Should intravenous iron be upfront therapy for iron deficiency anemia?
M. Auerbach
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pbc.22981
2011-04-01
Pediatric Blood & Cancer
Abstract:T he first intravenous (IV) irons were associated with severe acute reactions, and were unsuitable for use. With the development of iron dextran, IV iron could be given more easily, but infrequent severe acute reactions still occurred. In 1964, Marchasin and Wallerstein published results of administration of 1,000–3,000 mg of the high molecular weight iron dextran (HMW ID) Imferon (Fisons, UK), which is no longer available, to 37 patients, with one delayed reaction consisting of fever and chills without hypotension or wheezing [1]. Yet, 16 years passed before the first prospective study was published on IV iron use in 471 patients, again with Imferon, by Hamstra et al. [2]. While all patients responded, three developed signs of anaphylaxis, including respiratory arrest and hypotension. There were no deaths. The authors concluded IV iron should be reserved for those extreme clinical situations when oral iron could not be used. Significant danger with the administration of IV iron continued to be perceived, and, to a lesser degree, persists today. Imferon remained on the pharmacopoeia as a minor product, to be used only when oral iron was inadequate or poorly tolerated. However, in 1989, the erythropoiesis stimulating agent (ESA), recombinant human erythropoietin (EPO), became available for use in dialysis patients establishing a need for IV iron. Immediate improvements in hematopoietic responses, decreased ESA dosing to target hemoglobins, with subsequent cost savings and improvements in quality of life variables were appreciated. Nonetheless, rare serious adverse events occurred. In 1991, the then only available formulation, Imferon, was removed from market. Serendipitously, at the same time, low molecular weight (LMW) ID, INFeD (Schein, now Watson, NJ), and then another HMW ID, Dexferrum (American Regent, NY), in 1996, were released for clinical use. In 1999 and 2000 two iron salts, ferric gluconate (Ferrlecit, Schein, then Watson, now Sanofi-Aventis, Paris) and iron sucrose (Venofer, American Regent), the most widely used product in the world today, were approved, rapidly replacing iron dextran in most dialysis centers, ostensibly because of perceived increased safety. However, in 2004 and 2006, Chertow et al. [3][4] published analyses on over 30 million doses of IV iron and reported that the overwhelming majority of serious adverse events were associated with the HMW formulations. Nonetheless, the perception of improved safety of the iron salts over iron dextran persisted and without any prospective or comparative data, claims of lower adverse event rates with their use abounded. All IV iron products continue to bear the stigma of risk with use despite data in hundreds of thousands of patients, across a broad group of diagnoses associated with iron deficiency, supporting safety and efficacy. Data on the use of IV iron in pediatrics is scarce. In this issue of Pediatric Blood & Cancer, Crary et al., in a retrospective review of 37 children with iron deficiency anemia refractory to oral iron, effectively show the ease of administration and effectiveness of IV iron sucrose to correct the anemia. At least 20 of these children had gastrointestinal toxicity. In patients with GI disorders, oral iron frequently causes severe side effects, is poorly absorbed and often ineffective. In patients with inflammatory bowel disease whereas oral iron worsens bowel symptoms, IV iron has been shown to be an effective and a much less toxic alternative [5]. In their review the authors site only one clinically significant reaction in a child who received 500 mg of iron sucrose in a single infusion, a method of administration that the author’s appropriately reference, had been proscribed (Chandler and MacDougall) [6]. Intravenous iron has been shown to be a safe and effective adjunct to ESAs in chemotherapy induced anemia, to markedly reduce postoperative transfusions when administered preoperatively to anemic patients undergoing elective surgery, to improve anemia in patients who underwent bariatric surgery, to be more effective and less toxic than oral iron in patients with iron deficiency and obstetrics and gynecology disorders and to correct anemia in patients with chronic bleeding where the iron loss is greater than oral iron can supply or in those who are intolerant of it. Recently IV iron has even been shown to correct the symptoms of patients with restless legs syndrome in both iron deficient and iron replete individuals [7]. For those who prefer a full replacement dose in a single setting, LMW ID, can be given with equal safety and efficacy as a total dose infusion in 1–4 hr. While no prospective, comparative safety data on the two iron dextrans has ever been published, as appropriately pointed out by the authors, it appears prudent to use HMW ID with caution. The only data on long term toxicities with IV iron use are in dialysis patients. However, during two decades of standard use in the dialysis population, numerous analyses have identified no long term morbidity [8][9] or increased incidence of infections [10]. There are no contradictory published data. This well done and well referenced review of intravenous iron therapy administered on a University Pediatric Service, reiterates the near ubiquitous safety of IV iron, when used appropriately, in published trials across a wide range of diagnoses associated with iron deficiency. As an adult hematologist, I have had the privilege of interacting with a large number of primary care and pediatric