Blog — NephJC

The IV versus PO iron conundrum for Tuesday and Wednesday

Joel said he would write the summary. Suzanne said she would write the summary and in the end wires got crossed and they both wrote the summary. Sigh. We are ardent conservationists and strongly believe that no part of the buffalo should go to waste so here is Dr. Norby's summary of this week's NephJC article:

A randomized trial of intravenous and oral iron in chronic kidney disease

Rajiv Agarwal, John W Kusek, and Maria K Pappas

Kidney International advance online publication 17 June 2015

doi: 10.1038/ki.2015.163

BACKGROUND

Anemia is common in patient with stages 3-5 chronic kidney disease (CKD) due to decreased erythropoietin production as well as iron deficiency, including the functional iron deficiency that can develop while using erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA).

The KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline for Anemia in CKD recommends (grade 2C) the use of IV iron in adult patients with CKD note yet on dialysis if 1) an increase in hemoglobin level is desired to avoid or minimize blood transfusions and ESA use and/or to alleviate symptoms potentially related to anemia and 2) TSAT is ≤30% and ferritin is ≤500 ng/ml. The Guideline also states that a 1-3 month trial of oral iron may be considered for patients not yet on dialysis.

Safety and risks of IV iron use in the non-dialysis CKD population are not fully understood although an author of the current study, Agarwal, along with other colleagues previously demonstrated that IV iron use can lead to increased oxidative stress, endothelial damage, and even renal injury.

The hypothesis of the current study, REVOKE (randomized trial to evaluate intravenous and oral iron in chronic kidney disease), was that IV iron would result in greater decrease in kidney function compared with oral iron in iron-deficient patients with moderate to severe CKD not yet on dialysis.

METHODS

Design: open-label, parallel-group, active-control, single-center randomized trial

Setting: A safety-net hospital and a VA Hospital, both in Indianapolis, IN; August 2008 – November 2014.

Inclusion criteria:

  • ≥18 years old
  • eGFR 21-60 ml/min/1.73 m2, not on dialysis
  • Hemoglobin <12 g/dl
  • Serum ferritin <100 ng/ml or serum transferring saturation <25%

Exclusion criteria:

  • Pregnant or breast feeding females
  • Known hypersensitivity to any intravenous iron, iothalamate meglumine (Conray 60, Malinckrodt) or iodine
  • Severe anemia that required imminent red blood cell (RBC) transfusion (Hgb <8 g/dL) or the potential need for imminent RBC transfusion (e.g., active bleeding) 
  • Persons with acute kidney injury
  • History of intravenous iron use within the month prior to screening
  • Iron overload (serum ferritin >800 ng/nl or transferrin saturation >50%)
  • Anemia not caused by iron deficiency (e.g., sickle cell anemia)
  • History of surgery or systemic or urinary tract infection within the past month
  • Organ transplant recipients
  • Persons currently being treated with immunosuppressive agents

Randomization and Blinding: 1:1 ratio, using computer generated permuted blocks, randomized to either oral iron or IV iron using concealed opaque envelopes

Primary outcome: 

  • Difference between treatment groups in slope of mGFR decline from baseline to 2 years adjusted for the log of baseline urinary protein/creatinine ratio compared with baseline at 8 weeks, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months after randomization.  

Secondary outcomes:

  • further adjustment of the primary outcome for age, sex, race (Black vs. non-Black), angiotensin-converting enzyme/angiotensin receptor blocker use, and the presence or absence of cardiovascular disease (all determined at baseline)
  • between-group % change in proteinuria from baseline to 8 weeks
  • difference between hemoglobin response between treatment groups
  • change in KDQOL

Statistical analysis:

  • Intention-to-treat, if the participant received at least one dose of study medication
  • Linear mixed model with GFR as outcome variable
  • Assumptions: mean rate of decline in GFR of 4 ml/min per 1.73 m2 per year in the oral iron group and a 50% greater decline in the IV iron group and a cumulative rate of dropout of 25%
  • Recruitment target of 100 patients for each treatment group with a minimum duration of follow-up of 2 years to achieve 82% power to detect hypothesized difference in decline in kidney function at the 5% level of significance
  • 2-sided t-test considered significant for p<0.05

INTERVENTION

Participants were treated over 8 weeks beginning at the time of randomization. Those randomized to the IV iron group received iron sucrose 200 mg IV over 2 h at weeks 0, 2, 4, 6, and 8. Participants randomized to oral iron were counseled to take ferrous sulfate 325 mg three times daily for 8 weeks.

RESULTS

Trial was terminated early due to higher serious adverse event rate in IV iron group (199 per 100 patient years) compared with oral iron group (168.4 per 100 patient years); adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.60 (1.28–2.00), P<0.0001.  Statistically significant increases in infections and cardiovascular events were observed. In particular, the incidence of lung and skin infections was increased 3-4x and of hospitalization for heart failure was increased 2x in the IV iron group after adjusting for the more favorable baseline characteristics in that group.

Decrease in mGFR between groups was similar between both groups, -3.6 ml/min per 1.73 m2 per year for oral iron group and -4 ml/min per 1.73 m2 per year for IV iron group. 

Hemoglobin increase, change in proteinuria over time, ESA use, and need for blood transfusions were not significantly different in the 2 groups. KDQOL domain scores did not change over time in either group.

DISCUSSION

Since this study was limited to patients with stage 3-4 CKD not yet on dialysis, results cannot be generalized to patients already on dialysis. 

The primary outcome of comparing decline in mGFR between groups could not be evaluated due to early termination of the study due to safety concerns related to increased risk of infection and cardiovascular events.  While additional studies evaluating the long-term safety of IV iron use in this population are necessary, should the oral route be preferred when initiating iron supplementation in patients with stage 3-4 CKD?  Moreover, based on the time course of hemoglobin increase in patients in the oral iron group of this study, it would seem reasonable that a trial of oral iron be given to patients with CKD not yet on dialysis for a full 3 months, rather than at least 1 month and up to 3 months as suggested in the KDOQI guidelines.

The #nephJC #RIPC stats and @storify

Both the chats were quite stimulating, we saw quite a number of new voices (whom we hope to see again!)

Hector did a great job, again, of storify-ing. Thanks again to Preeti Malani, Ed Livingston and the rest of the JAMA staff for their support. Look forward to the #JAMbag next time!


The winners of the #JAMAcup

At every #NephJC chat I find myself delighted with the bits of Twitter wisdom that get funneled through the hashtag. We are going to try to do a better job of rewarding the best of these. Some of these awards will even have prizes. This week we are delighted to announce winners of a great looking JAMA coffee mug, named the JAMAcup in this pre-chat banter:

The winner of the #JAMAcup for the Tuesday night chat is Azra Bihorac (@AzraBihorac) who wrote this gem: 

We would also like to give honorable mention (but no mug) to Mike Walsh (@lastwalsh) who was the first to alert us to the negative results for RIPC in other large trials:

The Wednesday chat was great and picking a winner was difficult but we selected this dejavu all over again tweet by Graham Abra (@GrahamAbra):

Honorable mention to Michael Hultström (@mhulstrom) for this:

 

A hearty thanks to JAMA. We love working with them and appreciate their support of post-publication peer review.

#NephJC does #RIPC Tues Aug 11 and Wed Aug 12. And thanks to @jama_current

RIPC = Remote Ischemic PreConditioning

We hope to see many of you in one of these chats. Thanks again to Preeti Malani, and the folks at JAMA for supporting us - both with providing a toll-free access to the article (at this link), and for providing some prizes - cool JAMA swag! 

So for discussion, the topics will be

  • T0: Do you use a risk score to stratify patients pre-op for risk of AKI? The authors in this study used the Cleveland Clinic risk score, but there are others. If you use a risk score, which one do you use?
  • T1: Do you agree with the inclusion exclusion criteria? especially GFR < 30 as an exclusion? How about the particulars of doing the RIPC? 50 mm Hg > systolic or 200 mm Hg, whichever is lower for 5 minutes X 3. Is the sham acceptable? Lack of blinding the investigators an issue?
  • T2: Dive into the results. What do people make of the difference in secondary outcomes (less effect in mild AKI?). The biomarker outcomes are also intriguing, do you agree with the interpretation?
  • T3: What happens now? The authors think of this as a phase-2 study. What outcomes would you like to see in the next study? Intervention is simple and cheap - or is it? 

Cleveland Clinic Foundation score? What's up with that?

This week's NephJC is discussing JAMA's provocative paper on reversible ischemic preconditioning. The methods used The Cleveland Clinic Foundation ARF score to enroll high risk patients:

I had heard of this but was not facile with it. Some quick googling pulled up this Paganini paper about the derivation and validation of the score:

Here is the score they used to predict the risk of dialysis requiring acute renal failure after cardiac surgery:

Look at the score from a creatinine of just 2.1 mg/dl!

Here is the risk from the scores:

Those confidence intervals for scores above 9 are scary wide, but it looks pretty reliable below there.

This Cleveland Clinic Foundation Score was at the center of an interesting Twitter interaction last week. 

Here is the table in question with the strange Cleveland Clinic Score highlighted:

Ross got a quick response from the editors of JAMA. Color me impressed: