Renal function in patients with non-dialysis chronic kidney disease receiving intravenous ferric carboxymaltose: an analysis of the randomized FIND-CKD trial

Hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors for anaemia in chronic kidney disease: a clinical practice document by the European Renal Best Practice board of the European Renal Association

Anaemia is a common complication of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and is associated with poor long-term outcomes and quality of life. The use of supplemental iron, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and blood transfusions has been the mainstay for treatment of anaemia in CKD for more than 3 decades. Despite available treatments, CKD patients with anaemia are undertreated and moderate-severe anaemia remains prevalent in the CKD population. Anaemia has consistently been associated with greater mortality, hospitalization, cardiovascular events and CKD progression in CKD patients, and the risk increases with anaemia severity. Hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) prolyl hydroxylase (PH) inhibitors have a novel mechanism of action by mimicking the body's response to hypoxia and have emerged as an alternative to ESAs for treatment of anaemia in CKD. Their efficacy in correcting and maintaining haemoglobin has been demonstrated in >30 phase 3 clinical trials. Additionally, HIF activation results in various pleiotropic effects beyond erythropoiesis, with cholesterol reduction and improved iron homeostasis and potential anti-inflammatory effects. The long-term safety of these agents, particularly with respect to cardiovascular and thromboembolic events, and their possible effect on tumour growth needs to be fully elucidated. This article presents in detail the effects of HIF-PH inhibitors, describes their mechanisms of action and pharmacologic properties and discusses their place in the treatment of anaemia in CKD according to the available evidence.

Secular Trend in GFR Decline in Non-Dialysis CKD Based on Observational Data From Standard of Care Arms of Trials

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

The standard of care (SoC) group of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is a useful setting to explore the secular trends in kidney disease progression because implementation of best clinical practices is pursued for all patients enrolled in trials. This meta-analysis evaluated the secular trend in the change of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) decline in the SoC arm of RCTs in chronic kidney disease (CKD) published in the last 30 years.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the SoC arms of RCTs analyzed as an observational study.

SETTING & STUDY POPULATIONS

Adult patients with CKD enrolled in the SoC arm of RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES

Phase 3 RCTs evaluating GFR decline as an outcome in SoC arms.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two independent reviewers evaluated RCTs for eligibility and extracted relevant data.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

The mean of GFR declines extracted in the SoC arm of selected RCTs were pooled by using a random effects model. Meta-regression analyses were performed to identify factors that may explain heterogeneity.

RESULTS

The SoC arms from 92 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis with a total of 32,202 patients. The overall mean GFR decline was-4.00 (95% CI, -4.55 to-3.44) mL/min/1.73m2 per year in the SoC arms with a high level of heterogeneity (I2, 98.4% [95% CI, 98.2-98.5], P<0.001). Meta-regression analysis showed an association between publication year (β estimate, 0.09 [95% CI, 0.032-0.148], P=0.003) and reduction in GFR over time. When evaluating publication decade categorically, GFR decline was-5.44 (95% CI, -7.15 to-3.73), -3.92 (95% CI, -4.82 to-3.02), and -3.20 (95% CI, -3.75 to -2.64) mL/min/1.73m2 per year during 1991-2000, 2001-2010, and 2011-2023, respectively. Using meta-regression, the heterogeneity of GFR decline was mainly explained by age and proteinuria.

LIMITATIONS

Different methods assessing GFR in selected trials and observational design of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

In the last 3 decades, GFR decline has decreased over time in patients enrolled in RCTs who received the standard of care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered at PROSPERO with record number CRD42022357704.

PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY

This study evaluated the secular trend in the change in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) decline in the placebo arms of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were studying approaches to protect the kidneys in the setting of chronic kidney disease. The placebo groups of RCTs are useful for examining whether the rate of progression of kidney disease has changed over time. We found an improvement in the slope of change in GFR over time. These findings suggest that adherence to standards of kidney care as implemented in clinical trials may be associated with improved clinical outcomes, and these data may inform the design of future RCTs in nephrology.

Controversies in optimal anemia management: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Conference

In chronic kidney disease, anemia and disordered iron homeostasis are prevalent and associated with significant adverse consequences. In 2012, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) issued an anemia guideline for managing the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of anemia in chronic kidney disease. Since then, new data have accrued from basic research, epidemiological studies, and randomized trials that warrant a re-examination of previous recommendations. Therefore, in 2019, KDIGO decided to convene 2 Controversies Conferences to review the latest evidence, explore new and ongoing controversies, assess change implications for the current KDIGO anemia guideline, and propose a research agenda. The first conference, described here, focused mainly on iron-related issues, including the contribution of disordered iron homeostasis to the anemia of chronic kidney disease, diagnostic challenges, available and emerging iron therapies, treatment targets, and patient outcomes. The second conference will discuss issues more specifically related to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, including epoetins, and hypoxia-inducible factor-prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors. Here we provide a concise overview of the consensus points and controversies resulting from the first conference and prioritize key questions that need to be answered by future research.

Simultaneous management of disordered phosphate and iron homeostasis to correct fibroblast growth factor 23 and associated outcomes in chronic kidney disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hyperphosphatemia, iron deficiency, and anemia are powerful stimuli of fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF23) production and are highly prevalent complications of chronic kidney disease (CKD). In this manuscript, we put in perspective the newest insights on FGF23 regulation by iron and phosphate and their effects on CKD progression and associated outcomes. We especially focus on new studies aiming to reduce FGF23 levels, and we present new data that suggest major benefits of combined corrections of iron, phosphate, and FGF23 in CKD.

RECENT FINDINGS

New studies show that simultaneously correcting iron deficiency and hyperphosphatemia in CKD reduces the magnitude of FGF23 increase. Promising therapies using iron-based phosphate binders in CKD might mitigate cardiac and renal injury and improve survival.

SUMMARY

New strategies to lower FGF23 have emerged, and we discuss their benefits and risks in the context of CKD. Novel clinical and preclinical studies highlight the effects of phosphate restriction and iron repletion on FGF23 regulation.

Iron Deficiency in Chronic Kidney Disease: Updates on Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment

Anemia is a complication that affects a majority of individuals with advanced CKD. Although relative deficiency of erythropoietin production is the major driver of anemia in CKD, iron deficiency stands out among the mechanisms contributing to the impaired erythropoiesis in the setting of reduced kidney function. Iron deficiency plays a significant role in anemia in CKD. This may be due to a true paucity of iron stores (absolute iron deficiency) or a relative (functional) deficiency which prevents the use of available iron stores. Several risk factors contribute to absolute and functional iron deficiency in CKD, including blood losses, impaired iron absorption, and chronic inflammation. The traditional biomarkers used for the diagnosis of iron-deficiency anemia (IDA) in patients with CKD have limitations, leading to persistent challenges in the detection and monitoring of IDA in these patients. Here, we review the pathophysiology and available diagnostic tests for IDA in CKD, we discuss the literature that has informed the current practice guidelines for the treatment of IDA in CKD, and we summarize the available oral and intravenous (IV) iron formulations for the treatment of IDA in CKD. Two important issues are addressed, including the potential risks of a more liberal approach to iron supplementation as well as the potential risks and benefits of IV versus oral iron supplementation in patients with CKD.

The multifaceted role of iron in renal health and disease

Iron is an essential element that is indispensable for life. The delicate physiological body iron balance is maintained by both systemic and cellular regulatory mechanisms. The iron-regulatory hormone hepcidin assures maintenance of adequate systemic iron levels and is regulated by circulating and stored iron levels, inflammation and erythropoiesis. The kidney has an important role in preventing iron loss from the body by means of reabsorption. Cellular iron levels are dependent on iron import, storage, utilization and export, which are mainly regulated by the iron response element-iron regulatory protein (IRE-IRP) system. In the kidney, iron transport mechanisms independent of the IRE-IRP system have been identified, suggesting additional mechanisms for iron handling in this organ. Yet, knowledge gaps on renal iron handling remain in terms of redundancy in transport mechanisms, the roles of the different tubular segments and related regulatory processes. Disturbances in cellular and systemic iron balance are recognized as causes and consequences of kidney injury. Consequently, iron metabolism has become a focus for novel therapeutic interventions for acute kidney injury and chronic kidney disease, which has fuelled interest in the molecular mechanisms of renal iron handling and renal injury, as well as the complex dynamics between systemic and local cellular iron regulation.

Ferric Carboxymaltose: A Review in Iron Deficiency

Intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (Ferinject^®; Injectafer^®) is a colloidal solution of nanoparticles which consist of a polynuclear iron (III)-(oxyhydr)oxide core stabilized by carboxymaltose and may be given as a single high-dose, 15-min infusion. This article reviews the clinical use of ferric carboxymaltose in various patient populations with iron deficiency (ID) [± anaemia] and briefly summarizes its pharmacological properties. Based on extensive experience in the clinical trial and real-world settings, ferric carboxymaltose is an effective and generally well tolerated treatment for rapidly replenishing iron stores and correcting anaemia in patients with ID (± anaemia) of various aetiologies, including patients with chronic heart failure (CHF), chronic kidney disease, inflammatory bowel disease or perioperative anaemia, and women with ID during pregnancy, postpartum or associated with heavy uterine bleeding. As it may be given as a single high-dose infusion, ferric carboxymaltose has the potential to provide cost savings from a healthpayer perspective. Thus, ferric carboxymaltose remains an important option for the treatment of ID in adults and, where approved, children aged ≥ 14 years, when oral iron preparations are ineffective or cannot be used.

Parenteral versus oral iron therapy for adults and children with chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

The anaemia seen in chronic kidney disease (CKD) may be exacerbated by iron deficiency. Iron can be provided through different routes, with advantages and drawbacks of each route. It remains unclear whether the potential harms and additional costs of intravenous (IV) compared with oral iron are justified. This is an update of a review first published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of IV iron supplementation compared with oral iron for anaemia in adults and children with CKD, including participants on dialysis, with kidney transplants and CKD not requiring dialysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 7 December 2018 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in which IV and oral routes of iron administration were compared in adults and children with CKD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. Results were reported as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes the mean difference (MD) was used or standardised mean difference (SMD) if different scales had been used. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model. Subgroup analysis and univariate meta-regression were performed to investigate between study differences. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 39 studies (3852 participants), 11 of which were added in this update. A low risk of bias was attributed to 20 (51%) studies for sequence generation, 14 (36%) studies for allocation concealment, 22 (56%) studies for attrition bias and 20 (51%) for selective outcome reporting. All studies were at a high risk of performance bias. However, all studies were considered at low risk of detection bias because the primary outcome in all studies was laboratory-based and unlikely to be influenced by lack of blinding.There is insufficient evidence to suggest that IV iron compared with oral iron makes any difference to death (all causes) (11 studies, 1952 participants: RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.64, 1.94) (absolute effect: 33 participants per 1000 with IV iron versus 31 per 1000 with oral iron), the number of participants needing to start dialysis (4 studies, 743 participants: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.41, 1.61) or the number needing blood transfusions (5 studies, 774 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.55, 1.34) (absolute effect: 87 per 1,000 with IV iron versus 101 per 1,000 with oral iron). These analyses were assessed as having low certainty evidence. It is uncertain whether IV iron compared with oral iron reduces cardiovascular death because the certainty of this evidence was very low (3 studies, 206 participants: RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.41 to 7.18). Quality of life was reported in five studies with four reporting no difference between treatment groups and one reporting improvement in participants treated with IV iron.IV iron compared with oral iron may increase the numbers of participants, who experience allergic reactions or hypotension (15 studies, 2607 participants: RR 3.56, 95% CI 1.88 to 6.74) (absolute harm: 24 per 1000 with IV iron versus 7 per 1000) but may reduce the number of participants with all gastrointestinal adverse effects (14 studies, 1986 participants: RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.66) (absolute benefit: 150 per 1000 with IV iron versus 319 per 1000). These analyses were assessed as having low certainty evidence.IV iron compared with oral iron may increase the number of participants who achieve target haemoglobin (13 studies, 2206 participants: RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.04) (absolute benefit: 542 participants per 1,000 with IV iron versus 317 per 1000 with oral iron), increased haemoglobin (31 studies, 3373 participants: MD 0.72 g/dL, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.05); ferritin (33 studies, 3389 participants: MD 224.84 µg/L, 95% CI 165.85 to 283.83) and transferrin saturation (27 studies, 3089 participants: MD 7.69%, 95% CI 5.10 to 10.28), and may reduce the dose required of erythropoietin-stimulating agents (ESAs) (11 studies, 522 participants: SMD -0.72, 95% CI -1.12 to -0.31) while making little or no difference to glomerular filtration rate (8 studies, 1052 participants: 0.83 mL/min, 95% CI -0.79 to 2.44). All analyses were assessed as having low certainty evidence. There were moderate to high degrees of heterogeneity in these analyses but in meta-regression, definite reasons for this could not be determined.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The included studies provide low certainty evidence that IV iron compared with oral iron increases haemoglobin, ferritin and transferrin levels in CKD participants, increases the number of participants who achieve target haemoglobin and reduces ESA requirements. However, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether IV iron compared with oral iron influences death (all causes), cardiovascular death and quality of life though most studies reported only short periods of follow-up. Adverse effects were reported in only 50% of included studies. We therefore suggest that further studies that focus on patient-centred outcomes with longer follow-up periods are needed to determine if the use of IV iron is justified on the basis of reductions in ESA dose and cost, improvements in patient quality of life, and with few serious adverse effects.

Intravenous Irons: From Basic Science to Clinical Practice

Iron is an essential trace mineral necessary for life, and iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) is one of the most common haematological problems worldwide, affecting a sixth of the global population. Principally linked to poverty, malnutrition and infection in developing countries, in Western countries the pathophysiology of IDA is primarily linked to blood loss, malabsorption and chronic disease. Oral iron replacement therapy is a simple, inexpensive treatment, but is limited by gastrointestinal side effects that are not inconsequential to some patients and are of minimal efficacy in others. Third generation intravenous (IV) iron therapies allow rapid and complete replacement dosing without the toxicity issues inherent with older iron preparations. Their characteristic, strongly-bound iron-carbohydrate complexes exist as colloidal suspensions of iron oxide nanoparticles with a polynuclear Fe(III)-oxyhydroxide/oxide core surrounded by a carbohydrate ligand. The physicochemical differences between the IV irons include mineral composition, crystalline structure, conformation, size and molecular weight, but the most important difference is the carbohydrate ligand, which influences complex stability, iron release and immunogenicity, and which is a unique feature of each drug. Recent studies have highlighted different adverse event profiles associated with third-generation IV irons that reflect their different structures. The increasing clinical evidence base has allayed safety concerns linked to older IV irons and widened their clinical use. This review considers the properties of the different IV irons, and how differences might impact current and future clinical practice.

Iron therapy for managing anaemia in chronic kidney disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Iron deficiency is a major contributory cause to the development of anaemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD), and thus, iron replacement therapy plays a critical role in the management of this condition. The two main routes for administering iron are oral and intravenous, and there have been a number of new publications relevant to both routes of administration.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent developments on the topic of iron management in CKD include the introduction of new oral iron preparations, as well as two recent meta-analyses on iron therapy in CKD (one on oral versus intravenous iron, and one on high- versus low-dose intravenous iron in haemodialysis patients). There is also increasing interest in other strategies to improve iron availability, such as intradialytic iron, hypoxia-inducible factor stabilization and antihepcidin strategies.

SUMMARY

Even despite the latest publications in this field, we are still left with serious gaps in our evidence base on how best to provide supplemental iron to CKD patients. Most of the evidence suggests that intravenous iron is superior to oral iron in increasing haemoglobin and minimizing the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, but the safety of intravenous iron remains a controversy. The PIVOTAL study will hopefully provide informative data to fill some of the gap in the evidence-base and inform best clinical practice.

Iron deficiency across chronic kidney disease stages: Is there a reverse gender pattern?

In non-dialysis chronic kidney disease patients, looking for iron deficiency is highly variable in practice and there is a great variability regarding the cutoffs used to treat iron deficiency. The aim of this study is to investigate the degree of iron deficiency in non-dialysis chronic kidney disease patients on erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. We included all non-dialysis chronic kidney disease patients that applied to the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents’ coverage during a 5-month period. Iron requirement was assessed based on two guidelines’ target-to-treat cutoffs: 1-ferritin <100 ng/ml and/or TSAT < 20% (KDOQI 2006), 2- ferritin ≤500 ng/ml and TSAT ≤30% (KDIGO 2012). A total of 238 CKD patients were included over 5 months. All patients had a ferritin level in their record and 64% had an available TSAT. Median age was 71.0 (59.8–79.3) years and 61.8% were female. All had an eGFR<60 ml/min. The proportion of patients found to require iron therapy ranged between 48 and 78% with a trend towards higher values when using KDIGO-based criteria. Using ANCOVA test, inverse normal transformations of ferritin and TSAT showed a reverse pattern between men and women with women being more iron deficient in the early stage. Iron deficiency is highly prevalent in non-dialysis chronic kidney disease patients on erythropoiesis-stimulating agents’ therapy. These findings reflect a lack in effective iron supplementation when managing anemia in pre-dialysis patients, especially in men at advanced stages. Renal societies should spread awareness about iron deficiency screening in those patients.