Intravenous iron supplementation for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anaemia - Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Anat Gafter-Gvili, Benaya Rozen-Zvi, Liat Vidal, Leonard Leibovici, Johan Vansteenkiste, Uzi Gafter, Ofer Shpilberg

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

78 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: Current guidelines are inconclusive regarding intravenous (IV) iron for treatment of chemotherapy-induced anaemia (CIA). Material and methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing IV iron with no iron or oral iron for treatment of chemotherapy induced anaemia (CIA). Primary outcomes: haematopoietic response and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion requirements. For dichotomous data, relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and pooled. For continuous data, weighted mean differences were calculated. Results: Eleven trials included 1681 patients, the majority examining the addition of IV iron to erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESA) (1562 patients, 92.9%). IV iron significantly increased haematopoietic response rate [RR 1.28 (95% CI 1.125-1.45), seven trials with ESA] and decreased the rate of blood transfusions both in trials with ESA [RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.61-0.95), seven trials] and without ESA [RR 0.52 (95% CI 0.34-0.80)]. The increase in haematopoietic response rate correlated with total IV iron dose, regardless of baseline iron status. Mortality and safety profile was comparable between groups. Conclusions: IV iron added to ESA results in an increase in haematopoietic response and reduction in the need for RBC transfusions, with no difference in mortality or adverse events.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)18-29
Number of pages12
JournalActa Oncologica
Volume52
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Intravenous iron supplementation for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anaemia - Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this