Incidence of Peritonitis in Chronic Peritoneal Dialysis Patients Infused with Intravenous Iron Dextran

Background

The Dialysis Outcomes Quality Initiative (DOQI) guidelines, published in 1997, emphasize the need for careful monitoring of iron stores and for provision of adequate iron replacement therapy to achieve target goals of hemoglobin concentration in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients, especially those treated with recombinant erythropoietin (rHuEPO). Intravenous iron dextran (IVID) therapy, which has long been used in hemodialysis patients, is increasingly being used in chronic peritoneal dialysis (CPD) patients. In 1997, we began using this form of iron therapy for our CPD patients. However, because considerable data exists to show a relationship between iron metabolism and acute infections, we questioned whether IVID infusion placed our patients at greater risk for peritonitis, the leading cause of death and patient dropout from CPD therapy.

Objective

To evaluate the relationship between iron and infection, we studied episodes of peritonitis in CPD patients who were infused with IVID.

Design

In a retrospective study of adult CPD patients who received IVID during 1998, we investigated the occurrence of peritonitis episodes and the spectrum of causative organisms. Patients with a hemoglobin level of < 12.5 g/dL who also had a ferritin level < 100 ng/mL or a transferrin saturation level < 20% (or both) and who did not respond to oral iron therapy, were administered between 0.5 g and 1.0 g of IVID in an outpatient hospital setting. We calculated the expected and observed number of peritonitis episodes in these patients within 30, 60, and 90 days after infusion of IVID.

Results

During the study period, 56 patients received 77 doses of IVID, with 14 patients requiring 2 or more infusions. Of the 77 doses, 71 were given as a 1-g bolus. The IVID was well tolerated by all patients. Within 90 days of IVID administration, 14 patients developed peritonitis: 6 episodes occurred within 30 days, 7 episodes occurred between 31 and 60 days, and 1 episode occurred between 61 and 90 days after the IVID dosing. The peritonitis rate for patients not receiving IVID was 1 episode per 13.7 patient-months. Taking this rate as the “expected” rate, the expected number of episodes of peritonitis for the study population was 5.6 episodes within 30 days, 11.2 episodes within 60 days, and 16.8 episodes within 90 days following IVID administration. The difference between the expected and observed rates of peritonitis in patients who were dosed with IVID was not statistically different. The spectrum of organisms seen in the peritonitis episodes in the study population was not significantly different from that seen in the peritonitis episodes in our CPD unit population.

Conclusions

There is evidence that IVID infusion therapy can improve anemia and reduce rHuEPO requirements in CPD patients, usually without adverse reaction and without exposing patients to an increased risk of peritonitis. More research is needed in the area of potential increased risk of infection in ESRD patients who are ( 1 ) infused with large doses of IVID, and ( 2 ) iron-overloaded.

Effect of intravenous iron sucrose in peritoneal dialysis patients who receive erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for anemia: a randomized, controlled trial

Although iron therapy is essential to optimize use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA), randomized, controlled trials have heretofore been unavailable to evaluate reliably the efficacy of intravenous iron as an adjuvant to ESA treatment in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. In a multicenter trial, patients who had anemia, PD-dependent chronic kidney disease, stable ESA therapy, and a broad range of iron status (ferritin < or = 500 ng/ml, transferrin saturation < or = 25%) were randomly assigned to receive either 1 g of iron sucrose intravenously in three divided doses (300 mg over 1.5 h on days 1 and 15, 400 mg over 2.5 h on day 29) or no supplemental iron. No serious adverse drug events occurred after intravenous iron administration. The primary end point, peak hemoglobin increase, was higher (1.3 +/- 1.1 versus 0.7 +/- 1.1, mean +/- SD; P = 0.0028), and anemia intervention (transfusion, increase in ESA dose, or intravenous iron therapy not called for in protocol) occurred later (P = 0.0137) and less often in intravenous iron-treated patients compared with untreated control subjects (one of 66 [1.3%] versus five of 30 [16.7%]). Among patients who did not require intervention, iron-treated patients showed a calculated net ESA dose decrease compared with untreated control subjects. Baseline iron status did not predict responsiveness to intravenous iron therapy. Intravenous iron sucrose is an effective adjunct to ESA therapy in anemic patients with PD-dependent chronic kidney disease and is administered safely as 300 mg over 1.5 h or 400 mg over 2.5 h. Evidence of iron deficiency at baseline is not required to demonstrate intravenous iron efficacy.

A randomized, controlled trial comparing IV iron sucrose to oral iron in anemic patients with nondialysis-dependent CKD

BACKGROUND

Although iron deficiency frequently complicates anemia in patients with nondialysis-dependent CKD (ND-CKD), the comparative treatment value of IV iron infusion and oral iron supplementation has not been established.

METHODS

In a randomized, controlled multicenter trial, we compared the efficacy of iron sucrose, given as 1 g in divided IV doses over 14 days, with that of ferrous sulfate, given 325 mg orally thrice daily for 56 days in patients with ND-CKD stages 3 to 5, Hb < or =11 g/dL, TSAT < or =25%, and ferritin < or =300 ng/mL. Epoetin/darbepoetin therapy, if any, was not changed for eight weeks prior to or during the study.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients achieving the primary outcome (Hb increase > or =1 g/dL) was greater in the IV iron treatment group than in the oral iron treatment group (44.3% vs. 28.0%, P= 0.0344), as was the mean increase in Hb by day 42 (0.7 vs. 0.4 g/dL, P= 0.0298). Compared to those in the IV iron group, patients in the oral iron treatment group showed a greater decline in GFR during the study (-4.40 vs. -1.45 mL/min/1.73m2, P= 0.0100). No serious adverse drug events (ADE) were seen in patients administered IV iron sucrose as 200 mg IV over two to five minutes, but drug-related hypotension, including one event considered serious, occurred in two females weighing less than 65 kg after 500 mg doses were given over four hours.

CONCLUSION

IV iron administration using 1000 mg iron sucrose in divided doses is superior to oral iron therapy in the management of ND-CKD patients with anemia and low iron indices.

Parenteral iron use in the management of anemia in end-stage renal disease patients

Intravenous iron is required by most dialysis patients receiving erythropoietin (EPO) to maintain an adequate hematocrit. In the United States, there are currently two parenteral iron preparations, iron dextran and iron gluconate, approved for such use, and a third product, iron sucrose, is under development. This article reviews each of these products. Each of the iron products increases the efficacy of EPO use in anemia management. There is considerable experience in the United States and elsewhere with the use of iron dextran. Although it is clinically effective, iron dextran is also associated with significant morbidity from both dose-dependent and -independent side effects. The slow release of iron from this complex necessitates a delay in monitoring iron indices after the administration of large doses of iron dextran. Recommended doses of iron sucrose appear very safe with little risk of anaphylactic reactions. Adverse effects are uncommon and not life threatening. If approved for use in the United States, iron sucrose may be a safe and effective alternative to iron dextran. Iron dissociates from iron gluconate quite rapidly and may increase the production of ionized free iron. Iron gluconate may be a safe alternative to iron dextran for patients with severe reactions, including anaphylaxis. The risk of allergic reactions to iron gluconate is very low. The exact place in therapy for the newer iron complexes remains unclear. Currently available data suggest that iron sucrose and iron gluconate may have diminished adverse effect profiles when compared with iron dextran. Additional clinical experience will establish the role for these new iron products.