Sucrosomial® Iron: An Updated Review of Its Clinical Efficacy for the Treatment of Iron Deficiency.

Iron deficiency (ID) and iron deficiency anemia (IDA) are highly prevalent worldwide. Oral iron salts, especially ferrous sulfate, are commonly used for the treatment of iron deficiency (ID). However, its use is associated with gastrointestinal side effects, thus compromising treatment compliance. Intravenous iron administration is a more costly and logistically complex alternative and is not risk-free, as infusion and hypersensitivity reactions may occur. Sucrosomial® iron is an oral formulation consisting of ferric pyrophosphate conveyed by a phospholipid and sucrester matrix (sucrosome®). Intestinal Sucrosomial® iron absorption is mediated by enterocytes and M cells, through the paracellular and transcellular routes, and occurs mostly as intact particles. These pharmacokinetic properties of Sucrosomial® iron result in higher iron intestinal absorption and excellent gastrointestinal tolerance compared to oral iron salts. The evidence derived from clinical studies supports the use of Sucrosomial® iron as a valid first option for the treatment of ID and IDA, especially for subjects who are intolerant or refractory to conventional iron salts. Newer evidence also demonstrates the effectiveness of Sucrosomial® iron, with a lower cost and fewer side effects, in certain conditions usually treated with IV iron in current clinical practice.

Perioperative anemia: Prevalence, consequences and pathophysiology.

In major elective surgery, patient may be exposed to the effects of pre-operative anemia, blood loss and red cell transfusion, all of which may adversely influence post-operative rates of morbidity, mortality and readmission, and length of hospital stay. Preoperative anemia is prevalent among patients scheduled for major surgery (30-40%), while postoperative anemia is even more frequent (up to 80-90%). However, preoperative anemia is usually regarded as no more than a surrogated marker of patient's physical status, and it is not always adequately addressed before surgery, whereas red blood cell transfusion is the usual default treatment for postoperative anemia. Absolute iron deficiency and iron sequestration are the leading causes of preoperative anemia, whereas surgery-associated blood loss and inflammation may induce and/or maintain postoperative anemia. Hematinic deficiencies without anemia may hamper pre-operative hemoglobin optimization and/or recovery from postoperative anemia. As modifiable risk factors, preoperative anemia and hematinic deficiencies should be detected, classified and treated prior to any major surgery. For elective non-cancer procedures, this may entail to postpone surgery until anemia improvement or resolution.

Management of Perioperative Iron Deficiency Anemia.

Preoperative anemia affects 30-40% of patients undergoing major surgery and is an independent risk factor for perioperative blood transfusion, morbidity, and mortality. Absolute or functional iron deficiency is its leading cause. Nonanemic hematinic deficiencies are also prevalent and may hamper preoperative hemoglobin optimization and/or recovery from postoperative anemia. As modifiable risk factors, anemia and hematinic deficiencies should be detected and corrected prior to major surgical procedures. Postoperative anemia is even more common (up to 80-90%) due to surgery-associated blood loss, inflammation-induced blunted erythropoiesis, and/or preexisting anemia. Preoperative oral iron may have a role in mild-to-moderate anemia, provided there is sufficient time (6-8 weeks) and adequate tolerance of oral preparations. Postoperative oral iron is of little value and rife with gastrointestinal adverse events. Intravenous iron should preferentially be used in cases of moderate-to-severe iron deficiency anemia, concomitant use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, short time to surgery or nonelective procedures, and for postoperative anemia management. Minor infusion reactions to intravenous iron are rare, the incidence of severe anaphylactic reactions is extremely low, and there is no increase in infections with intravenous iron. Currently available intravenous iron formulations allowing administration of large single doses are preferred.

Short-term perioperative iron in major orthopedic surgery: state of the art.

In major orthopaedic surgery, it is recommended to detect and correct preoperative anaemia several weeks prior to surgery. However, in many cases, the procedure is urgent or the patient is evaluated shortly before the intervention. As iron deficiency is the leading cause of perioperative anaemia, an exhaustive review of the literature was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of short-term perioperative intravenous, with or without erythropoietin, or postoperative oral or intravenous supplementation in major orthopaedic surgery. Overall, 20 studies met the inclusion criteria. There were 13 randomized trials (moderate quality) and seven observational studies (low to very low quality). The primary outcomes were reduction in transfusion requirements, haemoglobin increase and medication side-effects during the study period. Data analysis showed that postoperative oral iron administration neither increased haemoglobin nor reduced transfusion requirements, and it was associated with significant gastrointestinal adverse effects (15%). In contrast, for some patient populations, perioperative or postoperative administration of intravenous iron, with or without recombinant erythropoietin, may reduce transfusion requirements and/or hasten the recovery from postoperative, with few clinically relevant adverse effects (<2%). However, discrepancies between randomized trials and observational studies on the possible beneficial effects of short-term perioperative intravenous iron administration were found for patients undergoing surgery for hip fracture repair. Further studies are needed to elucidate when the treatment should be started, which combination of drugs should be used, and which patient groups would be most benefit.

Prevention and management of acute reactions to intravenous iron in surgical patients.

Absolute or functional iron deficiency is the most prevalent cause of anaemia in surgical patients, and its correction is a fundamental strategy within "Patient Blood Management" programmes. Offering perioperative oral iron for treating iron deficiency anaemia is still recommended, but intravenous iron has been demonstrated to be superior in most cases. However, the long-standing prejudice against intravenous iron administration, which is thought to induce anaphylaxis, hypotension and shock, still persists. With currently available intravenous iron formulations, minor infusion reactions are not common. These self-limited reactions are due to labile iron and not hypersensitivity. Aggressively treating infusion reactions with H1-antihistamines or vasopressors should be avoided. Self-limited hypotension during intravenous iron infusion could be considered to be due to hypersensitivity or vascular reaction to labile iron. Acute hypersensitivity reactions to current intravenous iron formulation are believed to be caused by complement activation-related pseudo-allergy. However, though exceedingly rare (<1:250,000 administrations), they should not be ignored, and intravenous iron should be administered only at facilities where staff is trained to evaluate and manage these reactions. As preventive measures, prior to the infusion, staff should inform all patients about infusion reactions and identify those patients with increased risk of hypersensitivity or contraindications for intravenous iron. Infusion should be started at a low rate for a few minutes. In the event of a reaction, the very first intervention should be the immediate cessation of the infusion, followed by evaluation of severity and treatment. An algorithm to scale the intensity of treatment to the clinical picture and/or response to therapy is presented.

Sucrosomial® Iron: A New Generation Iron for Improving Oral Supplementation.

Iron deficiency (ID) is usually treated with oral iron salts, but up to 50% of patients complain of gastrointestinal side effects, leading to reduced treatment compliance. Intravenous (IV) iron formulations are increasingly safer, but there is still a risk of infusion and hypersensitivity reactions and the need for a venous access and infusion monitoring. Sucrosomial® iron (SI) is an innovative oral iron formulation in which ferric pyrophosphate is protected by a phospholipid bilayer plus a sucrester matrix (sucrosome), which is absorbed through para-cellular and trans-cellular routes (M cells). This confers SI unique structural, physicochemical and pharmacokinetic characteristics, together with high iron bioavailability and excellent gastrointestinal tolerance. The analysis of available evidence supports oral SI iron as a valid option for ID treatment, which is more efficacious and better tolerated than oral iron salts. SI has also demonstrated similar effectiveness, with lower risks, in patients usually receiving IV iron (e.g., chronic kidney disease, cancer, bariatric surgery). Thus, oral SI emerges as a most valuable first option for treating ID, even more for subjects with intolerance to or inefficacy of iron salts. Moreover, SI should be also considered as an alternative to IV iron for initial and/or maintenance treatment in different patient populations.

Intravenous iron administration for post-operative anaemia management after colorectal cancer surgery in clinical practice: a single-centre, retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the role of intravenous iron (IVI) supplementation after colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery is rather scant. This study was aimed at assessing the benefit of post-operative IVI administration after elective CRC surgery at our institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a single-centre, retrospective observational study including all patients who underwent CRC surgery during 2014. Anaemia was defined as a haemoglobin (Hb) <13 g/dL, regardless of gender. Anaemic patients received 200 mg IVI up to three times a week to cover iron deficiency (IVI group). Those who did not receive IVI were placed on standard care (NIVI group). The primary outcome was the proportion of anaemic patients on post-operative day (POD)1 and POD30. Secondary outcomes included Hb changes from POD1 to POD30, transfusion requirements and complication rates. RESULTS: Of the 159 patients studied, 139 (87%) presented with anaemia: 47 (34%) of these received post-operative IVI and 92 (66%) did not. Patients in the IVI group had lower POD1 Hb levels compared to those in the NIVI group (p=0.001). On POD30, only 103 had their Hb measured (34 IVI, 69 NIVI). Anaemia was more prevalent and more severe among the patients in the IVI group (p=0.027), despite their greater increment in Hb (2.0±1.5 g/dL vs 1.1±1.2 g/dL; p=0.001). Eleven patients needed post-operative transfusions (7 IVI, 4 NIVI; p=0.044). There were no differences in post-operative complication rates between the groups. No IVI-related adverse events were recorded DISCUSSION: Compared with standard care, post-operative IVI administration to anaemic patients improved the recovery of Hb levels at POD30, without increasing post-operative complications.

The safety of available treatment options for iron-deficiency anemia.

INTRODUCTION: Iron deficiency (ID), with or without anemia, is highly prevalent worldwide and has clinical consequences. The prevention and treatment of ID is a major public health goal. Accurate diagnosis, selection of the appropriate iron replacement therapy and addressing the underlying cause, remain as the main challenges in ID management. AREAS COVERED: This review aims to provide a narrative review of current available evidence on iron supplementation options regularly used to treat ID, including oral and intravenous (IV) iron formulations, with emphasis on safety issues. Analyzed safety concerns include gastrointestinal side effects (oral iron) and risks of hypotension, anaphylaxis, infection, hypophosphatemia, oxidative stress and mortality (IV iron). EXPERT OPINION: Low-to-moderate doses of oral iron supplementation remains as first line therapy for uncomplicated ID, but it has been scarcely discussed in the setting of inflammation. Confirmatory studies on the efficacy of newer oral iron formulations in this setting are needed. Compared with oral iron, short-term IV iron administration is more efficacious in ID correction, without significant safety concerns. However, long-term safety of IV iron maintenance therapy, head to head comparisons of IV iron preparations, pharmacological modulation of hepcidin and HIF, and extra-erythropoietic effects of iron are among the important areas of research.

Current misconceptions in diagnosis and management of iron deficiency.

The prevention and treatment of iron deficiency is a major public health goal. Challenges in the treatment of iron deficiency include finding and addressing the underlying cause and the selection of an iron replacement product which meets the needs of the patient. However, there are a number of non-evidence-based misconceptions regarding the diagnosis and management of iron deficiency, with or without anaemia, as well as inconsistency of terminology and lack of clear guidance on clinical pathways. In particular, the pathogenesis of iron deficiency is still frequently not addressed and iron not replaced, with indiscriminate red cell transfusion used as a default therapy. In our experience, this imprudent practice continues to be endorsed by non-evidence-based misconceptions. The intent of the authors is to provide a consensus that effectively challenges these misconceptions, and to highlight evidence-based alternatives for appropriate management (referred to as key points). We believe that this approach to the management of iron deficiency may be beneficial for both patients and healthcare systems. We stress that this paper solely presents the Authors' independent opinions. No pharmaceutical company funded or influenced the conception, development or writing of the manuscript.

Preoperative management of colorectal cancer-induced iron deficiency anemia in clinical practice: data from a large observational cohort.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative anemia prevalence among colorectal cancer (CRC) patients is high and may adversely influence postoperative outcome. This study assesses the efficacy of a preoperative anemia managing protocol in CRC. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of consecutive CRC resections at two Spanish centers (January 2012 to December 2013). Preoperative anemia was defined as a hemoglobin (Hb) level of less than 13 g/dL and treated with intravenous iron (IVI) or standard care (oral iron or no iron). Red blood cell transfusion (RBCT) requirements was the primary outcome variable. Postoperative infection rate and length of hospital stay (LOS) were secondary outcome variables. Patients were managed with a restrictive transfusion trigger (Hb < 8 g/dL). Infection was diagnosed clinically and confirmed by laboratory, microbiologic, and/or radiologic evidence. RESULTS: Overall, 322 of 571 patients (56%) presented with anemia: 232 received IVI and 90 standard care. There were differences in RBCT rate between no anemia and anemia (2% vs. 16%; p < 0.01), but not in postoperative infections (19% vs. 22%; p = NS) or LOS. Compared to those on standard care, anemic patients on IVI presented with lower Hb (10.8 g/dL vs. 12.0 g/dL; p < 0.001) at baseline, but similar Hb on day of surgery and Postoperative Day 30. There were no between-group differences in RBCT rates (16% vs. 17%; p = NS), but infection rates were lower among IVI-treated patients (18% vs. 29%; p < 0.05). No relevant IVI-related side effects were recorded. CONCLUSION: Compared to standard care, IVI was more effective in treating preoperative anemia in CRC patients and appeared to reduce infection rate, although it did not reduce postoperative RBCT.

Anaemia in the elderly. / Anemia del anciano.

Anaemia is common in the elderly and is associated with an increased risk of physical, functional, and cognitive impairment, hospitalisation and mortality. Although it is unknown whether anaemia is a causal factor or a subrogated marker of worse health status, its correction can improve the patients' physical and functional capacity. Detection, classification, and treatment of anaemia should be a priority for the health system. The main causes of anaemia in the elderly are nutritional deficiencies and chronic disease, with or without kidney failure, although some cases are of indeterminate origin. Medical history and physical examination help to clarify its aetiology. A diagnostic algorithm based on data from the lab allows anaemia classification with a therapeutic orientation. Supplements of iron and maturation factors, as well as erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, constitute the mainstay of treatment, along with that of the underlying disease, whereas red blood cell transfusion should be reserved for severe cases.

A fast-track anaemia clinic in the Emergency Department: cost-analysis of intravenous iron administration for treating iron-deficiency anaemia.

BACKGROUND: A fast-track anaemia clinic (FTAC) for the management of moderate-to-severe iron-deficiency anaemia (IDA) was established in our Emergency Department in 2010. In this FTAC, the replacement of packed red cell transfusion by ferric carboxymaltose administration was proven to be safe and effective. The aim of this study was a cost-analysis of IDA management in the FTAC, comparing this management with the previous standard care pathway consisting of packed red cell transfusion, if needed, and referral to outpatient specialised care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost study was performed for patients with IDA who were at risk of requiring transfusion (haemoglobin <9 g/dL) but did not require hospitalisation. Total IDA treatment costs in the FTAC were compared to those theoretically incurred if these patients had been managed using the standard care pathway. In addition, a sensitivity analysis considering variations of up to ±30% in ferric carboxymaltose and packed red cell acquisition costs was performed (49 possible scenarios). RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2015, 238 IDA patients were treated in the FTAC. The average treatment cost was € 594±337/patient in the FTAC group and € 672±301/patient in the standard care pathway group, with a saving of € 78±28/patient (95% CI, 22-133; p<0.001). The sensitivity analysis showed that IDA treatment costs in the FTAC (€ 480-722/patient), compared with those of the standard care pathway (€ 550-794/patient), resulted in significant cost-savings for all studied scenarios (€ 51-104/patient; p<0.005). DISCUSSION: The administration of ferric carboxymaltose for IDA management in a FTAC may be cost-saving compared with the standard care pathway.

A fast-track anaemia clinic in the Emergency Department: feasibility and efficacy of intravenous iron administration for treating sub-acute iron deficiency anaemia.

BACKGROUND: Clinically significant anaemia, requiring red blood cell transfusions, is frequently observed in Emergency Departments (ED). To optimise blood product use, we developed a clinical protocol for the management of iron-deficiency anaemia in a fast-track anaemia clinic within the ED. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From November 2010 to January 2014, patients presenting with sub-acute, moderate-to-severe anaemia (haemoglobin [Hb] <11 g/dL) and confirmed or suspected iron deficiency were referred to the fast-track anaemia clinic. Those with absolute or functional iron deficiency were given intravenous (IV) ferric carboxymaltose 500-1,000 mg/week and were reassessed 4 weeks after receiving the total iron dose. The primary study outcome was the haematological response (Hb≥12 g/dL and/or Hb increment ≥2 g/dL). Changes in blood and iron parameters, transfusion rates and IV iron-related adverse drug effects were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Two hundred and two anaemic patients with iron deficiency (150 women/52 men; mean age, 64 years) were managed in the fast-track anaemia clinic, and received a median IV iron dose of 1,500 mg (1,000-2,000 mg). Gastro-intestinal (44%) or gynaecological (26%) bleeding was the most frequent cause of the anaemia. At follow-up (183 patients), the mean Hb increment was 3.9±2.2 g/dL; 84% of patients were classified as responders and blood and iron parameters normalised in 90%. During follow-up, 35 (17%) patients needed transfusions (2 [range: 1-3] units per patient) because they had low Hb levels, symptoms of anaemia and/or were at risk. Eight mild and one moderate, self-limited adverse drug effects were witnessed. DISCUSSION: Our data support the feasibility of a clinical protocol for management of sub-acute anaemia with IV iron in the ED. IV iron was efficacious, safe and well tolerated. Early management of anaemia will improve the use of blood products in the ED.

"Patient blood management" in orthopaedic surgery.

Orthopaedic and trauma surgical procedures (OTS) can lead to significant blood losses and acute postoperative anaemia, which in many cases requires allogeneic blood transfusions (ABT). The clinical, economic and logistical disadvantages of ABT have promoted the development of multidisciplinary and multimodal programs generically known as Patient Blood Management (PBM) programs, which have as their objective to reduce or eliminate the need for ABT and improve clinical outcomes. These programs are supported by the implementation of four groups of perioperative measures: (1) use of restrictive transfusion criteria; (2) stimulation of erythropoiesis; (3) reduction of bleeding; and (4) autologous blood transfusion. In this article, a review is presented of the effectiveness, safety and recommendations of applicable strategies in OTS, as well as the barriers and requirements to the development and implementation of PBM programs in this surgical specialty.