Advertisement
Am J Health-Syst Pharm
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nguyen, T. V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nguyen, T. V.
American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, Vol. 66, Issue 12, 1101-1104
Copyright © 2009. American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Inc. All rights reserved. 1079-2082/04/0602-1242$06.00


Clinical Report

Comparison of serum ferritin and transferrin saturation values associated with two i.v. iron formulations in hemodialysis patients

Timothy V. Nguyen

TIMOTHY V. NGUYEN, PHARM.D., CCP, FASCP, is Clinical Pharmacy Specialist, Nephrology and Dialysis, Department of Pharmacy, Holy Name Hospital, Teaneck, NJ; Adjunct Assistant Professor, Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway; and Adjunct Pharmacology Professor, Saint Peter’s College, Englewood, NJ.

Address correspondence to Dr. Nguyen at the Department of Pharmacy, Holy Name Hospital, 718 Teaneck Road, Teaneck, NJ 07666 (tnguyen{at}spc.edu).


Purpose. The effects of i.v. iron formulations on serum ferritin concentration (SFC) and transferrin saturation (TSAT) are compared in adult hemodialysis patients with anemia receiving erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs).

Methods. This study consisted of 215 patients who were receiving chronic hemodialysis, ESAs, and i.v. iron supplementation from November 2005 to November 2006. All patients received iron sucrose therapy from November 2005 to April 2006. Patients were then switched to sodium ferric gluconate. If the patient’s SFC was <100 ng/mL and TSAT was <20%, then iron sucrose 100 mg i.v. at every hemodialysis for 10 doses or sodium ferric gluconate 125 mg i.v. at every hemodialysis for 8 doses was administered as loading doses. Maintenance doses of iron sucrose 60 mg or sodium ferric gluconate 62.5 mg were administered every two weeks if the SFC was 100–499 ng/mL and the TSAT was 20–29% or every four weeks if the SFC was 500–600 ng/mL and the TSAT was 30–45%. SFC and TSAT were measured every three months.

Results. More treatment courses resulted in target SFC and TSAT values during treatment with sodium ferric gluconate than iron sucrose, but neither difference was significant. The proportion of treatment courses resulting in SFCs of >600 ng/mL (above the target range) was significantly greater during treatment with iron sucrose than sodium ferric gluconate.

Conclusion. There was no significant difference between iron sucrose and sodium ferric gluconate in the frequency in which SFC and TSAT values were within target ranges in hemodialysis patients with anemia receiving ESAs. Of the two drugs, iron sucrose was more likely to produce an SFC above the target range.

Index terms: Anemia; Dialysis; Drug comparisons; Injections; Iron preparations; Iron sucrose; Kidney failure; Sodium ferric gluconate

 






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.
Advertisement