A prospective observational study of iron isomaltoside in haemodialysis patients with chronic kidney disease treated for iron deficiency (DINO).

BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency is frequent in haemodialysis (HD) patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), and intravenous iron is an established therapy for these patients. This study assessed treatment routine, effectiveness, and safety of iron isomaltoside (IIM) 5% (Diafer®) in a HD cohort. METHODS: This prospective observational study included 198 HD patients converted from iron sucrose (IS) and treated with IIM according to product label and clinical routine. Data for IIM were compared to historic data for IS in 3-month intervals. The primary endpoint was to show non-inferiority for IIM versus IS in haemoglobin (Hb) maintenance. RESULTS: Most patients (> 60%) followed a fixed low-dose iron treatment protocol. Three minutes were required for preparation and administration of IIM. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) was used in > 80% of patients during both IIM and IS phases. The maintenance of Hb was similar with both iron drugs; the mean Hb level was 11 g/dL, and the mean change of 0.3 g/dL (95% confidence interval: 0.1, 0.5) for IIM 0-3 months compared to IS demonstrated non-inferiority. Nine adverse drug reactions were reported in 2% of patients administered IIM. All patients had uneventful recoveries. The frequency of metallic taste was higher with IS compared to IIM (34% versus 0.5%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: IIM is effective and well tolerated by CKD patients on HD. IIM was non-inferior to IS in maintenance of Hb, and had similar ESA requirements. The fast-push injection of IIM may enable logistical benefits in clinical practice, and the low frequency of metallic taste contributes to patient convenience. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02301026, study registered November 25, 2014.

Lipoprotein lipase responds similarly to tinzaparin as to conventional heparin during hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Low molecular weight (LMW) heparins are used for anticoagulation during hemodialysis (HD). Studies in animals have shown that LMW-heparins release lipoprotein lipase (LPL) as efficiently as unfractionated (UF) heparin, but are less able to retard hepatic uptake of the lipase. This raises a concern that the LPL system may become exhausted by LMW-heparin in patients on HD. We have explored this in the setting of clinical HD. METHODS: Twenty patients on chronic hemodialysis were switched from a primed infusion of UF-heparin to a single bolus of tinzaparin. There were long term follow up of variables for the estimation of dialysis efficacy as well as of the LPL release during dialysis and the subsequent impact on the triglycerides. RESULTS: The LPL activity in blood was higher on tinzaparin at 40 but lower at 180 minutes during HD. These values did not change during the 6 month study period. There were significant correlations between the LPL activities in individual patients at the beginning and end of the 6 month study period and between the activities on UF-heparin and on tinzaparin, indicating that tissue LPL was not being exhausted. Triglycerides were higher during the HD-session with tinzaparin than UF-heparin. The plasma lipid/lipoprotein levels did not change during the 6 month study period, nor during a 2-year follow up after the switch from UF-heparin to tinzaparin. Urea reduction rate and Kt/V were reduced by 4 and 7% after 6 months with tinzaparin. CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrate that repeated HD with UF-heparin or tinzaparin does not exhaust the LPL-system.