Dose-dependent effect of parenteral iron therapy on bleomycin-detectable iron in immune apheresis patients

Dose-dependent effect of parenteral iron therapy on bleomycin-detectable iron in immune apheresis patients.BackgroundIron deficiency and anemia are commonly encountered in patients with autoimmune diseases undergoing immune apheresis. This makes erythropoietin and iron substitution necessary in most patients. However, intravenous iron therapy may result in an increase of potentially toxic nontransferrin-bound iron.MethodsWe examined the effect of 50 mg or 100 mg of iron (III) sucrose on bleomycin-detectable iron (BDI) in immune apheresis patients. Six patients with autoimmune disorders and normal kidney function were enrolled. Before and after the injection of 50 mg or 100 mg of iron (III) sucrose, BDI was measured in serum samples at five different time points.ResultsThere was no BDI traceable before injection of iron (III) sucrose. BDI was present in serum of all patients after the administration of 100 mg of iron (III) sucrose in concentrations up to 0.49 μmol/L. In contrast, only one patient showed BDI at a concentration of 0.16 μmol/L after the administration of 50 mg of iron (III) sucrose.ConclusionWe conclude that if parenteral iron is administered after apheresis treatment, despite the equal tolerability, use of 50 mg of iron (III) sucrose is superior to 100 mg of iron (III) sucrose in avoiding the formation of potentially toxic nontransferrin-bound iron

A randomized trial of iron isomaltoside 1000 versus oral iron in non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease patients with anaemia

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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

Prevalence of Atrial Fibrillation and Antithrombotic Therapy in Hemodialysis Patients: Cross-Sectional Results of the Vienna InVestigation of AtriaL Fibrillation and Thromboembolism in Patients on HemoDIalysis (VIVALDI)

Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) adds significant risk of stroke and thromboembolism in patients on hemodialysis (HD). The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of AF in a population-based cohort of HD patients and practice patterns of antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention in AF. Methods The Vienna InVestigation of AtriaL fibrillation and thromboembolism in patients on hemodialysis (VIVALDI), an ongoing prospective observational cohort study, investigates the prevalence of AF and the risk of thromboembolic events in HD patients in Vienna, Austria. We analyzed cross-sectional data of 626 patients (63.4% men, median age 66 years, approx. 73% of HD patients in Vienna), who provided informed consent. A structured interview with each patient was performed, recent and archived ECGs were viewed and medical histories were verified with electronic records. Results The overall prevalence of AF was 26.5% (166 patients, 71.1% men, median age 72 years) of which 57.8% had paroxysmal AF, 3.0% persistent AF, 32.5% permanent AF, and 6.6% of patients had newly diagnosed AF. The median CHA2DS2-VASc Score was 4 [25th-75th percentile 35]. In multivariable analysis, AF was independently associated with age (odds ratio: 1.05 per year increase, 95% confidence interval: 1.031.07), male sex (1.7, 1.12.6), history of venous thromboembolism (2.0, 1.13.6), congestive heart failure (1.7, 1.12.5), history of or active cancer (1.5, 1.02.4) and time on HD (1.08 per year on HD, 1.031.13). Antithrombotic treatment was applied in 84.4% of AF patients (anticoagulant agents in 29.5%, antiplatelet agents in 33.7%, and both in 21.1%). In AF patients, vitamin-K-antagonists were used more often than low-molecular-weight heparins (30.1% and 19.9%). Conclusions The prevalence of AF is high amongst HD patients and is associated with age, sex, and distinct comorbidities. Practice patterns of antithrombotic treatment indicate a lack of consensus for stroke prevention in HD patients with AF.(VLID)486840

Factors associated with prevalence of atrial fibrillation Model 1 (N = 626).

<p>Factors associated with prevalence of atrial fibrillation Model 1 (N = 626).</p

Prevalence of atrial fibrillation in patients with increasing age and time on hemodialysis.

<p>Prevalence of atrial fibrillation in patients with increasing age and time on hemodialysis.</p