Panacea Index Logo

Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

Iron replacement therapy in cancer-related anemia.

American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists
January 1, 1970
David Baribeault et al. (2 authors)
Journal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tReviewHuman Study
Study Details

Study Goal

The researchers aimed to evaluate the role of intravenous iron therapy in improving the response to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in patients with cancer-related anemia.

Results Summary

The study found that i.v. iron supplementation improves ESA response rates, reduces time to target hemoglobin levels, decreases ESA requirements, and is more effective than oral iron without increased toxicity. However, i.v. iron remains underutilized due to misinformation about adverse events.

Population

Patients with cancer-related anemia, particularly those with absolute or functional iron deficiency.

Effective Dosage

Not specified

Duration

Not specified

Interactions

None mentioned

Extracted Claims (11)
InterventionDirectionEndpointPopulationDosageImpactClaim #
erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs)
increase
hemoglobin levels
patients with cancer
-
increases
#1
erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs)
decrease
transfusions
patients with cancer
-
decreases the need for
#2
i.v. iron supplementation
increase
ESAs
patients with cancer-related anemia
-
improves the response rate to
#3
i.v. iron supplementation
decrease
target hemoglobin levels
patients with cancer-related anemia
-
reduces the time to
#4
i.v. iron supplementation
decrease
ESA requirements
patients with cancer-related anemia
-
decreases
#5
i.v. iron supplementation
decrease
costs
patients with cancer-related anemia
-
reduces
#6
i.v. iron supplementation
increase
oral iron
patients with cancer-related anemia
-
is more efficacious than
#7
i.v. iron supplementation
increase
ESAs
patients with absolute or functional iron deficiency
-
can improve patient responses to
#8
i.v. iron supplementation
decrease
ESA requirements
patients with absolute or functional iron deficiency
-
reduce
#9
i.v. iron supplementation
decrease
transfusions
patients with absolute or functional iron deficiency
-
may also reduce the need for
#10
i.v. iron supplementation
increase
quality of life
patients with absolute or functional iron deficiency
-
improve
#11
Abstract

PURPOSE: The incidence, etiology, and management of cancer-related anemia is reviewed and the role of i.v. iron therapy in its treatment is described. SUMMARY: Between 30% and 90% of patients with cancer develop anemia due to direct effects of the disease, its treatment, underlying nutritional deficiencies, and the inflammation that characterizes chronic disease. Although the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) increases hemoglobin levels and decreases the need for transfusions, up to 50% of patients do not to respond to these drugs, usually due to the presence of absolute or functional iron deficiency. Multiple clinical trials have demonstrated that i.v. iron supplementation in patients with cancer-related anemia improves the response rate to ESAs, reduces the time to target hemoglobin levels, decreases ESA requirements, reduces costs, and is more efficacious than oral iron. These benefits are seen without increased toxicity. Nonetheless, i.v. iron remains underused in patients with cancer, partly due to misinformation and misinterpretation of the clinical nature of adverse events. CONCLUSION: Intravenous iron is underutilized in patients with cancer-related anemia. Based on published evidence, i.v. iron supplementation in patients with absolute or functional iron deficiency can improve patient responses to ESAs and reduce ESA requirements and may also reduce the need for transfusions and improve quality of life.

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
Administration, OralAnemia, Iron-DeficiencyDrug Therapy, CombinationHematinicsHumansInjections, IntravenousIron CompoundsNeoplasmsPractice Guidelines as Topic
Study Links
Quality Scores
Safety80
Efficacy85/10
Quality75/10
Citation Metrics
Total Citations19
Citations/Year1.4
Relative Citation Ratio0.66
NIH Percentile35.2%
Research Impact Scores
APT Score0.50
Weight Score1.67
Normalized Score0.81