A randomized trial of iron isomaltoside 1000 versus oral iron in non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease patients with anaemia.
ABSTRACT: Iron deficiency anaemia is common in patients with non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (NDD-CKD) and is often treated with oral or intravenous (IV) iron therapy. This trial compared the efficacy and safety of IV iron isomaltoside 1000 (Monofer®) and oral iron in NDD-CKD patients with renal-related anaemia.The trial was a Phase III open-label, comparative, multicentre, non-inferiority trial conducted in 351 iron-deficient NDD-CKD patients, randomized 2:1 to either iron isomaltoside 1000 (Group A) or iron sulphate administered as 100 mg elemental oral iron twice daily (200 mg daily) for 8 weeks (Group B). The patients in Group A were randomized into A1 (infusion of max. 1000 mg single doses over 15 min) and A2 (bolus injections of 500 mg over 2 min). A modified Ganzoni formula was used to calculate IV iron need. The primary end point was change in haemoglobin concentrations from baseline to Week 4.Iron isomaltoside 1000 was both non-inferior to oral iron at Week 4 (P < 0.001) and sustained a superior increase in haemoglobin from Week 3 until the end of the study at Week 8 (P = 0.009 at Week 3). The haemoglobin response was more pronounced with iron isomaltoside 1000 doses ?1000 mg (P < 0.05). Serum-ferritin and transferrin saturation concentrations were also significantly increased with IV iron. Adverse drug reactions were observed in 10.5% in the iron isomaltoside 1000 group and 10.3% in the oral iron group. More patients treated with oral iron sulphate withdrew from the study due to adverse events (4.3 versus 0.9%, P = 0.2).Iron isomaltoside 1000 was more efficacious than oral iron for increase in haemoglobin and proved to be well tolerated at the tested dose levels in NDD-CKD patients.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Intravenous iron is often used to treat iron deficiency anaemia in non-dialysis chronic kidney disease (ND-CKD), but the optimal dosing regimen remains unclear. We evaluated the impact of high- versus low-dose intravenous iron isomaltoside on the probability of retreatment with intravenous iron in iron-deficient ND-CKD patients.<h4>Methods</h4>This real-world, prospective, observational study collected data from 256 ND-CKD patients treated for anaemia in the UK. Following an initial course of iron isomaltoside, patients were followed for ≥12 months. Iron dose and the need for retreatment were determined at the investigators' discretion. The primary study outcome was the need for retreatment at 52 weeks compared between patients who received >1000 mg of iron during Course 1 and those who received ≤1000 mg. Safety was evaluated through adverse drug reactions.<h4>Results</h4>The probability of retreatment at Week 52 was significantly lower in the >1000 mg iron group (n = 58) versus the ≤1000 mg group (n = 198); hazard ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]): 0.46 (0.20, 0.91); p = 0.012. Mean (95% CI) haemoglobin increased by 6.58 (4.94, 8.21) g/L in the ≤1000 mg group and by 10.59 (7.52, 13.66) g/L in the >1000 mg group (p = 0.024). Changes in other blood and iron parameters were not significantly different between the two groups. Administering >1000 mg of iron isomaltoside saved 8.6 appointments per 100 patients compared to ≤1000 mg. No serious adverse drug reactions were reported. Of the patients who received ≤1000 mg of iron in this study, 82.3% were eligible for a dose >1000 mg.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The >1000 mg iron isomaltoside regimen reduced the probability of retreatment, achieved a greater haemoglobin response irrespective of erythropoiesis-stimulating agent treatment, and reduced the total number of appointments required, compared to the ≤1000 mg regimen. Many of the patients who received ≤1000 mg of iron were eligible for >1000 mg, indicating that there was considerable underdosing in this study.<h4>Trial registration</h4>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02546154 , 10 September 2015.
Project description:A safe alternative to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents to treat anemia is warranted in patients with cancer and anemia; thus the objective of this trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) iron isomaltoside with oral iron in patients with cancer and anemia by testing the noninferiority of IV versus oral iron.Phase III, prospective, open-label, comparative, randomized, noninferiority, multicenter trial.Forty-seven hospitals or private cancer clinics in Asia, the United States, and Europe.A total of 350 patients with cancer and anemia.Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to either intravenous iron isomaltoside or oral iron sulfate. Patients in the iron isomaltoside group were then randomized into an infusion subgroup (single intravenous infusions of a maximum dose of 1000 mg over 15 min) or a bolus injection subgroup (bolus injections of 500 mg over 2 min).The primary efficacy outcome was change in hemoglobin concentration from baseline to week 4. Changes in other relevant hematology variables, effect on quality of life, and safety outcomes were also assessed. The primary efficacy outcome was tested for noninferiority, whereas the remaining outcomes were tested for superiority. Iron isomaltoside was noninferior to oral iron in change in hemoglobin concentration from baseline to week 4 (difference estimate 0.016, 95% confidence interval -0.26 to 0.29, p<0.001). A faster onset of the hemoglobin response was observed with infusion of iron isomaltoside (superiority test: p=0.03 at week 1), and a sustained effect on hemoglobin level was shown in both the iron isomaltoside and oral iron treatment groups until week 24. A significant mean decrease in fatigue score was observed from baseline to week 12 in the iron isomaltoside group (p<0.001) but not in the oral iron group (p=0.057). A higher proportion of patients treated with oral iron experienced adverse drug reactions (18.8% vs 6.6%, p<0.001) and discontinued the trial due to intolerance (8.0% vs 0.9%, p=0.001). Transient hypophosphatemia (phosphate level less than 2 mg/dl) was reported at similar low frequencies among the groups: 7.1% in the iron isomaltoside infusion subgroup versus 8.5% in the iron isomaltoside bolus injection subgroup versus 5.4% in the oral iron group.This trial demonstrated comparable sustained increases in hemoglobin concentration over time with both iron isomaltoside and oral iron. Iron isomaltoside was better tolerated than oral iron, and fatigue was significantly decreased with iron isomaltoside. Low rates of clinically insignificant hypophosphatemia were reported in patients receiving both treatments.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Intravenous (IV) iron is frequently used to treat iron deficiency/anemia in patients who are unable to tolerate oral iron or the oral iron is not sufficient toreplete iron requirements. However, safety concerns regarding the potential increase in oxidative stress and other adverse effects persist and it remains unclear whether all iron preparations are equivalent. Indeed, the comparative risk of adverse events with IV iron preparations has not been extensively assessed. We hypothesize that IV iron leads to changes in oxidative stress, endothelial function, and potential renal damage depending on the iron formulation (related to the generation of "free" or catalytic labile iron) and this may result in more tubular and glomerular injury manifested as increased proteinuria and raised neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) levels in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS:IRON-CKD is a prospective, open-label, explorative, randomized, single-center study designed to compare the safety and efficacy of three parenteral iron preparations: low-molecular-weight iron dextran-Cosmofer, iron sucrose-Venofer, and iron isomaltoside-Monofer. The study includes 40 adults who have established CKD stages 3-5 and serum ferritin (SF) of less than 200 μg/L or transferrin saturation (TS) of less than 20% (or both); they were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to 200 mg iron dextran, 200 mg iron sucrose, 200 mg iron isomaltoside, or 1000 mg iron isomaltoside. After randomization, participants undergo baseline assessments and then an iron infusion. Each participant is followed up at 2 h, day 1, week 1, and months 1 and 3. At each follow-up visit, patients undergo clinical review, measurement of pulse wave velocity (PWV), blood tests for renal function, and collection of serum/plasma samples for oxidative stress and inflammatory markers. The primary outcomes are measures of oxidative stress, inflammatory markers, and markers of acute renal injury in comparison with baseline measures of each iron preparation and between each of the iron preparations. Secondary objectives include effects on hematinic profiles and hemoglobin concentrations, changes in arterial stiffness, incidence of significant side effects, and change in patients' quality of life. RESULTS:Between October 2015 and April 2018, 521 individuals were identified as potential participants; 216 were contacted, 56 expressed an interest, 49 attended a screening visit, and 40 were confirmed to meet the eligibility criteria and were randomly assigned. The mean age was 58.3 (standard error of the mean 4.4) years, and 23 (58%) were male. All patients were white and English-speaking. The mean SF was 66.6 μg/L, TS was 21.2%, and hemoglobin was 121.6 g/L at randomization for the whole group. The mean estimated glomerular filtration rate was 27.8 mL/min, the urinary protein/creatinine ratio was 104.3 mg/mmol, and CRP was 6.65 mg/L. DISCUSSION:IRON-CKD will provide important information on the short-term effects of three preparations of IV iron in CKD patients with biochemical functional or absolute iron deficiency on measures of oxidative stress, inflammation, endothelial function, and renal injury. TRIAL REGISTRATION:European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT) number 2010-020452-64 .
Project description:This trial explores whether intravenous iron isomaltoside 1000 (Monofer®) results in a better regeneration of haemoglobin levels and prevents anaemia compared to placebo in preoperative non-anaemic patients undergoing cardiac surgery.The trial is a prospective, double-blind, comparative, placebo-controlled trial of 60 non-anaemic patients undergoing cardiac surgery. The patients were randomized 1:1 to either 1000 mg intravenous iron isomaltoside 1000 administered perioperatively by infusion or placebo.Mean preoperative haemoglobin in the active treatment group was 14·3 g/dl vs. 14·0 g/dl in the placebo group. At discharge 5 days after surgery, haemoglobin levels were reduced to 10·7 and 10·5 g/dl, respectively. One month after surgery, haemoglobin concentration had increased to an average of 12·6 g/dl vs. 11·8 g/dl (p = 0·012) and significantly more patients were non-anaemic in the intravenous iron isomaltoside 1000-treated group compared to the placebo group (38·5% vs. 8·0%; p = 0·019). There were no differences in side-effects between the groups.A single perioperative 1000 mg dose of intravenous iron isomaltoside 1000 significantly increased the haemoglobin level and prevented anaemia 4 weeks after surgery, with a short-term safety profile similar to placebo. Future trials on potential clinical benefits of preoperative treatment with intravenous iron in non-anaemic patients are needed.
Project description:<h4>Objectives</h4>In the largest head-to-head comparison between an oral and an intravenous (IV) iron compound in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) so far, we strived to determine whether IV iron isomaltoside 1,000 is non-inferior to oral iron sulfate in the treatment of iron deficiency anemia (IDA).<h4>Methods</h4>This prospective, randomized, comparative, open-label, non-inferiority study was conducted at 36 sites in Europe and India. Patients with known intolerance to oral iron were excluded. A total of 338 IBD patients in clinical remission or with mild disease, a hemoglobin (Hb) <12 g/dl, and a transferrin saturation (TSAT) <20% were randomized 2:1 to receive either IV iron isomaltoside 1,000 according to the Ganzoni formula (225 patients) or oral iron sulfate 200 mg daily (equivalent to 200 mg elemental iron; 113 patients). An interactive web response system method was used to randomize the eligible patient to the treatment groups. The primary end point was change in Hb from baseline to week 8. Iron isomaltoside 1,000 and iron sulfate was compared by a non-inferiority assessment with a margin of -0.5 g/dl. The secondary end points, which tested for superiority, included change in Hb from baseline to weeks 2 and 4, change in s-ferritin, and TSAT to week 8, number of patients who discontinued study because of lack of response or intolerance of investigational drugs, change in total quality of life (QoL) score to weeks 4 and 8, and safety. Exploratory analyses included a responder analysis (proportion of patients with an increase in Hb ?2 g/dl after 8 weeks), the effect of regional differences and total iron dose level, and other potential predictors of the treatment response.<h4>Results</h4>Non-inferiority in change of Hb to week 8 could not be demonstrated. There was a trend for oral iron sulfate being more effective in increasing Hb than iron isomaltoside 1,000. The estimated treatment effect was -0.37 (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.80, 0.06) with P=0.09 in the full analysis set (N=327) and -0.45 (95% CI: -0.88, -0.03) with P=0.04 in the per protocol analysis set (N=299). In patients treated with IV iron isomaltoside 1,000, the mean change in s-ferritin concentration was higher with an estimated treatment effect of 48.7 (95% CI: 18.6, 78.8) with P=0.002, whereas the mean change in TSAT was lower with an estimated treatment effect of -4.4 (95% CI: -7.4, -1.4) with P=0.005, compared with patients treated with oral iron. No differences in changes of QoL were observed. The safety profile was similar between the groups. The proportion of responders with Hb ?2 g/dl (IV group: 67%; oral group: 61%) were comparable between the groups (P=0.32). Iron isomaltoside 1,000 was more efficacious with higher cumulative doses of >1,000 mg IV. Significant predictors of Hb response to IV iron treatment were baseline Hb and C-reactive protein (CRP).<h4>Conclusions</h4>We could not demonstrate non-inferiority of IV iron isomaltoside 1,000 compared with oral iron in this study. Based on the dose-response relationship observed with the IV iron compound, we suggest that the true iron demand of IV iron was underestimated by the Ganzoni formula in our study. Alternative calculations including Hb and CRP should be explored to gauge iron stores in patients with IBD.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Rigorous data are sparse concerning the optimal route of administration and dosing strategy for iron therapy with or without concomitant erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) therapy for the management of iron deficiency anaemia in patients with non-dialysis dependent chronic kidney disease (ND-CKD).<h4>Methods</h4>FIND-CKD was a 56-week, open-label, multicentre, prospective, randomized three-arm study (NCT00994318) of 626 patients with ND-CKD and iron deficiency anaemia randomized to (i) intravenous (IV) ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) at an initial dose of 1000 mg iron with subsequent dosing as necessary to target a serum ferritin level of 400-600 µg/L (ii) IV FCM at an initial dose of 200 mg with subsequent dosing as necessary to target serum ferritin 100-200 µg/L or (iii) oral ferrous sulphate 200 mg iron/day. The primary end point was time to initiation of other anaemia management (ESA therapy, iron therapy other than study drug or blood transfusion) or a haemoglobin (Hb) trigger (two consecutive Hb values <10 g/dL without an increase of ≥ 0.5 g/dL).<h4>Results</h4>The background, rationale and study design of the trial are presented here. The study has been completed and results are expected in late 2013.<h4>Discussion</h4>FIND-CKD was the longest randomized trial of IV iron therapy to date. Its findings will address several unanswered questions regarding iron therapy to treat iron deficiency anaemia in patients with ND-CKD. It was also the first randomized trial to utilize both a high and low serum ferritin target range to adjust IV iron dosing, and the first not to employ Hb response as its primary end point.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Iron deficiency is a common cause of anaemia and hyporesponsiveness to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (ND-CKD) patients. Current intravenous iron agents cannot be administered in a single high dose because of adverse effects. Ferric carboxymaltose, a non-dextran parenteral iron preparation, can be rapidly administered in high doses.<h4>Methods</h4>This open-label trial randomized 255 subjects with glomerular filtration rates ? 45 mL/min/1.73 m(2), haemoglobin ? 11 g/dL, transferrin saturation ? 25%, ferritin ? 300 ng/mL, and stable ESA dose to either intravenous ferric carboxymaltose 1000 mg over 15 min (with up to two additional doses of 500 mg at 2-week intervals) or oral ferrous sulphate 325 mg thrice daily for a total of 195 mg elemental iron daily for 56 days.<h4>Results</h4>In the modified intent-to-treat population, the proportion of subjects achieving a haemoglobin increase ? 1 g/dL at any time was 60.4% with ferric carboxymaltose and 34.7% with oral iron (P < 0.001). At Day 42, mean increase in haemoglobin was 0.95 ± 1.12 vs 0.50 ± 1.23 g/dL (P = 0.005), mean increase in ferritin was 432 ± 189 ng/mL vs 18 ± 45 ng/mL (P < 0.001) and mean increase in transferrin saturation was 13.6 ± 11.9% vs 6.1 ± 8.1% (P < 0.001). Treatment-related adverse events were significantly fewer with ferric carboxymaltose than with oral iron (2.7% and 26.2%, respectively; P < 0.0001).<h4>Conclusions</h4>We conclude that 1000 mg ferric carboxymaltose can be rapidly administered, is more effective and is better tolerated than oral iron for treatment of iron deficiency in ND-CKD patients.
Project description:Iron deficiency anaemia is common in patients with chronic kidney disease, and intravenous iron is the preferred treatment for those on haemodialysis. The aim of this trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of iron isomaltoside 1000 (Monofer®) with iron sucrose (Venofer®) in haemodialysis patients.This was an open-label, randomized, multicentre, non-inferiority trial conducted in 351 haemodialysis subjects randomized 2:1 to either iron isomaltoside 1000 (Group A) or iron sucrose (Group B). Subjects in Group A were equally divided into A1 (500 mg single bolus injection) and A2 (500 mg split dose). Group B were also treated with 500 mg split dose. The primary end point was the proportion of subjects with haemoglobin (Hb) in the target range 9.5-12.5 g/dL at 6 weeks. Secondary outcome measures included haematology parameters and safety parameters.A total of 351 subjects were enrolled. Both treatments showed similar efficacy with >82% of subjects with Hb in the target range (non-inferiority, P = 0.01). Similar results were found when comparing subgroups A1 and A2 with Group B. No statistical significant change in Hb concentration was found between any of the groups. There was a significant increase in ferritin from baseline to Weeks 1, 2 and 4 in Group A compared with Group B (Weeks 1 and 2: P < 0.001; Week 4: P = 0.002). There was a significant higher increase in reticulocyte count in Group A compared with Group B at Week 1 (P < 0.001). The frequency, type and severity of adverse events were similar.Iron isomaltoside 1000 and iron sucrose have comparative efficacy in maintaining Hb concentrations in haemodialysis subjects and both preparations were well tolerated with a similar short-term safety profile.
Project description:Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is common in many chronic diseases, and intravenous (IV) iron offers a rapid and efficient iron correction. This trial compared the efficacy and safety of iron isomaltoside (also known as ferric derisomaltose) and iron sucrose in patients with IDA who were intolerant of, or unresponsive to, oral iron. The trial was an open?label, comparative, multi?center trial. Five hundred and eleven patients with IDA from different causes were randomized 2:1 to iron isomaltoside or iron sucrose and followed for 5 weeks. The cumulative dose of iron isomaltoside was based on body weight and hemoglobin (Hb), administered as either a 1000 mg infusion over more than 15 minutes or 500 mg injection over 2 minutes. The cumulative dose of iron sucrose was calculated according to Ganzoni and administered as repeated 200 mg infusions over 30 minutes. The mean cumulative dose of iron isomaltoside was 1640.2 (standard deviation (SD): 357.6) mg and of iron sucrose 1127.9 (SD: 343.3) mg. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a Hb increase ?2 g/dL from baseline at any time between weeks 1?5. Both non?inferiority and superiority were confirmed for the primary endpoint, and a shorter time to Hb increase ?2 g/dL was observed with iron isomaltoside. For all biochemical efficacy parameters, faster and/or greater improvements were found with iron isomaltoside. Both treatments were well tolerated; 0.6% experienced a serious adverse drug reaction. Iron isomaltoside was more effective than iron sucrose in achieving a rapid improvement in Hb. Furthermore, iron isomaltoside has an advantage over iron sucrose in allowing higher cumulative dosing in fewer administrations. Both treatments were well tolerated in a broad population with IDA.
Project description:Previously lacking in the literature, we describe longitudinal patterns of anemia prescriptions for non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (NDD-CKD) patients under nephrologist care. We analyzed data from 2818 Stage 3-5 NDD-CKD patients from Brazil, Germany, and the US, naïve to anemia medications (oral iron, intravenous [IV] iron, or erythropoiesis stimulating agent [ESA]) at enrollment in the CKDopps. We report the cumulative incidence function (CIF) of medication initiation stratified by baseline characteristics. Even in patients with hemoglobin (Hb)?<?10 g/dL, the CIF at 12 months for any anemia medication was 40%, and 28% for ESAs. Patients with TSAT?<?20% had a CIF of 26% and 6% for oral and IV iron, respectively. Heart failure was associated with earlier initiation of anemia medications. IV iron was prescribed to?<?10% of patients with iron deficiency. Only 40% of patients with Hb?<?10 g/dL received any anemia medication within a year. Discontinuation of anemia treatment was very common. Anemia treatment is initiated in a limited number of NDD-CKD patients, even in those with guideline-based indications to treat. Hemoglobin trajectory and a history of heart failure appear to guide treatment start. These results support the concept that anemia is sub-optimally managed among NDD-CKD patients in the real-world setting.