Panacea Index Logo

Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

A randomized controlled trial of oral heme iron polypeptide versus oral iron supplementation for the treatment of anaemia in peritoneal dialysis patients: HEMATOCRIT trial.

Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association
November 1, 2012
Katherine A Barraclough et al. (10 authors)
Comparative StudyJournal ArticleMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tHuman StudyClinical
Study Details

Study Goal

The researchers aimed to compare the effectiveness of heme iron polypeptide (HIP) versus ferrous sulphate in augmenting iron stores in darbepoetin-treated peritoneal dialysis patients.

Results Summary

HIP showed no significant improvement in transferrin saturation or other secondary outcomes compared to ferrous sulphate, and serum ferritin levels were significantly lower in the HIP group. The study concluded that HIP offers no clear safety or efficacy benefits over conventional iron supplements for this population.

Population

Adult peritoneal dialysis patients treated with darbepoetin.

Effective Dosage

Two capsules daily of either HIP or ferrous sulphate.

Duration

6 months.

Interactions

None mentioned.

Extracted Claims (6)
InterventionDirectionEndpointPopulationDosageImpactClaim #
heme iron polypeptide (HIP)
no change
safety or efficacy
PD patients
no clear benefit
showed no clear safety or efficacy benefit
#1
heme iron polypeptide (HIP)
no change
TSAT at 6 months
DPO-treated patients
P = 0.95
was not significantly associated with
#2
heme iron polypeptide (HIP)
no change
TSAT
DPO-treated patients
22% (16-29) compared with 20% (17-26) in controls (P = 0.65)
was
#3
heme iron polypeptide (HIP)
decrease
Serum ferritin levels at 6 months
DPO-treated patients
P = 0.003
were significantly lower
#4
heme iron polypeptide (HIP)
increase
cost
-
7-fold higher
was 7-fold higher
#5
heme iron polypeptide (HIP)
no change
secondary outcomes
DPO-treated patients
no other differences
No other differences in
#6
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Preliminary clinical evidence suggests that heme iron polypeptide (HIP) might represent a promising, novel oral iron supplementation strategy in chronic kidney disease. The aim of this multi-centre randomized controlled trial was to determine the ability of HIP administration to augment iron stores in darbepoetin (DPO)-treated patients compared with conventional oral iron supplementation. METHODS: Adult peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients treated with DPO were randomized 1:1 to receive two capsules daily of either HIP or ferrous sulphate per os for 6 months. The primary outcome measure was transferrin saturation (TSAT). Secondary outcomes comprised serum ferritin, haemoglobin, DPO dose and responsiveness, and adverse events. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were randomized to HIP (n = 32) or ferrous sulphate (n = 30). On intention-to-treat analysis, the median (inter-quartile range) TSAT was 22% (16-29) in the HIP group compared with 20% (17-26) in controls (P = 0.65). HIP treatment was not significantly associated with TSAT at 6 months on multivariable analysis (P = 0.95). Similar results were found on per-protocol analysis and subgroup analysis in iron-deficient patients. Serum ferritin levels at 6 months were significantly lower in the HIP group (P = 0.003), while the cost of HIP was 7-fold higher than that of ferrous sulphate. No other differences in secondary outcomes were observed. CONCLUSIONS: HIP showed no clear safety or efficacy benefit in PD patients compared with conventional oral iron supplements. The reduction in serum ferritin levels and high costs associated with HIP therapy suggest that this agent is unlikely to have a significant role in iron supplementation in PD patients.

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
Administration, OralAdultAgedAnemia, Iron-DeficiencyDarbepoetin alfaDietary SupplementsErythropoietinFemaleFerritinsFerrous CompoundsHemoglobinsHumansKidney Failure, ChronicMaleMiddle AgedPeptide FragmentsPeritoneal DialysisTreatment Outcome
Study Links
Quality Scores
Safety80
Efficacy30/10
Quality85/10
Citation Metrics
Total Citations23
Citations/Year1.8
Relative Citation Ratio0.79
NIH Percentile41.8%
Research Impact Scores
APT Score0.75
Weight Score1.50
Normalized Score0.61
Related Supplements