A prospective crossover trial comparing intermittent intravenous and continuous oral iron supplements in peritoneal dialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant iron supplementation is required in the great majority of erythropoietin (Epo)-treated patients with end-stage renal failure. Intravenous (i.v.) iron supplementation has been demonstrated to be superior to oral iron therapy in Epo-treated haemodialysis patients, but comparative data in iron-replete peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients are lacking. METHODS: A 12-month, prospective, crossover trial comparing oral and i.v. iron supplementation was conducted in all Princess Alexandra Hospital PD patients who were on a stable dose of Epo, had no identifiable cause of impaired haemopoiesis other than uraemia, and had normal iron stores (transferrin saturation >20% and serum ferritin 100-500 mg/l). Patients received daily oral iron supplements (210 mg elemental iron per day) for 4 months followed by intermittent, outpatient i.v. iron infusions (200 mg every 2 months) for 4 months, followed by a further 4 months of oral iron. Haemoglobin levels and body iron stores were measured monthly. RESULTS: Twenty-eight individuals were entered into the study and 16 patients completed 12 months of follow-up. Using repeated-measures analysis of variance, haemoglobin concentrations increased significantly during the i.v. phase (108+/-3 to 114+/-3 g/l) compared with each of the oral phases (109+/-3 to 108+/-3 g/l and 114+/-3 to 107+/-4 g/l, P<0.05). Similar patterns were seen for both percentage transferrin saturation (23.8+/-2.3 to 30.8+/-3.0%, 24.8+/-2.1 to 23.8+/-2.3%, and 30.8+/-3.0 to 26.8+/-2.1%, respectively, P<0.05) and ferritin (385+/-47 to 544+/-103 mg/l, 317+/-46 to 385+/-47 mg/l, 544+/-103 to 463+/-50 mg/l, respectively, P=0.10). No significant changes in Epo dosages were observed throughout the study. I.v. iron supplementation was associated with a much lower incidence of gastrointestinal disturbances (11 vs 46%, P<0.05), but exceeded the cost of oral iron treatment by 6.5-fold. CONCLUSIONS: Two-monthly i.v. iron infusions represent a practical alternative to oral iron and can be safely administered to PD patients in an outpatient setting. Compared with daily oral therapy, 2-monthly i.v. iron supplementation in PD patients was better tolerated and resulted in superior haemoglobin levels and body iron stores.

Oral versus intravenous iron supplementation in peritoneal dialysis patients.

The vast majority of erythropoietin (EPO)-treated peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients require iron supplementation. Most authors and clinical practice guidelines recommend primary oral iron supplementation in PD patients because it is more practical and less expensive. However, numerous studies have clearly demonstrated that oral iron therapy is unable to maintain EPO-treated PD patients in positive iron balance. Once patients become iron-deficient, intravenous iron administration has been found to more effectively augment iron stores and hematologic response than does oral therapy. We recently performed a prospective, cross-over trial in 28 iron-replete PD patients and showed that twice-monthly outpatient iron polymaltose infusions (200 mg) were a practical and safe alternative to oral iron. That treatment produced significant increases in hemoglobin concentration and body iron stores. The additional expense of intravenous iron therapy was completely offset by reductions in EPO dosage. Careful monitoring of iron stores is important in patients receiving intravenous iron supplementation in view of epidemiologic links with infection and cardiovascular disease. Nevertheless, a growing body of evidence suggests that, as has been found for hemodialysis patients, intravenous iron therapy is superior to oral iron supplementation in EPO-treated PD patients.

Novel surveillance and cure of a donor-transmitted lymphoma in a renal allograft recipient.

BACKGROUND: In this report we describe a malignant lymphoma of donor origin inadvertently transplanted into two renal allograft recipients, despite standard comprehensive donor screening. The successful clearance of the tumor from both patients and a novel method of surveillance are detailed. METHODS: Initial management consisted of withdrawal of immunosuppression to promote rejection of the allograft and the transplanted tumor in both patients, followed by graft removal. Peripheral blood microchimerism was assessed in both recipients using nested polymerase chain reaction to detect the DYZ3 gene on the Y chromosome (donor male, recipients female). RESULTS: Although microchimerism was detected on day 6 after transplantation and day 1 after explantation, repeat peripheral blood examination at 1, 3, and 6 months after explantation demonstrated no microchimerism. Both patients remain well at 12 months and have been relisted for transplantation. CONCLUSION: Despite inadvertent transplantation of a previously undiagnosed malignancy of donor origin, the recipients' immune response was able to eliminate donor tumor cells after the withdrawal of immunosuppression. Repeated surveillance of peripheral blood from both recipients, using a novel application of the technique of nested polymerase chain reaction to amplify donor DNA, demonstrated no persistence of donor cells, supporting effective eradication of the donor malignancy.