Hypophosphataemia following ferric derisomaltose and ferric carboxymaltose in patients with iron deficiency anaemia due to inflammatory bowel disease (PHOSPHARE-IBD): a randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: Intravenous iron-a common treatment for anaemia and iron deficiency due to inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-can cause hypophosphataemia. This trial compared the incidence of hypophosphataemia after treatment with ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) or ferric derisomaltose (FDI). DESIGN: This randomised, double-blind, clinical trial was conducted at 20 outpatient hospital clinics in Europe (Austria, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, UK). Adults with IBD and iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) were randomised 1:1 to receive FCM or FDI at baseline and at Day 35 using identical haemoglobin- and weight-based dosing regimens. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypophosphataemia (serum phosphate <2.0 mg/dL) at any time from baseline to Day 35 in the safety analysis set (all patients who received ≥1 dose of study drug). Markers of mineral and bone homeostasis, and patient-reported fatigue scores, were measured. RESULTS: A total of 156 patients were screened; 97 (49 FDI, 48 FCM) were included and treated. Incident hypophosphataemia occurred in 8.3% (4/48) FDI-treated patients and in 51.0% (25/49) FCM-treated patients (adjusted risk difference: -42.8% (95% CI -57.1% to -24.6%) p<0.0001). Both iron formulations corrected IDA. Patient-reported fatigue scores improved in both groups, but more slowly and to a lesser extent with FCM than FDI; slower improvement in fatigue was associated with greater decrease in phosphate concentration. CONCLUSION: Despite comparably effective treatment of IDA, FCM caused a significantly higher rate of hypophosphataemia than FDI. Further studies are needed to address the longer-term clinical consequences of hypophosphataemia and to investigate mechanisms underpinning the differential effects of FCM and FDI on patient-reported fatigue.

Efficacy and safety of ferric derisomaltose (FDI) compared with iron sucrose (IS) in patients with iron deficiency anemia after bariatric surgery.

PURPOSE: Iron deficiency is common following bariatric surgery, and treatment with intravenous iron is often required. This post hoc analysis of data from two randomized, open-label, multicenter trials evaluated the efficacy and safety of ferric derisomaltose (FDI; formerly iron isomaltoside 1000) versus iron sucrose (IS) over 4 weeks in adults with iron deficiency anemia (IDA) resulting from prior bariatric surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were pooled for participants who received FDI or IS in the PROVIDE or FERWON-IDA trials for the treatment of IDA post bariatric surgery. Efficacy outcomes included changes in hemoglobin (Hb) and iron parameters; safety outcomes included the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), serious or severe hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), and hypophosphatemia. RESULTS: The analysis included 159 patients. Mean (standard deviation) cumulative iron doses were 1199 (± 347) mg for FDI and 937 (± 209) mg for IS. Compared with IS, FDI resulted in a faster and more pronounced Hb response, and a higher proportion of responders (Hb level increase ≥ 2 g/dL from baseline) at all time points. The incidence of ADRs was similar with FDI and IS (15.1% and 18.2%, respectively), with no serious ADRs or serious or severe HSRs reported. The incidence of hypophosphatemia was low and similar in both treatment groups, with no cases of severe hypophosphatemia observed. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with IDA resulting from bariatric surgery, FDI produced a faster and more pronounced Hb response than IS. Both FDI and IS were well tolerated.

Safety and efficacy of iron isomaltoside 1000/ferric derisomaltose versus iron sucrose in patients with chronic kidney disease: the FERWON-NEPHRO randomized, open-label, comparative trial.

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 > 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.

Effects of Iron Isomaltoside vs Ferric Carboxymaltose on Hypophosphatemia in Iron-Deficiency Anemia: Two Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Intravenous iron enables rapid correction of iron-deficiency anemia, but certain formulations induce fibroblast growth factor 23-mediated hypophosphatemia. Objective: To compare risks of hypophosphatemia and effects on biomarkers of mineral and bone homeostasis of intravenous iron isomaltoside (now known as ferric derisomaltose) vs ferric carboxymaltose. Design, Setting, and Participants: Between October 2017 and June 2018, 245 patients aged 18 years and older with iron-deficiency anemia (hemoglobin level ≤11 g/dL; serum ferritin level ≤100 ng/mL) and intolerance or unresponsiveness to 1 month or more of oral iron were recruited from 30 outpatient clinic sites in the United States into 2 identically designed, open-label, randomized clinical trials. Patients with reduced kidney function were excluded. Serum phosphate and 12 additional biomarkers of mineral and bone homeostasis were measured on days 0, 1, 7, 8, 14, 21, and 35. The date of final follow-up was June 19, 2018, for trial A and May 29, 2018, for trial B. Interventions: Intravenous administration of iron isomaltoside, 1000 mg, on day 0 or ferric carboxymaltose, 750 mg, infused on days 0 and 7. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the incidence of hypophosphatemia (serum phosphate level <2.0 mg/dL) between baseline and day 35. Results: In trial A, 123 patients were randomized (mean [SD] age, 45.1 [11.0] years; 95.9% women), including 62 to iron isomaltoside and 61 to ferric carboxymaltose; 95.1% completed the trial. In trial B, 122 patients were randomized (mean [SD] age, 42.6 [12.2] years; 94.1% women), including 61 to iron isomaltoside and 61 to ferric carboxymaltose; 93.4% completed the trial. The incidence of hypophosphatemia was significantly lower following iron isomaltoside vs ferric carboxymaltose (trial A: 7.9% vs 75.0% [adjusted rate difference, -67.0% {95% CI, -77.4% to -51.5%}], P < .001; trial B: 8.1% vs 73.7% [adjusted rate difference, -65.8% {95% CI, -76.6% to -49.8%}], P < .001). Beyond hypophosphatemia and increased parathyroid hormone, the most common adverse drug reactions (No./total No.) were nausea (iron isomaltoside: 1/125; ferric carboxymaltose: 8/117) and headache (iron isomaltoside: 4/125; ferric carboxymaltose: 5/117). Conclusions and Relevance: In 2 randomized trials of patients with iron-deficiency anemia who were intolerant of or unresponsive to oral iron, iron isomaltoside (now called ferric derisomaltose), compared with ferric carboxymaltose, resulted in lower incidence of hypophosphatemia over 35 days. However, further research is needed to determine the clinical importance of this difference. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT03238911 and NCT03237065.

A prospective, multi-center, randomized comparison of iron isomaltoside 1000 versus iron sucrose in patients with iron deficiency anemia; the FERWON-IDA trial.

Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is prevalent, and intravenous iron, especially if given in a single dose, may result in better adherence compared with oral iron. The present trial (FERWON-IDA) is part of the FERWON program with iron isomaltoside 1000/ferric derisomaltose (IIM), evaluating safety and efficacy of high dose IIM in IDA patients of mixed etiologies. This was a randomized, open-label, comparative, multi-center trial conducted in the USA. The IDA patients were randomized 2:1 to a single dose of 1000 mg IIM, or iron sucrose (IS) administered as 200 mg intravenous injections, up to five times. The co-primary endpoints were adjudicated serious or severe hypersensitivity reactions, and change in hemoglobin from baseline to week eight. A total of 1512 patients were enrolled. The frequency of patients with serious or severe hypersensitivity reactions was 0.3% (95% confidence interval: 0.06;0.88) vs 0.4% (0.05;1.45) in the IIM and IS group, respectively. The co-primary safety objective was met, and no risk difference was observed between groups. The co-primary efficacy endpoint of non-inferiority in hemoglobin change was met, and IIM led to a significantly more rapid hematological response in the first two weeks. The frequency of cardiovascular events was 0.8% and 1.2% in the IIM and IS group, respectively (P = .570). The frequency of hypophosphatemia was low in both groups. Iron isomaltoside administered as 1000 mg resulted in a more rapid and more pronounced hematological response, compared with IS, which required multiple visits. The safety profile was similar with a low frequency of hypersensitivity reactions and cardiovascular events.

Intravenous iron isomaltoside treatment of women suffering from severe fatigue after postpartum hemorrhage.

Background and objectives: To explore if intravenous iron isomaltoside (Monofer®) leads to a better relief of fatigue than current treatment practice with oral iron in women suffering from severe fatigue after postpartum hemorrhage. Materials and methods: This is a subanalysis of a single-center, open-label, randomized controlled trial conducted in women suffering from postpartum hemorrhage. Participants were randomized 1:1 to 1200 mg iron isomaltoside or current treatment practice with oral iron. We measured fatigue by the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, and determined hematological parameters. The subanalysis includes all participants with a high fatigue score (MFI physical fatigue score >15) at inclusion. The primary endpoint was aggregated change in physical fatigue score from inclusion to 12 weeks postpartum with a predefined minimum clinically relevant difference of 1.8. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT01895218). Results: A total of 85 women had a high fatigue score at inclusion. The aggregated change in physical fatigue score was -2.3 (confidence interval 95%: -3.3; -1.3) (p < .0001) in favor of iron isomaltoside. Significant differences in other fatigue and depression scores and hematological parameters were observed and all in favor of iron isomaltoside. There were no differences in side effects between the groups. Conclusions: In women suffering from severe fatigue after postpartum hemorrhage, a single dose of iron isomaltoside is associated with a statistically significant and clinically relevant reduction in aggregated physical fatigue within 12 weeks after delivery, when compared to current treatment practice with oral iron and with a similar safety profile.

Intravenous iron isomaltoside improves hemoglobin concentration and iron stores in female iron-deficient blood donors: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: This trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) iron isomaltoside (Monofer) in comparison with placebo in first-time female blood donors. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The trial was a prospective, double blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, comparative, single-center trial of 85 first-time female blood donors. The subjects were randomly assigned 1:1 to either 1000 mg IV iron isomaltoside infusion or placebo. The primary endpoint of the trial was change in hemoglobin (Hb) from baseline to right before the third blood donation. RESULTS: The increase in Hb was significantly higher for iron isomaltoside compared with placebo right before both the second blood donation (p = 0.0327) and the third blood donation (primary endpoint, p < 0.0001). Improvements in other iron-related variables (plasma iron, plasma ferritin, transferrin saturation, and reticulocyte count) in favor of iron isomaltoside were also observed. The trial was not powered on patient-reported outcomes. However, improvements in iron stores and Hb levels after iron isomaltoside administration were supported by the fact that several of the fatigue symptoms scores showed numerical differences in favor of iron isomaltoside. There were no differences in side effects between the groups. CONCLUSION: In iron-deficient female blood donors a single IV iron isomaltoside administration resulted in an improvement in Hb concentration and iron stores and demonstrated a favorable safety profile comparable to placebo.

A randomized trial of iron isomaltoside versus iron sucrose in patients with iron deficiency anemia.

Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is common in many chronic diseases, and intravenous (IV) iron offers a rapid and efficient iron correction. This trial compared the efficacy and safety of iron isomaltoside (also known as ferric derisomaltose) and iron sucrose in patients with IDA who were intolerant of, or unresponsive to, oral iron. The trial was an open­label, comparative, multi­center trial. Five hundred and eleven patients with IDA from different causes were randomized 2:1 to iron isomaltoside or iron sucrose and followed for 5 weeks. The cumulative dose of iron isomaltoside was based on body weight and hemoglobin (Hb), administered as either a 1000 mg infusion over more than 15 minutes or 500 mg injection over 2 minutes. The cumulative dose of iron sucrose was calculated according to Ganzoni and administered as repeated 200 mg infusions over 30 minutes. The mean cumulative dose of iron isomaltoside was 1640.2 (standard deviation (SD): 357.6) mg and of iron sucrose 1127.9 (SD: 343.3) mg. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a Hb increase ≥2 g/dL from baseline at any time between weeks 1­5. Both non­inferiority and superiority were confirmed for the primary endpoint, and a shorter time to Hb increase ≥2 g/dL was observed with iron isomaltoside. For all biochemical efficacy parameters, faster and/or greater improvements were found with iron isomaltoside. Both treatments were well tolerated; 0.6% experienced a serious adverse drug reaction. Iron isomaltoside was more effective than iron sucrose in achieving a rapid improvement in Hb. Furthermore, iron isomaltoside has an advantage over iron sucrose in allowing higher cumulative dosing in fewer administrations. Both treatments were well tolerated in a broad population with IDA.

High-dose fast infusion of parenteral iron isomaltoside is efficacious in inflammatory bowel disease patients with iron-deficiency anaemia without profound changes in phosphate or fibroblast growth factor 23.

OBJECTIVE: Iron isomaltoside (Monofer(®)) is a high-dose intravenous iron preparation with good tolerability and efficacy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients with iron deficiency anaemia (IDA). This trial evaluates the safety and efficacy, including effect on intact fibroblast growth factor 23 (iFGF23) of a high single dose and cumulative doses of iron isomaltoside in IBD patients with IDA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The trial was a prospective, open-label, multi-centre trial conducted in IBD patients with IDA. Based upon haemoglobin (Hb) levels at baseline and weight, the patients received 1500, 2000, 2500 or 3000 mg of iron isomaltoside infused in single doses up to 2000 mg. The outcome measurements included adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and changes in haematology and biochemistry parameters. RESULTS: Twenty-one IBD patients with IDA were enrolled, receiving 1500 (seven patients), 2000 (eight patients), 2500 mg (four patients) or 3000 (two patients) mg of iron. No serious ADRs were observed. Four patients experienced nine mild to moderate ADRs (hypersensitivity, pyrexia, vomiting, constipation, abdominal pain, dyspepsia (two events) and eye allergy (two events)). In total, 15 (75%) patients had an increase in Hb of ≥2.0 g/dL during the trial, with normalisation of ferritin. No changes in iFGF23 or clinically significant hypophosphataemia were found. CONCLUSION: Rapid infusions of high-dose iron isomaltoside, administered as single doses up to 2000 mg and cumulative doses up to 3000 mg, were without safety concerns and were efficacious in increasing Hb levels in IBD patients. Iron isomaltoside did not induce profound phosphate wasting via increased iFGF23 levels.

A Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Intravenous Iron Isomaltoside versus Oral Iron Sulfate in Patients with Nonmyeloid Malignancies and Anemia Receiving Chemotherapy: The PROFOUND Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: A safe alternative to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents to treat anemia is warranted in patients with cancer and anemia; thus the objective of this trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) iron isomaltoside with oral iron in patients with cancer and anemia by testing the noninferiority of IV versus oral iron. DESIGN: Phase III, prospective, open-label, comparative, randomized, noninferiority, multicenter trial. SETTING: Forty-seven hospitals or private cancer clinics in Asia, the United States, and Europe. PATIENTS: A total of 350 patients with cancer and anemia. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to either intravenous iron isomaltoside or oral iron sulfate. Patients in the iron isomaltoside group were then randomized into an infusion subgroup (single intravenous infusions of a maximum dose of 1000 mg over 15 min) or a bolus injection subgroup (bolus injections of 500 mg over 2 min). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary efficacy outcome was change in hemoglobin concentration from baseline to week 4. Changes in other relevant hematology variables, effect on quality of life, and safety outcomes were also assessed. The primary efficacy outcome was tested for noninferiority, whereas the remaining outcomes were tested for superiority. Iron isomaltoside was noninferior to oral iron in change in hemoglobin concentration from baseline to week 4 (difference estimate 0.016, 95% confidence interval -0.26 to 0.29, p<0.001). A faster onset of the hemoglobin response was observed with infusion of iron isomaltoside (superiority test: p=0.03 at week 1), and a sustained effect on hemoglobin level was shown in both the iron isomaltoside and oral iron treatment groups until week 24. A significant mean decrease in fatigue score was observed from baseline to week 12 in the iron isomaltoside group (p<0.001) but not in the oral iron group (p=0.057). A higher proportion of patients treated with oral iron experienced adverse drug reactions (18.8% vs 6.6%, p<0.001) and discontinued the trial due to intolerance (8.0% vs 0.9%, p=0.001). Transient hypophosphatemia (phosphate level less than 2 mg/dl) was reported at similar low frequencies among the groups: 7.1% in the iron isomaltoside infusion subgroup versus 8.5% in the iron isomaltoside bolus injection subgroup versus 5.4% in the oral iron group. CONCLUSION: This trial demonstrated comparable sustained increases in hemoglobin concentration over time with both iron isomaltoside and oral iron. Iron isomaltoside was better tolerated than oral iron, and fatigue was significantly decreased with iron isomaltoside. Low rates of clinically insignificant hypophosphatemia were reported in patients receiving both treatments.

A randomized trial of iron isomaltoside 1000 versus oral iron in non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease patients with anaemia.

BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency anaemia is common in patients with non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (NDD-CKD) and is often treated with oral or intravenous (IV) iron therapy. This trial compared the efficacy and safety of IV iron isomaltoside 1000 (Monofer®) and oral iron in NDD-CKD patients with renal-related anaemia. METHODS: The trial was a Phase III open-label, comparative, multicentre, non-inferiority trial conducted in 351 iron-deficient NDD-CKD patients, randomized 2:1 to either iron isomaltoside 1000 (Group A) or iron sulphate administered as 100 mg elemental oral iron twice daily (200 mg daily) for 8 weeks (Group B). The patients in Group A were randomized into A1 (infusion of max. 1000 mg single doses over 15 min) and A2 (bolus injections of 500 mg over 2 min). A modified Ganzoni formula was used to calculate IV iron need. The primary end point was change in haemoglobin concentrations from baseline to Week 4. RESULTS: Iron isomaltoside 1000 was both non-inferior to oral iron at Week 4 (P < 0.001) and sustained a superior increase in haemoglobin from Week 3 until the end of the study at Week 8 (P = 0.009 at Week 3). The haemoglobin response was more pronounced with iron isomaltoside 1000 doses ≥1000 mg (P < 0.05). Serum-ferritin and transferrin saturation concentrations were also significantly increased with IV iron. Adverse drug reactions were observed in 10.5% in the iron isomaltoside 1000 group and 10.3% in the oral iron group. More patients treated with oral iron sulphate withdrew from the study due to adverse events (4.3 versus 0.9%, P = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Iron isomaltoside 1000 was more efficacious than oral iron for increase in haemoglobin and proved to be well tolerated at the tested dose levels in NDD-CKD patients.

A randomized, open-label trial of iron isomaltoside 1000 (Monofer®) compared with iron sucrose (Venofer®) as maintenance therapy in haemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: Iron 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. METHODS: This 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. RESULTS: A 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. CONCLUSIONS: Iron 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.

A 1-year trial of repeated high-dose intravenous iron isomaltoside 1000 to maintain stable hemoglobin levels in inflammatory bowel disease.

OBJECTIVE: Iron isomaltoside 1000 (Monofer®) is a high-dose intravenous (IV) iron, which in a recent 8 weeks trial in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) subjects with iron deficiency anemia (IDA) demonstrated good tolerability and efficacy. The present trial is an extension to this trial, which evaluates the need for additional high IV iron doses to maintain a stable hemoglobin (Hb) ≥12.0 g/dl. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a prospective, open-label, 12 months trial of European IBD subjects willing to participate after completing the lead-in trial. Subjects were allowed re-dosing with 500-2000 mg single doses of iron isomaltoside 1000 infused over ∼15 min at 3 months intervals depending on a predefined algorithm. Outcome measures included Hb, safety parameters and need for additional iron dosing. RESULTS: A total of 39 subjects were enrolled of which 34 subjects required re-dosing with a median cumulative 1-year dose of 1.8 g (mean cumulative dose 2.2 g). The mean (SD) Hb was 12.3 (1.5) g/dl at baseline, 12.8 (1.6) g/dl at 3 months, 12.8 (1.6) g/dl at 6 months, 12.9 (1.4) g/dl at 9 months and 12.9 (1.6) g/dl at 12 months. Seventy-four percent of subjects who had an Hb ≥12.0 g/dl at baseline were able to maintain Hb ≥12.0 g/dl till the end of the trial at 12 months. Nonserious probably related hypersensitivity reactions without significant hypotension were reported at the beginning of the infusion in two subjects, who recovered without sequelae. CONCLUSION: Repeated treatment of iron deficiency with iron isomaltoside 1000 could avoid episodes of IDA without major safety issues.

Sympathetic block by metal clips may be a reversible operation.

OBJECTIVES: Thoracoscopic sympathectomy is now used routinely to treat patients with disabling primary hyperhidrosis or facial blushing. Published results are excellent, but side effects, such as compensatory sweating, are also very frequent. The surgical techniques used and the levels of targeting the sympathetic chain vary tremendously. Most surgeons transect or resect the sympathetic chain, but application of a metal clip that blocks transmission of nerve impulses in the sympathetic chain is used increasingly worldwide. This approach offers potential reversibility if patients regret surgery, but the question of reversibility remains controversial. Two recent experimental studies found severe histological signs of nerve damage 4-6 weeks after clip removal, but they only used conventional histopathological staining methods. METHODS: Thoracoscopic clipping of the sympathetic trunk was performed in adult sheep, and the clip was removed thoracoscopically after 7 days. Following another 4 weeks (n = 6) or 12 weeks (n = 3), the sympathetic trunks were harvested and analysed by conventional and specific nerve tissue immunohistochemical stains (S100, neurofilament protein and synaptophysin). The contralateral sympathetic chains were used as controls. RESULTS: Conventional and immunohistochemical stains demonstrated severe signs of neural damage on the operated side 4 weeks after clip removal. After 12 weeks, these changes had decreased markedly and conventional histology had almost normalized. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional and immunohistochemical stains confirmed that application of metal clips to the sympathetic chain caused severe histological damage in the sympathetic trunk that remained visible 4 weeks after clip removal. However, after 12 weeks, these signs of damage had clearly decreased, which suggests in theory that application of metal clips to the sympathetic chain is a reversible procedure if only the observation period is prolonged. Further studies with longer periods between application and removal as well as investigations of nerve conduction should be encouraged, because we do not know whether histological reversibility at cellular level translates into physiological reversibility and possible correlation of nerve trauma with the duration of the applied clip.

A randomized, open-label, non-inferiority study of intravenous iron isomaltoside 1,000 (Monofer) compared with oral iron for treatment of anemia in IBD (PROCEED).

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 compound, we suggest that the true iron demand of IV iron was underestimated by the Ganzoni formula in our study. Alternative calculations including Hb and CRP should be explored to gauge iron stores in patients with IBD.

Pharmacokinetics of iron isomaltoside 1000 in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: Iron isomaltoside 1000 is a novel injectable iron compound which offers potential advantages in the treatment of subjects with iron-deficiency anemia. We studied the pharmacokinetics (PK) of this novel compound in subjects with mild-to-moderate inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: This open-label, crossover, single-center trial was conducted in 12 subjects with IBD who were allocated to one of the two single intravenous (IV) bolus sequences of iron isomaltoside 1000: 100 mg followed by 200 mg, or vice-versa. PK variables were analyzed according to a single-compartment model. RESULTS: The concentration-versus-time relationship for isomaltoside-bound iron (IBI) and total iron (TI) showed first-order kinetics with small deviations from dose-linearity. The area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) values in h * µg/mL for IBI following 100 mg and 200 mg doses were 888 and 2141 respectively, and for TI following 100 mg and 200 mg doses, the AUC values were 1010 and 2319 respectively. The corresponding maximum serum concentration (C(max)) values in µg/mL were 35.6 and 68.6 for IBI, and 37.3 and 71.1 for TI. The half-life (T(½)) values for IBI and TI were between 20.8-23.5 hours. The apparent volume of distribution (V(D)) ranged from 3.0-3.5 L. Only approximately 1% of the doses administered were excreted in the urine. No serious adverse event (SAE) was reported. One subject was withdrawn after the 100 mg dose due to abdominal pain and flushing. CONCLUSION: At the administered doses, iron isomaltoside 1000 showed first-order PK, and did not raise safety concerns in patients with IBD. The PK parameters for IBI were close to those of TI.

Iron isomaltoside 1000: a new intravenous iron for treating iron deficiency in chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) often suffer from iron deficiency anemia necessitating treatment with intravenous iron. This study was designed to assess the safety of iron isomaltoside 1000 (Monofer) in CKD patients. The secondary objective was to assess its effect on iron deficiency anemia. METHODS: This open-label, noncomparative, multicenter trial assigned 182 patients with CKD (n=161 in dialysis and n=21 in predialysis) to iron isomaltoside 1000 either as 4 intravenous bolus injections of 100-200 mg iron per dose or as a fast high-dose infusion at baseline. Patients were generally undergoing erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) treatment (82%), and the dosage was to be kept constant during the trial. They were either switched from an existing parenteral maintenance therapy (n=144) or were not currently being treated with parenteral iron (n=38). Frequency of adverse events (AEs) and changes in markers of iron deficiency anemia were measured during 8 weeks from baseline. RESULTS: Nineteen treatment-related AEs occurred in 13 patients (7.1%) and after 584 treatments (3.3%). No anaphylactic or delayed allergic reactions were observed. There were no clinically significant changes in routine clinical laboratory tests or vital signs. Hemoglobin increased from 99.2 g/L (SD=9.0) at baseline to 111.2 g/L (SD=14.7) at week 8 in patients not currently treated with parenteral iron (p<0.001) and increased slightly or stabilized in patients in maintenance therapy. S-Ferritin, s-iron and transferrin saturation increased significantly at all visits. CONCLUSIONS: 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.