OBJECTIVES:In the largest head-to-head comparison between an oral and an intravenous (IV) iron compound in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) so far, we strived to determine whether IV iron isomaltoside 1,000 is non-inferior to oral iron sulfate in the treatment of iron deficiency anemia (IDA).METHODS:This prospective, randomized, comparative, open-label, non-inferiority study was conducted at 36 sites in Europe and India. Patients with known intolerance to oral iron were excluded. A total of 338 IBD patients in clinical remission or with mild disease, a hemoglobin (Hb) <12 g/dl, and a transferrin saturation (TSAT) <20% were randomized 2:1 to receive either IV iron isomaltoside 1,000 according to the Ganzoni formula (225 patients) or oral iron sulfate 200 mg daily (equivalent to 200 mg elemental iron; 113 patients). An interactive web response system method was used to randomize the eligible patient to the treatment groups. The primary end point was change in Hb from baseline to week 8. Iron isomaltoside 1,000 and iron sulfate was compared by a non-inferiority assessment with a margin of −0.5 g/dl. The secondary end points, which tested for superiority, included change in Hb from baseline to weeks 2 and 4, change in s-ferritin, and TSAT to week 8, number of patients who discontinued study because of lack of response or intolerance of investigational drugs, change in total quality of life (QoL) score to weeks 4 and 8, and safety. Exploratory analyses included a responder analysis (proportion of patients with an increase in Hb ≥2 g/dl after 8 weeks), the effect of regional differences and total iron dose level, and other potential predictors of the treatment response.RESULTS:Non-inferiority in change of Hb to week 8 could not be demonstrated. There was a trend for oral iron sulfate being more effective in increasing Hb than iron isomaltoside 1,000. The estimated treatment effect was −0.37 (95% confidence interval (CI): −0.80, 0.06) with P=0.09 in the full analysis set (N=327) and −0.45 (95% CI: −0.88, −0.03) with P=0.04 in the per protocol analysis set (N=299). In patients treated with IV iron isomaltoside 1,000, the mean change in s-ferritin concentration was higher with an estimated treatment effect of 48.7 (95% CI: 18.6, 78.8) with P=0.002, whereas the mean change in TSAT was lower with an estimated treatment effect of −4.4 (95% CI: −7.4, −1.4) with P=0.005, compared with patients treated with oral iron. No differences in changes of QoL were observed. The safety profile was similar between the groups. The proportion of responders with Hb ≥2 g/dl (IV group: 67% oral group: 61%) were comparable between the groups (P=0.32). Iron isomaltoside 1,000 was more efficacious with higher cumulative doses of >1,000 mg IV. Significant predictors of Hb response to IV iron treatment were baseline Hb and C-reactive protein (CRP).CONCLUSIONS:We could not demonstrate non-inferiority of IV iron isomaltoside 1,000 compared with oral iron in this study. Based on the dose–response relationship observed with the IV iron co...

Background The optimal intravenous (IV) iron would allow safe correction of iron deficiency at a single infusion over a short time. The FERWON-NEPHRO trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of iron isomaltoside 1000/ferric derisomaltose (IIM) in patients with non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease and iron deficiency anaemia. Methods In this randomized, open-label and multi-centre trial conducted in the USA, patients were randomized 2:1 to a single dose of 1000 mg IIM or iron sucrose (IS) administered as 200 mg IV injections up to five times within a 2-week period. The co-primary endpoints were serious or severe hypersensitivity reactions and change in haemoglobin (Hb) from baseline to Week 8. Secondary endpoints included incidence of composite cardiovascular adverse events (AEs). Results A total of 1538 patients were enrolled (mean estimated glomerular filtration rate 35.5 mL/min/1.73 m2). The co-primary safety objective was met based on no significant difference in the incidence of serious or severe hypersensitivity reactions in the IIM and IS groups [0.3% versus 0%; risk difference: 0.29% (95% confidence interval: –0.19; 0.77; P &gt; 0.05)]. Incidence of composite cardiovascular AEs was significantly lower in the IIM versus IS group (4.1% versus 6.9%; P = 0.025). Compared with IS, IIM led to a more pronounced increase in Hb during the first 4 weeks (P ≤ 0.021), and change in Hb to Week 8 showed non-inferiority, confirming that the co-primary efficacy objective was met. Conclusions Compared with multiple doses of IS, a single dose of IIM induced a non-inferior 8-week haematological response, comparably low rates of hypersensitivity reactions, and a significantly lower incidence of composite cardiovascular AEs.

BackgroundIron deficiency anaemia is common in patients with chronic kidney disease, and intravenous iron is the preferred treatment for those on haemodialysis. The aim of this trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of iron isomaltoside 1000 (Monofer®) with iron sucrose (Venofer®) in haemodialysis patients.MethodsThis was an open-label, randomized, multicentre, non-inferiority trial conducted in 351 haemodialysis subjects randomized 2 : 1 to either iron isomaltoside 1000 (Group A) or iron sucrose (Group B). Subjects in Group A were equally divided into A1 (500 mg single bolus injection) and A2 (500 mg split dose). Group B were also treated with 500 mg split dose. The primary end point was the proportion of subjects with haemoglobin (Hb) in the target range 9.5–12.5 g/dL at 6 weeks. Secondary outcome measures included haematology parameters and safety parameters.ResultsA total of 351 subjects were enrolled. Both treatments showed similar efficacy with >82% of subjects with Hb in the target range (non-inferiority, P = 0.01). Similar results were found when comparing subgroups A1 and A2 with Group B. No statistical significant change in Hb concentration was found between any of the groups. There was a significant increase in ferritin from baseline to Weeks 1, 2 and 4 in Group A compared with Group B (Weeks 1 and 2: P < 0.001; Week 4: P = 0.002). There was a significant higher increase in reticulocyte count in Group A compared with Group B at Week 1 (P < 0.001). The frequency, type and severity of adverse events were similar.ConclusionsIron isomaltoside 1000 and iron sucrose have comparative efficacy in maintaining Hb concentrations in haemodialysis subjects and both preparations were well tolerated with a similar short-term safety profile.

Iron isomaltoside 1000 was clinically well tolerated, safe and effective. This new intravenous iron may offer a further valuable choice in treating the anemia of CKD.

No abstract