11.4 %) iron sucrose, RR = 0.93 (95 % CI; 0.38 to 2.27). The risk of a delayed reaction was significantly higher in the iron sucrose group 22/70 (31.4 %) versus the iron dextran group 9/73 (12.3 %), RR = 2.55 (95 % CI; 1.26 to 5.15; p = 0.0078). CONCLUSION: In this limited feasibility study, no major differences in immediate reactions were seen, but a significantly higher number of delayed reactions were seen in the iron sucrose group. Further, under our assumptions and design a full RCT to evaluate the safety of different intravenous iron preparations is not feasible. Future studies should consider modifying the clinical outcomes, utilize multiple centers, and consider other emerging parenteral iron formulations. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT005936197 January 3, 2008).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4788943
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47889432016-03-13 Randomized double-blind safety comparison of intravenous iron dextran versus iron sucrose in an adult non-hemodialysis outpatient population: A feasibility study Louzada, Martha L. Hsia, Cyrus C. Al-Ani, Fatimah Ralley, Fiona Xenocostas, Anargyros Martin, Janet Connelly, Sarah E. Chin-Yee, Ian H. Minuk, Leonard Lazo-Langner, Alejandro BMC Hematol Research Article BACKGROUND: Intravenous iron therapy is a treatment option for iron deficient patients who are intolerant to oral iron or where oral iron is ineffective, but with possible adverse effects. Currently, prospective studies comparing different intravenous iron formulations are needed to determine safety and efficacy of these agents. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess the feasibility of a trial comparing the safety of high molecular weight intravenous iron dextran, Infufer®, with intravenous iron sucrose, Venofer®, in non-hemodialysis adult outpatients. Primary outcome was the occurrence of immediate severe drug reactions. RESULTS: We enrolled 143 patients in a one-year period. Overall, 45/143 (31.5 %) patients (20 iron dextran, 25 iron sucrose) developed 48 infusion reactions (14 immediate, 28 delayed, and 3 both). The risk of an immediate reaction was similar in both groups, 9/73 (12.3 %) iron dextran versus 8/70 (11.4 %) iron sucrose, RR = 0.93 (95 % CI; 0.38 to 2.27). The risk of a delayed reaction was significantly higher in the iron sucrose group 22/70 (31.4 %) versus the iron dextran group 9/73 (12.3 %), RR = 2.55 (95 % CI; 1.26 to 5.15; p = 0.0078). CONCLUSION: In this limited feasibility study, no major differences in immediate reactions were seen, but a significantly higher number of delayed reactions were seen in the iron sucrose group. Further, under our assumptions and design a full RCT to evaluate the safety of different intravenous iron preparations is not feasible. Future studies should consider modifying the clinical outcomes, utilize multiple centers, and consider other emerging parenteral iron formulations. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT005936197 January 3, 2008). BioMed Central 2016-03-11 /pmc/articles/PMC4788943/ /pubmed/26973791 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12878-016-0046-8 Text en © Louzada et al. 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Louzada, Martha L.
Hsia, Cyrus C.
Al-Ani, Fatimah
Ralley, Fiona
Xenocostas, Anargyros
Martin, Janet
Connelly, Sarah E.
Chin-Yee, Ian H.
Minuk, Leonard
Lazo-Langner, Alejandro
Randomized double-blind safety comparison of intravenous iron dextran versus iron sucrose in an adult non-hemodialysis outpatient population: A feasibility study
title Randomized double-blind safety comparison of intravenous iron dextran versus iron sucrose in an adult non-hemodialysis outpatient population: A feasibility study
title_full Randomized double-blind safety comparison of intravenous iron dextran versus iron sucrose in an adult non-hemodialysis outpatient population: A feasibility study
title_fullStr Randomized double-blind safety comparison of intravenous iron dextran versus iron sucrose in an adult non-hemodialysis outpatient population: A feasibility study
title_full_unstemmed Randomized double-blind safety comparison of intravenous iron dextran versus iron sucrose in an adult non-hemodialysis outpatient population: A feasibility study
title_short Randomized double-blind safety comparison of intravenous iron dextran versus iron sucrose in an adult non-hemodialysis outpatient population: A feasibility study
title_sort randomized double-blind safety comparison of intravenous iron dextran versus iron sucrose in an adult non-hemodialysis outpatient population: a feasibility study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4788943/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26973791
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12878-016-0046-8
work_keys_str_mv AT louzadamarthal randomizeddoubleblindsafetycomparisonofintravenousirondextranversusironsucroseinanadultnonhemodialysisoutpatientpopulationafeasibilitystudy
AT hsiacyrusc randomizeddoubleblindsafetycomparisonofintravenousirondextranversusironsucroseinanadultnonhemodialysisoutpatientpopulationafeasibilitystudy
AT alanifatimah randomizeddoubleblindsafetycomparisonofintravenousirondextranversusironsucroseinanadultnonhemodialysisoutpatientpopulationafeasibilitystudy
AT ralleyfiona randomizeddoubleblindsafetycomparisonofintravenousirondextranversusironsucroseinanadultnonhemodialysisoutpatientpopulationafeasibilitystudy
AT xenocostasanargyros randomizeddoubleblindsafetycomparisonofintravenousirondextranversusironsucroseinanadultnonhemodialysisoutpatientpopulationafeasibilitystudy
AT martinjanet randomizeddoubleblindsafetycomparisonofintravenousirondextranversusironsucroseinanadultnonhemodialysisoutpatientpopulationafeasibilitystudy
AT connellysarahe randomizeddoubleblindsafetycomparisonofintravenousirondextranversusironsucroseinanadultnonhemodialysisoutpatientpopulationafeasibilitystudy
AT chinyeeianh randomizeddoubleblindsafetycomparisonofintravenousirondextranversusironsucroseinanadultnonhemodialysisoutpatientpopulationafeasibilitystudy
AT minukleonard randomizeddoubleblindsafetycomparisonofintravenousirondextranversusironsucroseinanadultnonhemodialysisoutpatientpopulationafeasibilitystudy
AT lazolangneralejandro randomizeddoubleblindsafetycomparisonofintravenousirondextranversusironsucroseinanadultnonhemodialysisoutpatientpopulationafeasibilitystudy