Clinical evaluation of heme iron polypeptide: sustaining a response to rHuEPO in hemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: Optimizing iron and recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO) therapy is necessary to achieve target hemoglobin levels and minimize costs as the end-stage renal disease (ESRD) population expands. Oral iron products in patients with ESRD have been largely abandoned, and the safety of intravenous (IV) iron preparations has improved with the introduction of new-generation compounds that have little allergenicity. Recent work suggests oral heme iron may be an effective supplement for hemodialysis (HD) patients because it is absorbed by patients with high ferritin levels, has fewer side effects, and its absorption is stimulated by erythropoietin administration. METHODS: We performed an open, 6-month, prospective evaluation of heme iron in HD patients who had been on maintenance IV iron therapy. IV iron was discontinued and replaced with oral heme iron. Serum iron level, hematocrit (Hct), and erythropoietin and IV iron dose were monitored. RESULTS: During 6 months, 4 of 37 patients (11%) dropped out because of insufficient iron supplementation or intolerance and 5 patients (14%) were dropped because of unrelated complications or protocol violation. A slight reduction in average transferrin saturation (TSAT) was seen early, but reversed, and no significant changes were seen in TSAT or Hct. A significant reduction in average serum ferritin level was seen at months 4 through 6 (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: During the 6-month study period, heme iron polypeptide successfully replaced IV iron therapy in a majority of HD patients and maintained target Hcts with no concomitant use of IV iron. This treatment was associated with a significant increase in rHuEPO efficiency (P = 0.04).

The biological and economic value of oral organic iron in maintenance dialysis.

With the widespread use of recombinant erythropoietin (EPO) for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), management of iron deficiency is an ongoing issue for the renal team. Effective iron replacement and maintenance play a vital role in efficient use of EPO. For hemodialysis patients, intravenous (i.v.) iron has proven convenient and, as an ancillary drug outside of the composite rate, generates profits for dialysis facilities. Improvements in the vehicle with which i.v. iron is administered have led to a reduction in severe or fatal reactions common with iron dextran products. Oral iron has had a spotty track record as an effective therapy for dialysis patients. Compliance has been hindered by patient discomfort when taking oral iron. Patients on peritoneal dialysis and those with chronic kidney disease remain good candidates for oral iron because of convenience, and oral formulas could prove more effective even in the hemodialysis patient population if they were better tolerated and better absorbed, and if using them would not place an economic burden on the patient and/or an economic hardship on the facility. In a capitated/bundled payment environment, oral iron may become a blessing rather than a curse for facilities that need to find more economic ways of providing services. Heme-iron, now undergoing clinical studies, may be a reliable replacement for i.v. iron in that scenario.