Adverse Reactions After Intravenous Iron Infusion Among Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients in the United States, 2010-2014

Ulcerative colitis and thrombocytosis: Case report and literature review

RATIONALE

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is an autoimmune disease of unknown etiology, sometimes associated with anemia and thrombocytosis. Platelets (PLTs) play a role in amplifying inflammatory and immune responses in chronic inflammation. This study discusses the diagnosis and treatment of a case of UC combined with secondary thrombocytosis and reviews the relevant literature. We report an interaction between thrombocytosis and UC to raise clinicians' awareness of this condition.

PATIENT CONCERNS

In the current report, we discuss the case of a 30-year-old female patient who presented with frequent diarrhea and thrombocytosis.

DIAGNOSIS

Severe UC combined with intestinal infection was diagnosed based on colonoscopy and intestinal biopsy. The patient had a PLT count >450 × 109/L and was diagnosed with reactive thrombocytosis.

INTERVENTIONS AND OUTCOMES

The patient was discharged from the hospital in remission after receiving vedolizumab and anticoagulant treatment.

LESSONS

In patients with severe UC with thrombocytosis, clinicians should pay attention to PLTs promoting inflammatory progression, as well as screening for venous thromboembolism risk and prophylactic anti-venous thromboembolism therapy at the time of dosing to avoid adverse effects.

Same Day Infusion of Iron Therapy Is Associated With No Increased Risk for Adverse Events Among Patients Receiving Biological Infusions for Inflammatory Bowel Disease

GOALS

The goal of this study was to compare the relative safety of administering iron infusions on the same day as intravenous (IV) biological therapy to the administration of these treatments on different days in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

BACKGROUND

IV iron therapy is often required in patients with IBD. Many patients with IBD who receive IV iron therapy in the outpatient setting also receive biological infusion therapy for treatment of their IBD.

STUDY

Patients with IBD who received IV iron therapy at a single infusion center were included. We compared documented infusion-related reactions in patients with patients receiving an iron infusion on the same day as their biological infusion to those who received their iron infusion on a different day.

RESULTS

Among 481 patients, 129 received an iron infusion on the same day as a biologic infusion. There was no significant difference in the incidence of infusion reaction when comparing patients who received biological infusion therapy in the same session as the iron infusion to those patients who received a biological infusion on a different day (5% vs. 7%, P =0.246) or any IBD-related therapy (5% vs. 8%, P =0.206).

CONCLUSIONS

The frequency and type of infusion reactions in patients receiving IV iron therapy on the same day after IV therapy with biologics was not increased compared with patients who received a biological infusion on a different day. A sequential infusion of biological therapy followed by IV iron therapy may be a safe and cost-effective approach.

Analysis of Adverse Events and Intravenous Iron Infusion Formulations in Adults With and Without Prior Infusion Reactions

IMPORTANCE

Although iron deficiency is common, it remains unclear which iron repletion strategy is associated with the lowest rate of infusion-related adverse events, and how patients with history of infusion reaction should be managed.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate rates of infusion reactions among 4 commonly used intravenous iron repletion strategies and determine how readministration was managed in patients with history of reaction.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study included all patients receiving intravenous iron infusion from January 1, 2015, to September 7, 2021, at 6 centers in Portland, Oregon. Participants included a total of 12 237 patients with iron deficiency, not restricted by etiology. Statistical analysis was performed from September to October 2021.

EXPOSURES

Type of intravenous iron formulation and concurrent administration of diphenhydramine, epinephrine, famotidine, and/or hydrocortisone, used as surrogate maker of infusion reaction.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Incidence of adverse events, including severe events requiring epinephrine, stratified by type of iron formulation, and in patients who received premedication or with history of infusion-related reaction receiving subsequent doses.

RESULTS

Among 35 737 unique iron infusions (12 237 patients [9480 (77.5%) women; 717 (5.9%) Black; 10 250 (83.7%) White; mean (SD) age of 51 (20) years]), comprising 22 309 iron sucrose doses, 9067 iron dextran total doses (1771 preceded by test dose, 56 test doses alone), 3147 ferumoxytol doses, and 1214 ferric carboxymaltose doses, incidence of adverse events was 3.9% (n = 1389; 95% CI, 3.7%-4.1%). Rate of infusion events differed among iron formulations: 4.3% (n = 970; 95% CI, 4.1%-4.6%) iron sucrose, 3.8% (n = 345, 95% CI: 3.4%-4.2%) iron dextran (test and full doses or test dose alone), 1.8% (n = 57; 95% CI, 1.4%-2.3%) ferumoxytol, and 1.4% (n = 17, 95% CI, 0.8%-2.3%) ferric carboxymaltose (P < .001). Severe adverse events were exceedingly rare with only 2 documented epinephrine administrations, both associated with iron dextran. Incidence of adverse events among those who received premedication was 23-fold higher compared with those who did not (38.6% vs 1.7%, χ21 = 7324.8; P < .001). Among 873 patients with history of infusion reaction who underwent readministration, the majority received the same formulation, which was associated with significantly higher reaction rate particularly if premedication was administered (68% [95% CI, 64%-72%] vs 32% [95% CI, 26%-41%], respectively), compared with those who received an alternate formulation (21% [95% CI, 11%-35%] vs 5% [95% CI, 2%-12%], respectively) (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These data, and the preponderance of published evidence, suggest that intravenous iron is generally well tolerated with exceedingly low risk of severe reaction, use of premedication and test doses are unnecessary, and that optimal prevention and management of infusion-related reactions warrant further study.

Interventions for treating iron deficiency anaemia in inflammatory bowel disease

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.

Anemia in Children With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Position Paper by the IBD Committee of the North American Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition

Anemia is one of the most common extraintestinal manifestations of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). It can be asymptomatic or associated with nonspecific symptoms, such as irritability, headaches, fatigue, dizziness, and anorexia. In IBD patients, the etiology of anemia is often multifactorial. Various causes include iron deficiency, anemia of inflammation and chronic disease, vitamin deficiencies, hemolysis, or myelosuppressive effect of drugs. Anemia and iron deficiency in these patients may be underestimated because of their insidious onset, lack of standardized screening practices, and possibly underappreciation that treatment of anemia is also required when treating IBD. Practitioners may hesitate to use oral preparations because of their intolerance whereas intravenous preparations are underutilized because of fear of adverse events, availability, and cost. Several publications in recent years have documented the safety and comparative efficacy of various intravenous preparations. This article reviews management of anemia in children with IBD, including diagnosis, etiopathogenesis, evaluation of a patient, protocol to screen and monitor patients for early detection and response to therapy, treatment including parenteral iron therapy, and newer approaches in management of anemia of chronic disease. This report has been compiled by a group of pediatric gastroenterologists serving on the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN) IBD committee, in collaboration with a pediatric hematologist, pharmacist, and a registered dietician who specializes in pediatric IBD (IBD Anemia Working Group), after an extensive review of the current literature. The purpose of this review is to raise awareness of under-diagnosis of anemia in children with IBD and make recommendations for screening, testing, and treatment in this population.

Mechanisms of nanoparticle radiosensitization

Metal-based nanoparticles applied to potentiating the effects of radiotherapy have drawn significant attention from the research community and are now available clinically. By improving our mechanistic understanding, nanoparticles are likely to evolve to provide very significant improvements in radiotherapy outcomes with only incremental increase in cost. This review critically assesses the inconsistent observations surrounding physical, physicochemical, chemical and biological mechanisms of radiosensitization. In doing so, a number of needs are identified for continuing research and are highlighted. The large degree of variability from one nanoparticle to another emphasizes that it is a mistake to generalize nanoparticle radiosensitizer mechanisms. Nanoparticle formulations should be considered in an analogous way as pharmacological agents and as a broad class of therapeutic agents, needing to be considered with a high degree of individuality with respect to their interactions and ultimate impact on radiobiological response. In the same way that no universal anti-cancer drug exists, it is unlikely that a single nanoparticle formulation will lead to the best therapeutic outcomes for all cancers. The high degree of complexity and variability in mechanistic action provides notable opportunities for nanoparticle formulations to be optimized for specific indications. This article is categorized under: Therapeutic Approaches and Drug Discovery > Emerging Technologies Nanotechnology Approaches to Biology > Nanoscale Systems in Biology.

Management of Iron Deficiency Anaemia in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a group of chronic relapsing inflammatory disorders affecting the large and small intestine, with a rising worldwide incidence and prevalence. Anaemia is the most common extraintestinal manifestation of IBD, correlating with disease activity, and tending to relapse even after successful therapy. Iron deficiency is the most common cause; however, it often manifests in combination with anaemia of inflammation. As such, multiple parameters are used for the diagnosis of iron deficiency anaemia in IBD. Timely recognition and selection of appropriate therapy leads to an improvement in the quality of life and prevention of potential sequelae. Oral iron can be effective under specific circumstances; however, as luminal iron changes microbiota and bacterial metabolism, oral administration should be avoided. Intravenous iron is preferred as it bypasses the sites of inflammation. Nevertheless, the optimization of IBD treatment should occur simultaneously, as this improves both patient condition and response to iron therapy. Herein, we discuss the screening, diagnosis, selection of therapy, and follow-up for iron deficiency anaemia in IBD.

Macrophage functionality and homeostasis in response to oligoethyleneglycol-coated IONPs: Impact of a dendritic architecture

The engineering of iron oxide nanoparticles (IONPs) for biomedical use has received great interest over the past decade. In the present study we investigated the biocompatibility of IONPs grafted with linear (2P) or generation 1 (2PG1) or 2 (2PG2) dendronized oligoethyleneglycol units in THP-1-derived macrophages. To evaluate IONP effects on cell functionality and homeostasis, mitochondrial function (MTT assay), membrane permeability (LDH release), inflammation (IL-8), oxidative stress (reduced glutathione, GSH), NLRP3 inflammasome activation (IL-1β) and nanoparticle cellular uptake (intracellular iron content) were quantified after a 4-h or 24-h cell exposure to increasing IONP concentrations (0-300 µg Fe/mL). IONPs coated with a linear molecule, NP10COP@2P, were highly taken up by cells and induced significant dose-dependent IL-8 release, oxidative stress and NLRP3 inflammasome activation. In comparison, IONPs coated with dendrons of generation 1 (NP10COP@2PG1) and 2 (NP10COP@2PG2) exhibited better biocompatibility. Effect of the dendritic architecture of the surface coating was investigated in a kinetic experiment involving cell short-term exposure (30 min or 1 h 30) to the two dendronized IONPs. NP10COP@2PG2 disrupted cellular homeostasis (LDH release, IL-1β and IL-8 secretion) to a greater extend than NP10COP@2PG1, which makes this last IONP the best candidate as MRI contrast or theranostic agent.

Prevention and management of acute reactions to intravenous iron in surgical patients

Absolute or functional iron deficiency is the most prevalent cause of anaemia in surgical patients, and its correction is a fundamental strategy within "Patient Blood Management" programmes. Offering perioperative oral iron for treating iron deficiency anaemia is still recommended, but intravenous iron has been demonstrated to be superior in most cases. However, the long-standing prejudice against intravenous iron administration, which is thought to induce anaphylaxis, hypotension and shock, still persists. With currently available intravenous iron formulations, minor infusion reactions are not common. These self-limited reactions are due to labile iron and not hypersensitivity. Aggressively treating infusion reactions with H₁-antihistamines or vasopressors should be avoided. Self-limited hypotension during intravenous iron infusion could be considered to be due to hypersensitivity or vascular reaction to labile iron. Acute hypersensitivity reactions to current intravenous iron formulation are believed to be caused by complement activation-related pseudo-allergy. However, though exceedingly rare (<1:250,000 administrations), they should not be ignored, and intravenous iron should be administered only at facilities where staff is trained to evaluate and manage these reactions. As preventive measures, prior to the infusion, staff should inform all patients about infusion reactions and identify those patients with increased risk of hypersensitivity or contraindications for intravenous iron. Infusion should be started at a low rate for a few minutes. In the event of a reaction, the very first intervention should be the immediate cessation of the infusion, followed by evaluation of severity and treatment. An algorithm to scale the intensity of treatment to the clinical picture and/or response to therapy is presented.