Association of different intravenous iron preparations with risk of bacteremia in maintenance hemodialysis patients

Association of Abnormal Iron Status with the Occurrence and Prognosis of Peritoneal Dialysis-Related Peritonitis: A Longitudinal Data-Based 10-Year Retrospective Study

This retrospective study investigated the effect of iron status on peritonitis by analyzing longitudinal iron parameters in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. Patients who received PD at our center from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2015 were included and followed up until 31 December 2017. According to the joint quartiles of baseline transferrin saturation and ferritin, iron status was categorized as reference iron status (RIS), absolute iron deficiency (AID), functional iron deficiency (FID), and high iron status (HIS). Generalized estimating equations and Cox regression models with time-dependent covariates were used. A total of 1258 PD patients were included; 752 (59.8%) were male, with a mean (±standard deviation) age of 47.4 (±14.9) years. During a median follow-up period of 35.5 (interquartile range, 18.4–60.0) months, 450 (34.3%) patients had 650 episodes of peritonitis. By analyzing longitudinal data, patients with AID were independently positively associated with the occurrence (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.45) and treatment failure of peritonitis (adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) = 1.85). Patients with HIS were positively associated with the treatment failure of peritonitis (AHR = 2.70). Longitudinal AID and HIS were associated with the episodes and poor prognosis of peritonitis. Active clinical monitoring and correction of iron imbalance in patients with PD are needed.

Iron Administration, Infection, and Anemia Management in CKD: Untangling the Effects of Intravenous Iron Therapy on Immunity and Infection Risk

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at increased risk for infection, attributable to immune dysfunction, increased exposure to infectious agents, loss of cutaneous barriers, comorbid conditions, and treatment-related factors (eg, hemodialysis and immunosuppressant therapy). Because iron plays a vital role in pathogen reproduction and host immunity, it is biologically plausible that intravenous iron therapy and/or iron deficiency influence infection risk in CKD. Available data from preclinical experiments, observational studies, and randomized controlled trials are summarized to explore the interplay between intravenous iron and infection risk among patients with CKD, particularly those receiving maintenance hemodialysis. The current evidence base, including data from a recent randomized controlled trial, suggests that proactive judicious use of intravenous iron (in a manner that minimizes the accumulation of non-transferrin-bound iron) beneficially replaces iron stores while avoiding a clinically relevant effect on infection risk. In the absence of an urgent clinical need, intravenous iron therapy should be avoided in patients with active infection. Although serum ferritin concentration and transferrin saturation can help guide clinical decision making about intravenous iron therapy, definition of an optimal iron status and its precise determination in individual patients remain clinically challenging in CKD and warrant additional study.

Safety of intravenous iron in hemodialysis patients

Among end-stage renal disease patients maintained by hemodialysis, anemia has been managed primarily through erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and intravenous (IV) iron. Following concerns about the cardiovascular (CV) safety of ESAs and changes in the reimbursement policies in Medicare's ESRD program, the use of IV iron has increased. IV iron supplementation promotes hemoglobin production and reduces ESA requirements, yet there exists relatively little evidence on the long-term safety of iron supplementation in hemodialysis patients. Labile iron can induce oxidative stress and is also essential in bacterial growth, leading to concerns about IV iron use and risk of CV events and infections in hemodialysis patients. Existing randomized controlled trials provide little evidence about safety due to insufficient power and short follow-up; recent observational studies have been inconsistent, but some have associated iron exposure with increased risk of infections and CV events. Given the widespread use and potential safety concerns related to IV iron, well-designed large prospective studies are needed to assess to identify optimal strategies for iron administration that maximize its benefits while avoiding potential risks.

Safety of Intravenous Iron in Hemodialysis: Longer-term Comparisons of Iron Sucrose Versus Sodium Ferric Gluconate Complex

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists about any differences in longer-term safety across different intravenous iron formulations routinely used in hemodialysis (HD) patients. We exploited a natural experiment to compare outcomes of patients initiating HD therapy in facilities that predominantly (in ≥90% of their patients) used iron sucrose versus sodium ferric gluconate complex.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study of incident HD patients.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Using the US Renal Data System, we hard-matched on geographic region and center characteristics HD facilities predominantly using ferric gluconate with similar ones using iron sucrose. Subsequently, incident HD patients were assigned to their facility iron formulation exposure.

INTERVENTION

Facility-level use of iron sucrose versus ferric gluconate.

OUTCOMES

Patients were followed up for mortality from any, cardiovascular, or infectious causes. Medicare-insured patients were followed up for infectious and cardiovascular (stroke or myocardial infarction) hospitalizations and for composite outcomes with the corresponding cause-specific deaths.

MEASUREMENTS

HRs.

RESULTS

We matched 2,015 iron sucrose facilities with 2,015 ferric gluconate facilities, in which 51,603 patients (iron sucrose, 24,911; ferric gluconate, 26,692) subsequently initiated HD therapy. All recorded patient characteristics were balanced between groups. Over 49,989 person-years, 10,381 deaths (3,908 cardiovascular and 1,209 infectious) occurred. Adjusted all-cause (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.03), cardiovascular (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.89-1.03), and infectious mortality (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.86-1.13) did not differ between iron sucrose and ferric gluconate facilities. Among Medicare beneficiaries, no differences between ferric gluconate and iron sucrose facilities were observed in fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular events (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.93-1.09). The composite infectious end point occurred less frequently in iron sucrose versus ferric gluconate facilities (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.96).

LIMITATIONS

Unobserved selection bias from nonrandom treatment assignment.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients initiating HD therapy in facilities almost exclusively using iron sucrose versus ferric gluconate had similar longer-term outcomes. However, there was a small decrease in infectious hospitalizations and deaths in patients dialyzing in facilities predominantly using iron sucrose. This difference may be due to residual confounding, random chance, or a causal effect.

Ferrous iron content of intravenous iron formulations

The observed biological differences in safety and efficacy of intravenous (IV) iron formulations are attributable to physicochemical differences. In addition to differences in carbohydrate shell, polarographic signatures due to ferric iron [Fe(III)] and ferrous iron [Fe(II)] differ among IV iron formulations. Intravenous iron contains Fe(II) and releases labile iron in the circulation. Fe(II) generates toxic free radicals and reactive oxygen species and binds to bacterial siderophores and other in vivo sequestering agents. To evaluate whether differences in Fe(II) content may account for some observed biological differences between IV iron formulations, samples from multiple lots of various IV iron formulations were dissolved in 12 M concentrated HCl to dissociate and release all iron and then diluted with water to achieve 0.1 M HCl concentration. Fe(II) was then directly measured using ferrozine reagent and ultraviolet spectroscopy at 562 nm. Total iron content was measured by adding an excess of ascorbic acid to reduce Fe(III) to Fe(II), and Fe(II) was then measured by ferrozine assay. The Fe(II) concentration as a proportion of total iron content [Fe(III) + Fe(II)] in different lots of IV iron formulations was as follows: iron gluconate, 1.4 and 1.8 %; ferumoxytol, 0.26 %; ferric carboxymaltose, 1.4 %; iron dextran, 0.8 %; and iron sucrose, 10.2, 15.5, and 11.0 % (average, 12.2 %). The average Fe(II) content in iron sucrose was, therefore, ≥7.5-fold higher than in the other IV iron formulations. Further studies are needed to investigate the relationship between Fe(II) content and increased risk of oxidative stress and infections with iron sucrose.

Comparative Short-term Safety of Sodium Ferric Gluconate Versus Iron Sucrose in Hemodialysis Patients

BACKGROUND

Despite different pharmacologic properties, little is known about the comparative safety of sodium ferric gluconate versus iron sucrose in hemodialysis patients.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study using the clinical database of a large dialysis provider (2004-2005) merged with administrative data from the US Renal Data System.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

66,207 patients with Medicare coverage who received center-based hemodialysis.

PREDICTORS

Iron formulation use assessed during repeated 1-month exposure periods (n=278,357).

OUTCOMES

All-cause mortality, infection-related hospitalizations and mortality, and cardiovascular-related hospitalizations and mortality occurring during a 3-month follow-up period.

MEASUREMENTS

For all outcomes, we estimated 90-day risk differences between the formulations using propensity score weighting of Kaplan-Meier functions, which controlled for a wide range of demographic, clinical, and laboratory variables. Risk differences were also estimated within various clinically important subgroups.

RESULTS

Ferric gluconate was administered in 11.4%; iron sucrose, in 48.9%; and no iron in 39.7% of the periods. Risks for most study outcomes did not differ between ferric gluconate and iron sucrose; however, among patients with a hemodialysis catheter, use of ferric gluconate was associated with a slightly decreased risk for both infection-related death (risk difference, -0.3%; 95% CI, -0.5% to 0.0%) and infection-related hospitalization (risk difference, -1.5%; 95% CI, -2.3% to -0.6%). Bolus dosing was associated with an increase in infection-related events among both ferric gluconate and iron sucrose users.

LIMITATIONS

Residual confounding and outcome measurement error.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the 2 iron formulations studied exhibited similar safety profiles; however, ferric gluconate was associated with a slightly decreased risk for infection-related outcomes compared to iron sucrose among patients with a hemodialysis catheter. These associations should be explored further using other data or study designs.

Comparative outcomes of predominant facility-level use of ferumoxytol versus other intravenous iron formulations in incident hemodialysis patients

BACKGROUND

Ferumoxytol was first approved for clinical use in 2009 solely based on data from trial comparisons with oral iron on biochemical anemia efficacy end points. To compare the rates of important patient outcomes (infection, cardiovascular events and death) between facilities predominantly using ferumoxytol versus iron sucrose (IS) or ferric gluconate (FG) in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD)-initiating hemodialysis (HD).

METHODS

Using the United States Renal Data System, we identified all HD facilities that switched (almost) all patients from IS/FG to ferumoxytol (July 2009-December 2011). Each switching facility was matched with three facilities that continued IS/FG use. All incident ESRD patients subsequently initiating HD in these centers were studied and assigned their facility exposure. They were followed for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular hospitalization/death or infectious hospitalization/death. Follow-up ended at kidney transplantation, switch to peritoneal dialysis, transfer to another facility, facility switch to another iron formulation and end of database (31 December 2011). Cox proportional hazards regression was then used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios [HR (95% confidence intervals)].

RESULTS

In July 2009-December 2011, 278 HD centers switched to ferumoxytol; 265 units (95.3%) were matched with 3 units each that continued to use IS/FG. Subsequently, 14 206 patients initiated HD, 3752 (26.4%) in ferumoxytol and 10 454 (73.6%) in IS/FG centers; their characteristics were very similar. During 6433 person-years, 1929 all-cause, 726 cardiovascular and 191 infectious deaths occurred. Patients in ferumoxytol (versus IS/FG) facilities experienced similar all-cause [0.95 (0.85-1.07)], cardiovascular [0.99 (0.83-1.19)] and infectious mortality [0.88 (0.61-1.25)]. Among 5513 Medicare (Parts A + B) beneficiaries, cardiovascular events [myocardial infarction, stroke and cardiovascular death; 1.05 (0.79-1.39)] and infectious events [hospitalization/death; 0.96 (0.85-1.08)] did not differ between the iron exposure groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In incident HD patients, ferumoxytol showed similar short- to mid-term safety profiles with regard to cardiovascular, infectious and mortality outcomes compared with the more commonly used intravenous iron formulations IS and FG.

Iron therapy in chronic kidney disease: Recent changes, benefits and risks

Anemia is a common complication in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), mainly due to inadequate renal production of erythropoietin. In hemodialysis (HD) patients this condition may be aggravated by iron deficiency (absolute or functional). The correction of this anemia is usually achieved by treatment with erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs) and iron (oral or intravenous). Studies questioning the safety of ESAs (especially at higher doses) changed the pattern of anemia treatment in CKD patients. According to the new guidelines, when transferrin saturation is lower than 30% and ferritin lower than 500 ng/mL, a trial with iron should be started, to avoid therapy with ESAs or at least to reduce the doses needed to treat the anemia. Recent reports showed increasing ferritin levels, towards values above 800 ng/mL, in CKD patients treated according to the guidelines. In this review we focus on the risks of the increased iron use to treat CKD anemia, namely, iron overload and toxicity, increased risk of infections, as well as mortality.

The Labile Side of Iron Supplementation in CKD

The practice of intravenous iron supplementation has grown as nephrologists have gradually moved away from the liberal use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents as the main treatment for the anemia of CKD. This approach, together with the introduction of large-dose iron preparations, raises the future specter of inadvertent iatrogenic iron toxicity. Concerns have been raised in original studies and reviews about cardiac complications and severe infections that result from long-term intravenous iron supplementation. Regarding the iron preparations specifically, even though all the currently available preparations appear to be relatively safe in the short term, little is known regarding their long-term safety. In this review we summarize current knowledge of iron metabolism with an emphasis on the sources and potentially harmful effects of labile iron, highlight the approaches to identifying labile iron in pharmaceutical preparations and body fluids and its potential toxic role as a pathogenic factor in the complications of CKD, and propose methods for its early detection in at-risk patients.

Effect of aggressively driven intravenous iron therapy on infectious complications in end-stage renal disease patients on maintenance hemodialysis

For treating end-stage renal disease-associated anemia, various strategies to achieve optimal hemoglobin levels with lower erythropoiesis stimulating agent doses are being tried. One of these involves the use of a high dose [transferrin saturation (TSAT) >30%] of intravenous (IV) iron supplementation. However, due to in vitro effects of iron on stimulating bacterial growth, there are concerns of increased risk of infection. The safety of higher iron targets with respect to infectious complications (bacteremias, pneumonias, soft tissue infections, and osteomyelitis) is unknown. This was a retrospective study of patients on maintenance hemodialysis from a single, urban dialysis center to assess the long-term impact of the higher cumulative use of IV iron, on the incidence of clinically important infections. Our iron protocol was modified in June 2010 to aim for TSAT >30% unless serum ferritin levels were >1200 ng/mL. Data from only those patients who had been on dialysis for the whole duration between June 2009 and May 2011 were included. A total of 140 patients with end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis patients were found to be eligible for the study. There was a statistically significant increase in the mean TSAT and mean serum ferritin with the new anemia management protocol with a significant decrease in the mean erythropoiesis stimulating agent dose requirement. There was no statistically significant increase in the incidence of infectious complications. Although in vitro effects of iron are known to stimulate bacterial growth, a higher IV dose of iron may not increase the risk of infection in such patients.

Data from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study validate an association between high intravenous iron doses and mortality

Intravenous (IV) iron is required for optimal management of anemia in the majority of hemodialysis (HD) patients. While IV iron prescription has increased over time, the best dosing strategy is unknown and any effect of IV iron on survival is unclear. Here we used adjusted Cox regression to analyze associations between IV iron dose and clinical outcomes in 32,435 HD patients in 12 countries from 2002 to 2011 in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study. The primary exposure was total prescribed IV iron dose over the first 4 months in the study, expressed as an average dose/month. Compared with 100-199 mg/month (the most common dose range), case-mix-adjusted mortality was similar for the 0, 1-99, and 200-299 mg/month categories but significantly higher for the 300-399 mg/month (HR of 1.13, 95% CI of 1.00-1.27) and 400 mg/month or more (HR of 1.18, 95% CI of 1.07-1.30) groups. Convergent validity was proved by an instrumental variable analysis, using HD facility as the instrument, and by an analysis expressing IV iron dose/kg body weight. Associations with cause-specific mortality (cardiovascular, infectious, and other) were generally similar to those for all-cause mortality. The hospitalization risk was elevated among patients receiving 300 mg/month or more compared with 100-199 mg/month (HR of 1.12, 95% CI of 1.07-1.18). In light of these associations, a well-powered clinical trial to evaluate the safety of different IV iron-dosing strategies in HD patients is urgently needed.

Association between hemoglobin variability, serum ferritin levels, and adverse events/mortality in maintenance hemodialysis patients

In recent times, therapy for renal anemia has changed dramatically in that iron administration has increased and doses of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) have decreased. Here we used a prospective, observational, multicenter design and measured the serum ferritin and hemoglobin levels every 3 months for 2 years in 1086 patients on maintenance hemodialysis therapy. The associations of adverse events with fluctuations in ferritin and hemoglobin levels and ESA and iron doses were measured using a Cox proportional hazards model for time-dependent variables. The risks of cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease (CCVD), infection, and hospitalization were higher among patients who failed to maintain a target-range hemoglobin level and who exhibited high-amplitude fluctuations in hemoglobin compared with patients who maintained a target-range hemoglobin level. Patients with a higher compared with a lower ferritin level had an elevated risk of CCVD and infectious disease. Moreover, the risk of death was significantly higher among patients with high-amplitude ferritin fluctuations compared with those with a low ferritin level. The risks of CCVD, infection, and hospitalization were significantly higher among patients who were treated with high weekly doses of intravenous iron compared with no intravenous iron. Thus, there is a high risk of death and/or adverse events in patients with hemoglobin levels outside the target range, in those with high-amplitude hemoglobin fluctuations, in those with consistently high serum ferritin levels, and in those with high-amplitude ferritin fluctuations.

Iron and infection in hemodialysis patients

Intravenous iron is an important component of the treatment of anemia of end-stage renal disease (ESRD), but it is biologically plausible that iron could increase the risk of infection through impairment of neutrophil and T-cell function and promotion of microbial growth. Any such increase in risk would be particularly important because infection is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity in dialysis patients. The overall evidence favors an association between iron and infection in hemodialysis patients, but the optimal iron management strategy to minimize infection risk has yet to be identified. There is a need for further research on this topic, particularly in light of increased utilization of intravenous iron following implementation of the bundled ESRD reimbursement system.

Infection risk with bolus versus maintenance iron supplementation in hemodialysis patients

Intravenous iron may promote bacterial growth and impair host defense, but the risk of infection associated with iron supplementation is not well defined. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of hemodialysis patients to compare the safety of bolus dosing, which provides a large amount of iron over a short period of time on an as-needed basis, with maintenance dosing, which provides smaller amounts of iron on a regular schedule to maintain iron repletion. Using clinical data from 117,050 patients of a large US dialysis provider merged with data from Medicare's ESRD program, we estimated the effects of iron dosing patterns during repeated 1-month exposure periods on risks of mortality and infection-related hospitalizations during the subsequent 3 months. Of 776,203 exposure/follow-up pairs, 13% involved bolus dosing, 49% involved maintenance dosing, and 38% did not include exposure to iron. Multivariable additive risk models found that patients receiving bolus versus maintenance iron were at increased risk of infection-related hospitalization (risk difference [RD], 25 additional events/1000 patient-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 16 to 33) during follow-up. Risks were largest among patients with a catheter (RD, 73 events/1000 patient-years; 95% CI, 48 to 99) and a recent infection (RD, 57 events/1000 patient-years; 95% CI, 19 to 99). We also observed an association between bolus dosing and infection-related mortality. Compared with no iron, maintenance dosing did not associate with increased risks for adverse outcomes. These results suggest that maintenance iron supplementation may result in fewer infections than bolus dosing, particularly among patients with a catheter.

Iron therapy in chronic kidney disease: current controversies

Anaemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a complex disease that requires an integrated approach to incorporate both diagnostic and therapeutic interventions and to address the different facets of its aetiology and pathophysiology. The advent of erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESA) has revolutionised the therapy of anaemia of CKD, and has resulted in a significant decline in the need for blood transfusions in CKD patients. The routine application of ESA has also led to the need for concomitant iron supplementation. ESA and iron therapy now form the cornerstone of anaemia management in CKD. Intravenous iron administration is effective with acceptable safety, and may improve ESA responsiveness. However, less is known about the long-term safety of iron supplementation in CKD patients. Whereas maintenance (weekly to monthly) intravenous iron has been routinely used in maintenance dialysis patients, iron replacement in patients with non-dialysis-dependent CKD is less well studied, in spite of the much larger number of patients affected. This review discusses iron supplementation in CKD with an emphasis toward controversial issues that continue to pose dilemmas in clinical practice. Concerns related to both the optimal amount of iron supplementation and to the safety of various agents available in clinical practice are presented.

Prophylaxis of catheter-related bacteremia using tissue plasminogen activator-tobramycin locks

This retrospective study was designed to investigate the effectiveness of tissue plasminogen activator-tobramycin antibiotic lock solutions (TPA/tobra ABLs) for prophylaxis of catheter-related bacteremia (CRB) in high-risk children on long-term hemodialysis. During the first 6 months (Era 1), the high-risk group was defined. These patients received TPA/tobra ABL prophylaxis after every hemodialysis treatment for the next 6 months (Era 2). The prophylaxis regimen was applied once a week for the third 6-months period (Era 3). Primary endpoints were CRB and infection-free catheter survival. There were 16,412 catheter days, and 95 cases of CRB in 43 children. The incidence of CRB was 5.8/1,000 catheter days. Significant decrease in the incidence of CRB was observed when prophylactic TPA/tobra ABL was used in the high-risk group (P = 0.0201). There was a tendency for less CRB when prophylactic ABL was applied after every hemodialysis session compared with once a week (P = 0.0947). The catheters in the high-risk group had shorter survival times than those in the average-risk group in Era 1 (P < 0.0001). However, both the overall and infection-free survival of the catheters in the high-risk group significantly improved while the patients were receiving TPA/tobra ABL prophylaxis, becoming similar to the outcomes of the catheters in the average-risk group and exhibiting statistically non-significant differences (P = 0.5571 and P = 0.9711, respectively). In conclusion, the TPA/tobra ABLs may effectively reduce the rate of CRB, and this may prolong both the overall and infection-free survival times of the catheters in the high-risk group.

Anemia of Chronic Kidney Disease

Chronic kidney disease may result in complete kidney failure and contribute to many other health issues. Anemia is a logical consequence of the disease because the kidneys are the primary source of erythropoietin, the hormone that acts to stimulate red blood cell production in the bone marrow. All patients with chronic kidney disease are at risk for anemia, and treating anemia is extremely important to their health and well-being. Preventing or reversing the effects of anemia on the heart may decrease morbidity and mortality and improve quality of life. Many patients fail to receive treatment for anemia before requiring renal replacement therapy for end-stage renal disease. Pharmacists can play a vital role in screening, evaluating, designing proper treatment regimens, and monitoring patients with anemia of chronic kidney disease. Current recommendations regarding anemia are reviewed, including evaluation, pharmacotherapeutic agents, monitoring parameters, and goals of therapy.

Ferric gluconate reduces epoetin requirements in hemodialysis patients with elevated ferritin

The Dialysis Patients Response to IV Iron with Elevated Ferritin (DRIVE) study demonstrated the efficacy of intravenous ferric gluconate to improve hemoglobin levels in anemic hemodialysis patients who were receiving adequate epoetin doses and who had ferritin levels between 500 and 1200 ng/ml and transferrin saturation (TSAT) < or = 25%. The DRIVE-II study reported here was a 6-wk observational extension designed to investigate how ferric gluconate impacted epoetin dosage after DRIVE. During DRIVE-II, treating nephrologists and anemia managers adjusted doses of epoetin and intravenous iron as clinically indicated. By the end of observation, patients in the ferric gluconate group required significantly less epoetin than their DRIVE dose (mean change of -7527 +/- 18,021 IU/wk, P = 0.003), whereas the epoetin dose essentially did not change for patients in the control group (mean change of 649 +/- 19,987 IU/wk, P = 0.809). Mean hemoglobin, TSAT, and serum ferritin levels remained higher in the ferric gluconate group than in the control group (P = 0.062, P < 0.001, and P = 0.014, respectively). Over the entire 12-wk study period (DRIVE plus DRIVE-II), the control group experienced significantly more serious adverse events than the ferric gluconate group (incidence rate ratio = 1.73, P = 0.041). In conclusion, ferric gluconate maintains hemoglobin and allows lower epoetin doses in anemic hemodialysis patients with low TSAT and ferritin levels up to 1200 ng/ml.