Abstract

BACKGROUND Anaemia is a common sequela of advanced disease and is associated with significant symptom burden. No specific guidance exists for the investigation and management of anaemia in palliative care patients. AIM: We aim to offer a pragmatic overview of the approaches to investigate and manage anaemia in advanced disease, based on guidelines and evidence in disease specific patient groups, including cancer, heart failure and chronic kidney disease. DESIGN Scoping review methodology was used to determine the strength of evidence supporting the investigation and management of anaemia in patients with advanced disease. DATA SOURCES A search for guidelines was performed in 2020. National or international guidelines were examined if they described the investigation or management of anaemia in adult patients with health conditions seen by palliative care services written within the last 5 years in the English language. Searches of MEDLINE, the Cochrane library and WHO guidance were made in 2019 to identify key publications that provided additional primary data. RESULTS Evidence supports patient-centred investigation of anaemia, results of which should guide targeted intervention. Blanket use of blood transfusion should be avoided, with evidence supporting a more restrictive approach to transfusion. Routine use of oral iron and erythropoetin stimulating agents (ESAs) are not recommended. Insufficient evidence exists to determine the effectiveness of IV iron in this patient group. CONCLUSION We advocate early consideration and investigation of anaemia, guided by symptom burden and patient preferences. Correction of reversible causes should be the mainstay of treatment, with a restrictive approach to blood transfusion. Research is required to evaluate the efficacy of IV iron in these patients.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Roxadustat (ROX) is a new medication for anemia as a complication of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Our meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ROX, especially on the cardiovascular risks, for anemia in NDD-CKD patients. METHODS Electronic databases were searched systematically from inception to July 2021 to look for randomized control trials (RCTs) that evaluated ROX NDD-CKD patients. Hemoglobin level and iron utilization parameters, including ferritin, serum iron, transferrin saturation (TSAT), total iron-binding capacity (TIBC), transferrin, and hepcidin were analyzed for efficacy. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated and presented with their 95% confidential intervals (CIs). RESULTS Nine RCTs included a total of 3,175 patients in the ROX group and 2,446 patients in the control group. When compared the control group, ROX increased Hb level significantly (SMD: 1.65; 95% CI: 1.08, 2.22; P< 0.00001) and improved iron utilization parameters by decreasing ferritin (SMD: -0.32; 95% CI: -0.51, -0.14; P = 0.0006), TSAT (SMD: -0.19; 95% CI: -0.32, -0.07; P = 0.003), and hepcidin (SMD: -0.74; 95% CI: -1.09, -0.39; P< 0.0001) and increasing TIBC (SMD: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.76, 1.22; P< 0.00001) and transferrin (SMD: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.70, 1.71; P< 0.00001). As for safety, ROX was associated with higher serious adverse effects (RR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.13; P = 0.01), deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (RR: 3.80; 95% CI: 1.5, 9.64; P = 0.08), and hypertension (HTN) (RR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.13, 1.65; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION We concluded that ROX increased Hb level and improved iron utilization parameters in NDD-CKD patients, but ROX was associated with higher serious adverse effects, especially DVT and HTN. Our results support the use of ROX for NDD-CKD patients with anemia. However, higher-quality RCTs are still needed to ensure its safety and risk of thrombosis.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE We aimed at comparing the efficacy of intravenous and oral iron supplementations for the treatment of iron deficiency (ID) in patients with heart failure (HF). METHODS We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases from inception to January 15, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials enrolling patients with HF who were treated for ID with intravenous iron supplements, oral iron supplements, or placebo. The primary outcomes were all-cause death, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization for heart failure. The secondary outcomes were evaluated through the six-minute walking test (6MWT) and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). RESULTS The network meta-analysis included sixteen studies. Compared to placebo/control groups, intravenous iron supplements did not decrease all-cause death (0.69, 0.39-1.23) or cardiovascular mortality (0.89, 0.66-1.20). After 12 weeks, a reduced hospitalization for heart failure was associated with the administration of intravenous iron supplementations (0.58, 0.34-0.97). The most significant improvements regarding 6MWT (44.44, 6.10-82.79) and KCCQ (5.96, 3.19-8.73) were observed with intravenous iron supplements. Oral iron supplements reduced hospitalization for heart failure (0.36, 0.14-0.96) and all-cause death (0.34, 0.12-0.95), but did not influence the 6MWT (29.74, -47.36 to 106.83) and KCCQ (0.10, -10.95 to 11.15). CONCLUSIONS Administering intravenous iron supplements for ID in patients with HF improves their exercise capacity and quality of life. In order to reduce hospitalizations for heart failure, the supplementation should be administered for more than 12 weeks. Although oral iron supplements did not improve exercise capacity and quality of life, they could reduce all-cause death and hospitalizations for heart failure.

Abstract

Introduction: Daprodustat, a novel hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl-hydroxylase inhibitor (HIF-PHI), its efficacy and safety remain unclear. Thus, we conducted this meta-analysis aiming at investigating its efficacy and safety on the treatment of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD)-related anemia. Methods: We systematically searched for relevant studies in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Clinical Trial Registries databases from inception until December 2021. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing daprodustat with recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO) in anemia patients with CKD with or without dialysis. Results: Seven studies including 7933 patients met the inclusion criteria. For both nondialysis-dependent (NDD-) CKD and dialysis-dependent (DD-) CKD patients, the pooled results showed that there was no significant difference in the changes in hemoglobin levels between the daprodustat and rhEPO groups (mean difference (MD) = -0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.38, 0.35, p = 0.95; MD = 0.15, 95% CI = -0.29, 0.60, p = 0.50; respectively). In addition, a significant increase in transferrin saturation (TSAT), total iron binding capacity (TIBC) and total iron was observed in daprodustat groups compared with rhEPO groups in DD-CKD patients (p < 0.05). As for safety, the overall frequency of adverse events was similar between the daprodustat and rhEPO groups in DD-CKD patients (relative risk (RR) = 0.99, 95%CI = 0.92, 1.06, p = 0.76), and the trial sequential analysis (TSA) confirmed this result. But for NDD-CKD patients, the incidence of adverse events in the daprodustat groups was significantly higher than that of rhEPO groups (RR = 1.04, 95%CI = 1.01,1.07, p = 0.02), while the TSA corrected this result. No trend of increasing incidence of serious adverse events was found in all daprodustat treated patients, but the TSA could not confirm this result. Conclusion: Although daprodustat was noninferior to rhEPO in correcting anemia in both NDD-CKD and DD-CKD patients, it seemed to have a better effect on optimizing iron metabolism in DD-CKD patients. Daprodustat may be a promising alternative for the treatment of anemia in patients with CKD. However, due to the lack of included studies, future researches are needed to further evaluate the therapeutic effect of daprodustat. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42021229636.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) revolutionized the management of anaemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD) when introduced in the late 1980s. A range of ESA types, preparations and administration modalities now exist, with newer agents requiring less frequent administration. Although systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been published in adults, no systematic review has been conducted investigating ESAs in children. METHODS The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement for the conduct of systematic reviews was used. All available literature on outcomes relating to ESAs in children with CKD was sought. A search of the MEDLINE, CINAHL and Embase databases was conducted by two independent reviewers. Inclusion criteria were published trials in English, children with chronic and end-stage kidney disease and use of any ESA studied against any outcome measure. An assessment of risk of bias was carried out in all included randomized trials using the criteria from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Two tables were used for data extraction for randomized and observational studies. Study type, participants, inclusion criteria, case characteristics, follow-up duration, ESA type and dosage, interventions and outcomes were extracted by one author. RESULTS Of 965 identified articles, 58 were included covering 54 cohorts. Six were randomized trials and 48 were observational studies. A total of 38 studies assessed the efficacy of recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO), 11 of darbepoetin alpha (DA) and 3 of continuous erythropoietin receptor activator (CERA), with 6 studies appraising secondary outcome measures exclusively. Recruitment to studies was a consistent challenge. The most common adverse effect was hypertension, although confounding effects often limited direct correlation. Two large cohort studies demonstrated a greater hazard of death independently associated with high ESA dose. Secondary outcome measures included quality of life measures, growth and nutrition, exercise capacity, injection site pain, cardiovascular function, intelligent quotient, evoked potentials and platelet function. CONCLUSIONS All ESA preparations and modes of administration were efficacious, with evidence of harm at higher doses. Evidence supports individualizing treatments, with strong consideration given to alternate treatments in patients who appear resistant to ESA therapy. Further research should focus on randomized trials comparing the efficacy of different preparations, treatment options in apparently ESA-resistant cohorts and clarification of meaningful secondary outcomes to consolidate patient-relevant indices.

Abstract

Fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF23) gene is found to be responsible for autosomal dominant hypophosphatemic rickets, and is highly expressed in chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease patients with iron deficiency anemia (IDA). We evaluated the efficacy of different iron treatments on FGF23 levels in dialysis-dependent and non-dialysis-dependent CKD patients with IDA. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of iron treatment versus placebo in CKD patients up to May 2020. We investigated the efficacy of iron treatment on the levels of FGF23 and C-terminal FGF23 (cFGF23) in CKD patients. We estimated weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the random-effects model. Nine studies with 11 arms were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, iron treatment showed a significant reduction in FGF23 levels compared to control group (WMD: - 60.56 pg/ml, 95% CI: - 92.17, - 28.95). Compared to placebo, subgroup analysis showed that oral iron therapy (WMD: - 6.98 pg/ml, 95% CI: - 10.66, - 3.31) was more effective than intravenous (IV) iron therapy (WMD: 4.90 pg/ml, 95% CI: - 12.03, 21.83) on FGF23 levels. There was no significant change in cFGF23 levels between iron treatment and control group (WMD: - 64.72 Ru/ml, 95% CI: - 147.69, 18.25). Subgroup analysis showed that oral iron therapy resulted in a significant reduction in cFGF23 levels compared to control group (WMD: - 150.48 RU/ml, 95% CI: - 151.31, - 149.65). In conclusion, iron treatment was associated with a significant decrease in FGF23 levels in CKD patients.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Anemia is a common complication in chronic kidney disease (CKD) with increased morbidity and mortality. Recently published RCTs were conducted to compare the effect of the new medication roxadustat (ROX) with erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) in dialysis-dependent CKD (DD-CKD) patients. Our article aimed to meta-analyze published RCTs to investigate the efficacy and safety of ROX for anemia in DD-CKD patients and update the effect of the new studies on overall analysis with subsequent impact on management. METHODS Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar) were searched systematically from inception to July 2021 by using this search term (Roxadustat OR ASP1517 OR FG4592 OR "FG-4592") AND (kidney OR renal) AND (Anemia). We only included randomized control trials (RCTs) that reported the primary outcome of change in hemoglobin (Hb) level and iron utilization parameters, including ferritin, serum iron, TSAT, TIBC, transferrin, and hepcidin. RESULTS Ten RCTs were finally included with 3031 patients in the ROX group and 2737 patients in the control group. ROX was associated with increase in Hb level (SMD: 0.2; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.39; P=0.03), TIBC (SMD: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.61, 0.98; P<0.00001), serum iron (SMD: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.36; P<0.00001), transferrin (SMD: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.81, 1.15; P<0.00001) and decrease in hepcidin (SMD: -15.53; 95% CI: -28.07, -3.00; P<0.02) when compared with control group. There was no difference between ROX and the control group regarding ferritin level and TSAT. Sensitivity analysis by removing the most recent studies, Chen et al. or Hou et al. did not show significant difference in regard to change in Hb level. There was no difference between both groups regarding the serious side effects. However, ROX showed higher TEAEs when compared to the control group (RR: 1.03; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.05; P=0.002). DISCUSSION Our updated meta-analysis concluded that ROX increased Hb level and improved iron utilization parameters in DD-CKD patients, but ROX was associated with higher TEAEs. Our results support the use of ROX for DD-CKD patients with anemia. However, higher-quality RCTs are still needed to confirm the results of our review.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Anemia is a common complication of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Treating renal anemia with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) or erythropoietin analogs is effective but has side effects. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of roxadustat in treating CKD-induced anemia. METHODS We searched publications online and conducted a meta-analysis and calculated relative risks with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs for continuous data. RESULTS Of 110 articles, nine were included that contained 12 data sets and 11 randomized control trials on roxadustat. In the non-dialysis-dependent (NDD) high-dose/low-dose subgroups, the change in hemoglobin (Hb) levels was significantly higher in the roxadustat group than in the placebo group (P<0.0001, P=0.001, respectively). The Hb response rate of the roxadustat is higher in the NDD subgroup than in the placebo group (P<0.00001, MD=6.92, 95% CI: 4.03, 11.89). However, in the dialysis-dependent subgroup, there was no significant difference in the change in Hb levels or the Hb response rate between the roxadustat and ESA groups. There was no change in the mortality in the roxadustat group compared to that in the placebo/ESA group. Hyperkalemia may be a side effect of roxadustat. CONCLUSIONS Roxadustat elevated the serum Hb levels in a manner similar to that observed for ESAs. Roxadustat raised the Hb levels more significantly than the placebo and showed a higher Hb response rate than the placebo group in NDD patients. Roxadustat is a safe and effective drug for anemia in CKD patients.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Inflammatory bowel disease affects approximately seven million people globally. Iron deficiency anaemia can occur as a common systemic manifestation, with a prevalence of up to 90%, which can significantly affect quality of life, both during periods of active disease or in remission. It is important that iron deficiency anaemia is treated effectively and not be assumed to be a normal finding of inflammatory bowel disease. The various routes of iron administration, doses and preparations present varying advantages and disadvantages, and a significant proportion of people experience adverse effects with current therapies. Currently, no consensus has been reached amongst physicians as to which treatment path is most beneficial. OBJECTIVES The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the interventions for the treatment of iron deficiency anaemia in people with inflammatory bowel disease. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases on 21st November 2019. We also contacted experts in the field and searched references of trials for any additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness and safety of iron administration interventions compared to other iron administration interventions or placebo in the treatment of iron deficiency anaemia in inflammatory bowel disease. We considered both adults and children, with studies reporting outcomes of clinical, endoscopic, histologic or surgical remission as defined by study authors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment of included studies. We expressed dichotomous and continuous outcomes as risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology. MAIN RESULTS We included 11 studies (1670 randomised participants) that met the inclusion criteria. The studies compared intravenous iron sucrose vs oral iron sulphate (2 studies); oral iron sulphate vs oral iron hydroxide polymaltose complex (1 study); oral iron fumarate vs intravenous iron sucrose (1 study); intravenous ferric carboxymaltose vs intravenous iron sucrose (1 study); erythropoietin injection + intravenous iron sucrose vs intravenous iron sucrose + injection placebo (1 study); oral ferric maltol vs oral placebo (1 study); oral ferric maltol vs intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (1 study); intravenous ferric carboxymaltose vs oral iron sulphate (1 study); intravenous iron isomaltoside vs oral iron sulphate (1 study); erythropoietin injection vs oral placebo (1 study). All studies compared participants with CD and UC together, as well as considering a range of disease activity states. The primary outcome of number of responders, when defined, was stated to be an increase in haemoglobin of 20 g/L in all but two studies in which an increase in 10g/L was used. In one study comparing intravenous ferric carboxymaltose and intravenous iron sucrose, moderate-certainty evidence was found that intravenous ferric carboxymaltose was probably superior to intravenous iron sucrose, although there were responders in both groups (150/244 versus 118/239, RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.46, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 9). In one study comparing oral ferric maltol to placebo, there was low-certainty evidence of superiority of the iron (36/64 versus 0/64, RR 73.00, 95% CI 4.58 to 1164.36). There were no other direct comparisons that found any difference in the primary outcomes, although certainty was low and very low for all outcomes, due to imprecision from sparse data and risk of bias varying between moderate and high risk. The reporting of secondary outcomes was inconsistent. The most common was the occurrence of serious adverse events or those requiring withdrawal of therapy. In no comparisons was there a difference seen between any of the intervention agents being studied, although the certainty was very low for all comparisons made, due to risk of bias and significant imprecision due to the low numbers of events. Time to remission, histological and biochemical outcomes were sparsely reported in the studies. None of the other secondary outcomes were reported in any of the studies. An analysis of all intravenous iron preparations to all oral iron preparations showed that intravenous administration may lead to more responders (368/554 versus 205/373, RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31, NNTB = 11, low-certainty due to risk of bias and inconsistency). Withdrawals due to adverse events may be greater in oral iron preparations vs intravenous (15/554 versus 31/373, RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.74, low-certainty due to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Intravenous ferric carboxymaltose probably leads to more people having resolution of IDA (iron deficiency anaemia) than intravenous iron sucrose. Oral ferric maltol may lead to more people having resolution of IDA than placebo. We are unable to draw conclusions on which of the other treatments is most effective in IDA with IBD (inflammatory bowel disease) due to low numbers of studies in each comparison area and clinical heterogeneity within the studies. Therefore, there are no other conclusions regarding the treatments that can be made and certainty of all findings are low or very low. Overall, intravenous iron delivery probably leads to greater response in patients compared with oral iron, with a NNTB (number needed to treat) of 11. Whilst no serious adverse events were specifically elicited with any of the treatments studied, the numbers of reported events were low and the certainty of these findings very low for all comparisons, so no conclusions can be drawn. There may be more withdrawals due to such events when oral is compared with intravenous iron delivery. Other outcomes were poorly reported and once again no conclusions can be made as to the impact of IDA on any of these outcomes. Given the widespread use of many of these treatments in practice and the only guideline that exists recommending the use of intravenous iron in favour of oral iron, research to investigate this key issue is clearly needed. Considering the current ongoing trials identified in this review, these are more focussed on the impact in specific patient groups (young people) or on other symptoms (such as fatigue). Therefore, there is a need for studies to be performed to fill this evidence gap.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Anemia is a common complication for patients with kidney disease. Roxadustat is an oral hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) prolyl hydroxylase inhibitor (PHI), which is a newly approved oral drug for anemia. We performed this study to build evidence regarding efficacy and safety of roxadustat in kidney disease patients with or without dialysis. METHODS We searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library and clinicaltrials.gov from the inception to July 20, 2020. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared roxadustat with placebo or other therapies in the treatment of anemia in kidney disease patients were included. Data were extracted from eligible studies and pooled in a meta-analysis model using RevMan5.3 and stata13.0 software. RESULTS Eight RCTs with 1010 patients were included in our analysis. We found that roxadustat significantly increased hemoglobin (Hb) level (1.10 g/dL, 95% CI [0.52 g/dL, 1.67 g/dL], p = 0.0002), total iron-binding capacity (TIBC) (58.71 µg/dL, 95% CI [44.10 µg/dL, 73.32 µg/dL], p < 0.00001), iron level (9.28 µg/dL, 95% CI [0.11 µg/dL, 18.45 µg/dL], p = 0.05) compared with control group in kidney disease patients. In addition, our result showed that a significant reduction in hepcidin level (- 31.96 ng/mL, 95% CI [- 35.05 ng/mL, - 28.87 ng/mL], p < 0.00001), ferritin (- 44.82 ng/mL, 95% CI [- 64.42 ng/mL, - 25.23 ng/mL], p < 0.00001) was associated with roxadustat. No difference was found between roxadustat and control group in terms of oral iron supplementation, adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), infection, myocardial infraction, stroke, heart failure and death. CONCLUSIONS Roxadustat has higher mean Hb level than placebo or EPO. Due to the short follow-up period and the lack of critical data, more RCTs are needed to prove long-term safety and effectiveness of roxadustat in the future.