1.
Intravenous Iron Supplementation for the Treatment of Chemotherapy-Induced Anemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Buchrits S, Itzhaki O, Avni T, Raanani P, Gafter-Gvili A
Journal of clinical medicine. 2022;11(14)
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND The pathophysiology of cancer-related anemia is multifactorial, including that of chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). The guidelines are not consistent in their approach to the use of intravenous (IV) iron in patients with cancer as part of the clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS All randomized controlled trials that compared IV iron with either no iron or iron taken orally for the treatment of CIA were included. We excluded trials if erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) were used. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients requiring a red blood cell (RBC) transfusion during the study period. The secondary outcomes included the hematopoietic response (an increase in the Hb level by more than 1 g/dL or an increase above 11 g/dL), the iron parameters and adverse events. For the dichotomous data, risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (Cis) were estimated and pooled. For the continuous data, the mean differences were calculated. A fixed effect model was used, except in the event of significant heterogeneity between the trials (p < 0.10; I(2) > 40%), in which we used a random effects model. RESULTS A total of 8 trials published between January 1990 and July 2021 that randomized 1015 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these, 553 patients were randomized to IV iron and were compared with 271 patients randomized to oral iron and 191 to no iron. IV iron decreased the percentage of patients requiring a blood transfusion compared with oral iron (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.55-0.95) with a number needed to treat of 20 (95% CI 11-100). IV iron increased the hematopoietic response (RR 1.23; 95% CI 1.01-1.5). There was no difference with respect to the risk of adverse events (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.88-1.07; 8 trials) or severe adverse events (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.76-1.57; 8 trials). CONCLUSIONS IV iron resulted in a decrease in the need for RBC transfusions, with no difference in adverse events in patients with CIA. IV iron for the treatment of CIA should be considered in clinical practice.
PICO Summary
Population
People with chemotherapy induced anaemia enrolled in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and identified by systematic review (n= 1,015, 8 RCTs).
Intervention
Intravenous [IV] iron (n= 553).
Comparison
Oral iron (n= 271), or no iron (n= 191).
Outcome
IV iron decreased the percentage of patients requiring a blood transfusion compared with oral iron (Risk ratio [RR] 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.95) with a number needed to treat of 20 (95% CI 11-100). IV iron increased the hematopoietic response (RR 1.23; 95% CI 1.01-1.5). There was no difference with respect to the risk of adverse events (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.88-1.07; 8 trials) or severe adverse events (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.76-1.57; 8 trials).
2.
Iron supplementation for restless legs syndrome - A systematic review and meta-analysis
Avni T, Reich S, Lev N, Gafter-Gvili A
European journal of internal medicine. 2019
Abstract
BACKGROUND Iron supplementation, is recommended for the treatment of restless legs syndrome (RLS). We gathered evidence for the efficacy and safety of iron supplementation for RLS. METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared iron supplementation versus no iron for patients with RLS was performed. Multiple databases were searched. The primary outcome was the effect of iron on the International Restless Legs Syndrome score (IRLSS) at 4weeks after treatment. For dichotomous data, risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and pooled. For continuous data, weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated. RESULTS Ten trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Iron therapy was associated with a significant decrease of the IRLSS of -3.55 [95% CI (-5.41) - (-1.68)] points and an increase in the percentage of patients with improvement of the IRLSS score, RR of 2.16 [95% CI 1.56-2.98]. IV FCM was associated with improvement in both the IRLSS (WMD of -2.79 (95% CI (-4.62) - (-0.96), 4 trials, I(2)=0%) and on the RLS-QOL by WMD of 8.67 (95% CI 1.68-15). Iron was associated with an increased rate of adverse events RR 2.04 (95% CI 1.46-2.85), which were not severe and not associated with increased rate of treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSION Iron supplementation is associated with improvement of the IRLSS score. Our meta-analysis supports the use of iron, oral or IV, as effective therapy for patients with RLS. Further studies should assess subgroups of patients most likely to benefit from iron supplementation.
3.
Intravenous versus oral iron supplementation for the treatment of anemia in CKD: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
Shepshelovich D, Rozen-Zvi B, Avni T, Gafter U, Gafter-Gvili A
American Journal of Kidney Diseases : the Official Journal of the National Kidney Foundation. 2016;68((5):):677-690
Abstract
BACKGROUND Iron supplementation is crucial for the treatment of anemia of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Although intravenous (IV) iron is preferred for patients with CKD receiving dialysis (CKD stage 5D), the method of iron replacement for patients with CKD stages 3 to 5 is controversial. STUDY DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis. A search was performed until October 2015 of MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, conference proceedings in nephrology, and reference lists of included trials. SETTING & POPULATION Patients with CKD stages 3 to 5 or 5D. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES All randomized controlled trials, regardless of publication status or language. INTERVENTION IV versus oral iron supplementation. OUTCOMES The primary outcome was defined as percentage of patients reaching an elevation in hemoglobin (Hb) concentration > 1g/dL. Secondary end points included percentage of patients who reached Hb levels > 11g/dL, absolute Hb concentration, change in Hb concentration, transferrin saturation, ferritin levels, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and blood transfusion requirement, and quality of life. Safety analysis included all-cause mortality and serious and all adverse events. RESULTS 24 trials were identified, 13 including 2,369 patients with CKD stages 3 to 5 and 11 including 818 patients with CKD stage 5D. Patients treated with IV iron were more likely to reach an Hb response > 1g/dL (risk ratios [RRs] of 1.61 [95% CI, 1.39-1.87] for CKD stages 3-5 and 2.14 [95% CI, 1.68-2.72] for CKD stage 5D). Safety analysis showed similar rates of mortality and serious and any adverse effects. IV iron replacement was associated with higher risk for hypotension (RR, 3.71; 95% CI, 1.74-7.94) and fewer gastrointestinal adverse events (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.28-0.67). LIMITATIONS Significant heterogeneity between trials; follow-up was usually limited to 3 months. CONCLUSIONS Our results agree with current recommendations for IV iron replacement for patients with CKD stage 5D and support increased use of IV iron for patients with CKD stages 3 to 5.
4.
The safety of intravenous iron preparations: systematic review and meta-analysis
Avni T, Amir B, Alon G, Hefziba G, Leonard L, Anat GG
Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2015;90((1):):12-23.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To amass all available evidence regarding the safety of intravenous (IV) iron preparations to provide a true balance of efficacy and safety. METHODS Systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized clinical trials comparing IV iron to another comparator. All electronic databases until January 1, 2014, were reviewed. Primary outcome was occurrence of severe adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and other adverse events (AEs). Subgroup analysis was performed on the basis of type of IV iron, comparator, treated condition, and system involved. RESULTS A total of 103 trials published between 1965 through 2013 were included. A total of 10,390 patients were treated with IV iron compared with 4044 patients treated with oral iron, 1329 with no iron, 3335 with placebo, and 155 with intramuscular iron. There was no increased risk of SAEs with IV iron (relative risk [RR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.93-1.17; I(2)=9%). Subgroup analysis revealed a decreased rate of SAEs when IV iron was used to treat heart failure (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.29-0.70; I(2)=0%). Severe infusion reactions were more common with IV iron (RR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.43-4.28; I(2)=0%). There was no increased risk of infections with IV iron. Gastrointestinal AEs were reduced with IV iron. CONCLUSION Intravenous iron therapy is not associated with an increased risk of SAEs or infections. Infusion reactions are more pronounced with IV iron.Copyright 2015 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.