7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Safety of Dynamic Intravenous Iron Administration Strategies in Hemodialysis Patients

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Intravenous iron therapy for chronic anemia management is largely driven by dosing protocols that differ in intensity with respect to dosing approach ( i.e. , dose, frequency, and duration). Little is known about the safety of these protocols. Using clinical data from a large United States dialysis provider linked to health care utilization data from Medicare, we constructed a cohort of patients with ESKD aged ≥65 years who initiated and continued center-based hemodialysis for ≥90 days between 2009 and 2012, and initiated at least one of the five common intravenous iron administration strategies; ranked by intensity (the amount of iron given at moderate-to-high iron indices), the order of strategies was 3 (least intensive), 2 (less intensive), 1 (reference), 4 (more intensive), and 5 (most intensive). We estimated the effect of continuous exposure to these strategies on cumulative risks of mortality and infection-related events with dynamic Cox marginal structural models. Of 13,249 eligible patients, 1320 (10%) died and 1627 (12%) had one or more infection-related events during the 4-month follow-up. The most and least commonly initiated strategy was strategy 2 and 5, respectively. Compared with the reference strategy 1, more intensive strategies (4 and 5) demonstrated a higher risk of all-cause mortality ( e.g. , most intensive strategy 5: 60-day risk difference: 1.3%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.8% to 2.1%; 120-day risk difference: 3.1%; 95% CI, 1.0% to 5.6%). Similarly, higher risks were observed for infection-related morbidity and mortality among more intensive strategies ( e.g. , strategy 5: 60-day risk difference: 1.8%; 95% CI, 1.2% to 2.6%; 120-day risk difference: 4.3%; 95% CI, 2.2% to 6.8%). Less intensive strategies (2 and 3) demonstrated lower risks of all-cause mortality and infection-related events. Among dialysis patients surviving 90 days, subsequent intravenous iron administration strategies promoting more intensive iron treatment at moderate-to-high iron indices levels are associated with higher risks of mortality and infection-related events.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Intravenous Iron in Patients Undergoing Maintenance Hemodialysis

          Intravenous iron is a standard treatment for patients undergoing hemodialysis, but comparative data regarding clinically effective regimens are limited.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guidelines on anaemia management in chronic kidney disease: a European Renal Best Practice position statement.

            Recently, the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) group has produced comprehensive clinical practice guidelines for the management of anaemia in CKD patients. These guidelines addressed all of the important points related to anaemia management in CKD patients, including therapy with erythropoieis stimulating agents (ESA), iron therapy, ESA resistance and blood transfusion use. Because most guidelines were 'soft' rather than 'strong', and because global guidelines need to be adapted and implemented into the regional context where they are used, on behalf of the European Renal Best Practice Advisory Board some of its members, and other external experts in this field, who were not participants in the KDIGO guidelines group, were invited to participate in this anaemia working group to examine and comment on the KDIGO documents in this position paper. In this article, the group concentrated only on those guidelines which we considered worth amending or adapting. All guidelines not specifically mentioned are fully endorsed.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              Iron management in chronic kidney disease: conclusions from a "Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes" (KDIGO) Controversies Conference.

              Before the introduction of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in 1989, repeated transfusions given to patients with end-stage renal disease caused iron overload, and the need for supplemental iron was rare. However, with the widespread introduction of ESAs, it was recognized that supplemental iron was necessary to optimize hemoglobin response and allow reduction of the ESA dose for economic reasons and recent concerns about ESA safety. Iron supplementation was also found to be more efficacious via intravenous compared to oral administration, and the use of intravenous iron has escalated in recent years. The safety of various iron compounds has been of theoretical concern due to their potential to induce iron overload, oxidative stress, hypersensitivity reactions, and a permissive environment for infectious processes. Therefore, an expert group was convened to assess the benefits and risks of parenteral iron, and to provide strategies for its optimal use while mitigating the risk for acute reactions and other adverse effects.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
                CJASN
                American Society of Nephrology (ASN)
                1555-9041
                1555-905X
                May 07 2019
                May 07 2019
                May 07 2019
                April 15 2019
                : 14
                : 5
                : 728-737
                Article
                10.2215/CJN.03970318
                6500950
                30988164
                bb8de6ea-67f7-4da6-a5b2-6524ce8681b2
                © 2019
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article