» Articles » PMID: 26715394

Impact of European Medicines Agency Recommendations for Hypersensitivity Reactions on Intravenous Iron Prescription in Haemodialysis Centres of the Lombardy Region

Overview
Journal J Nephrol
Publisher Springer
Specialty Nephrology
Date 2015 Dec 31
PMID 26715394
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has recommended measures to minimize the risk of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to intravenous iron (IVFe). We analysed the effects of these recommendations on IVFe clinical management among haemodialysis centres (HDCs) in Lombardy, Italy.

Materials And Methods: A questionnaire was sent to all 117 HDCs to collect information on centre characteristics, e.g. HDC type [hospital centre (HC) vs. centre with limited assistance (CAL)], presence/absence of intensive care unit (ICU) and/or emergency trained staff, IVFe therapy regarding molecules, administration modalities, side effects, and percentage variations in iron prescription between 2014 and 2013 (outcome, Δ-IVFe%). A linear regression model was applied to evaluate the focus effect (β) of HDC type on the outcome, controlling for possible confounding effects of the other characteristics.

Results: Response rate was 73.5 %. IVFe therapy was used in 69.1 % (HDC range 11-100) of patients. Following EMA recommendations, prescription was reduced by 12.6 %, with the largest reduction observed in CALs. No severe HSRs were reported. HCs had more frequently an ICU [97.2 vs. 20 %, odds ratio (OR) = 63.6 (95 % confidence interval 15.56; 537.47), p < 0.001], emergency trained staff [97.2 vs. 61.2 %, OR = 10.7 (2.68; 85.33), p < 0.001] and instrumental facilities (91.7 vs. 58 %, OR = 5.8 (2.03; 23.55), p < 0.001] than CALs. Linear regression demonstrated a significant raw effect of HDC type on Δ- IVFe% [β =  19.6 (9.82; 30.63), p < 0.001]. No association was found when HDC type was adjusted for ICU-presence [β = 6.7 (-2.32; 18.30), p = 0.199] or for all-confounding factors [β = 5.6 (-5.50; 17.08), p = 0.337].

Conclusions: This survey shows a disparity in IVFe therapy prescription following EMA recommendations, which is largely influenced by the presence/absence of ICUs in HD centres.

Citing Articles

Ferric Carboxymatose in Non-Hemodialysis CKD Patients: A Longitudinal Cohort Study.

Minutolo R, Berto P, Liberti M, Peruzzu N, Borrelli S, Netti A J Clin Med. 2021; 10(6).

PMID: 33806864 PMC: 8005153. DOI: 10.3390/jcm10061322.


Safety concerns about intravenous iron therapy in patients with chronic kidney disease.

Del Vecchio L, Longhi S, Locatelli F Clin Kidney J. 2016; 9(2):260-7.

PMID: 26985378 PMC: 4792617. DOI: 10.1093/ckj/sfv142.

References
1.
Allegra V, Mengozzi G, Vasile A . Iron deficiency in maintenance hemodialysis patients: assessment of diagnosis criteria and of three different iron treatments. Nephron. 1991; 57(2):175-82. DOI: 10.1159/000186246. View

2.
Auerbach M, Adamson J, Bircher A, Breymann C, Fishbane S, Gafter-Gvili A . On the safety of intravenous iron, evidence trumps conjecture. Haematologica. 2015; 100(5):e214-5. PMC: 4420237. DOI: 10.3324/haematol.2014.121004. View

3.
. Intravenous iron-containing products: EMA procrastination. Prescrire Int. 2014; 23(151):184-5. View

4.
Litton E, Xiao J, Ho K . Safety and efficacy of intravenous iron therapy in reducing requirement for allogeneic blood transfusion: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. BMJ. 2013; 347:f4822. PMC: 3805480. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f4822. View

5.
Sunder-Plassmann G, Horl W . Importance of iron supply for erythropoietin therapy. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1995; 10(11):2070-6. View