Abstract

Background: Intravenous iron is increasingly being used in clinical practice to treat iron deficiency and anaemia. However, its effect on important safety outcomes, such as infection, remains uncertain. We systematically reviewed the risk of infection associated with administration of intravenous iron when compared with oral iron or no iron. Methods: We searched for MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and the Transfusion Evidence Library from 1966 to Jan 5, 2021 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intravenous iron with oral iron or no iron across all patient populations. Two reviewers independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and graded the certainty of the evidence. A narrative synthesis was performed to characterize the reporting of infection. The primary outcome was risk of developing an infection. Data synthesis: A total of 154 RCTs (32,920 participants) were included in the main analysis. Intravenous iron was associated with an increased risk of infection (Risk Ratio [RR] 1·17, 95% CI 1·04-1.31, I2=37%, moderate certainty) when compared with oral iron or no iron. Intravenous iron was associated with higher haemoglobin concentrations (Mean Difference 0·57 g/dL, 95% CI 0·50-0·64, I2=94%,) and a reduction in the risk of requiring a red blood cell transfusion (RR 0·93, 95% CI 0·76-0·89, I2=15%) when compared with oral iron or no iron. There was no evidence of an effect on mortality or hospital length of stay. Conclusions: Intravenous iron administration is associated with an increased risk of infection. There was considerable variation in infection reporting between the included studies which may limit our understanding of the true nature and extent of this risk. Healthcare providers should recognise that the benefits of treating anaemia and reducing transfusion requirements may need to be balanced against the risk of developing infection. Well-designed studies, using standardized definitions of infection, are required. Registration Details: This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD2018096023). Funding Information: NIHR Doctoral Research Fellowship (NIHR-DRF-2017-10-094). Declaration of Interests: AS (Shah) is currently supported by a National Institute for Health Research Doctoral Research Fellowship (NIHR-DRF-2017-10-094). Outside of this work, Prof Acheson’s research department has received grant support from Syner-Med (UK), Vifor Pharma (Switzerland) and Pharmacosmos A/S (Denmark). He has received honoraria and travel support for consulting or lecturing from Ethicon Endosurgery (UK), Johnson and Johnson Ltd (UK), Olympus (UK) and Vifor Pharma (Switzerland). All other authors have nothing to declare.

Highlights

  • Intravenous iron was associated with an increased risk of infection when compared with oral iron or no iron (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.31; I2 = 37%; moderate certainty of evidence)

  • Intravenous iron was associated with an increase in hemoglobin and a reduction in the risk of requiring a red blood cell transfusion (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.760.89; I2 = 15%) when compared with oral iron or no iron

  • Intravenous iron is recommended by clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of anemia associated with a range of common conditions, including chronic kidney disease (CKD), heart failure, and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Intravenous iron is recommended by clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of anemia associated with a range of common conditions, including chronic kidney disease (CKD), heart failure, and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Its use has expanded to other clinical settings where rapid replenishment of iron stores is required or where oral iron may not be absorbed (eg, chronic inflammation, surgery, and obstetrics).[1,2,3,4,5,6,7] This expansion may, in part, be driven by newer preparations that are reported to be safer with regard to risks such as anaphylaxis when compared with older dextran-based formations,[8] ease of administration, and increased adoption of patient blood management programs. Recent data suggest that the use of intravenous iron is increasing.[14,15,16] there is an unmet need to examine whether there is an association between intravenous iron and infection and, if so, whether this association increases morbidity and mortality.[17,18,19,20]

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call