IV iron

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

alicealicealice

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2013
Messages
172
Reaction score
142
Is there something dangerous about giving IV iron daily? Say you have a HD stable GIB who has both a low TSAT and a low ferritin, and you calculate theirs iron deficit to be say 800mg. They get 1 uprbc (200mg fe) and will likely be in the hospital for say 3 days for scopes. Is there anything wrong with giving them 200 mg IV iron sucrose for those 3 days then DC ing them on po iron? I've gotten random pushback from pharmacists about QD dosing but no one could tell me why except for its not something usually done (ie they want to space it out QOD). Meanwhile the GI folks usually have no problem with QD dosing

Thanks

Members don't see this ad.
 
Is there something dangerous about giving IV iron daily? Say you have a HD stable GIB who has both a low TSAT and a low ferritin, and you calculate theirs iron deficit to be say 800mg. They get 1 uprbc (200mg fe) and will likely be in the hospital for say 3 days for scopes. Is there anything wrong with giving them 200 mg IV iron sucrose for those 3 days then DC ing them on po iron? I've gotten random pushback from pharmacists about QD dosing but no one could tell me why except for its not something usually done (ie they want to space it out QOD). Meanwhile the GI folks usually have no problem with QD dosing

Thanks

Pharmacists are slaves to package inserts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Is there something dangerous about giving IV iron daily? Say you have a HD stable GIB who has both a low TSAT and a low ferritin, and you calculate theirs iron deficit to be say 800mg. They get 1 uprbc (200mg fe) and will likely be in the hospital for say 3 days for scopes. Is there anything wrong with giving them 200 mg IV iron sucrose for those 3 days then DC ing them on po iron? I've gotten random pushback from pharmacists about QD dosing but no one could tell me why except for its not something usually done (ie they want to space it out QOD). Meanwhile the GI folks usually have no problem with QD dosing

Thanks

I believe historically IV iron was avoided as much as possible due to high risk of anaphylaxis. This isn't a big concern with the newer formulations but I think that stigma is still around.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I believe historically IV iron was avoided as much as possible due to high risk of anaphylaxis. This isn't a big concern with the newer formulations but I think that stigma is still around.

Yeah I remember during my intern year that an upper resident told me never to use IV iron because of that allergy risk and to this day, I still rarely use it even though I know that PO iron does a piss poor job at correcting IDA
 
I was told it was fairly expensive as well, like $1000 per course or transfusion, vs like $6 for 3 months worth of PO (I think, attending told me this)

there was a study that showed post-MI a higher crit was associated with significant benefits short term, otherwise I'm not convinced or would have to review literature to see if the risks/cost of rapid iron deficiency correction vs your 3 mo course of PO Fe really justifies doing that, I'm guessing no

also anything IV carries greater risk than PO (thromboplebitis, etc) and is always more expensive than PO equivalent is a reasonable rule of thumb to have mentally
on my checklist everyday is to look at my inpt's med list and make anything IV ---> PO if I can, anything given IV I feel I have to have a justification why I'm not doing it PO

I might be wrong but wouldn't having all that free iron around in your blood during that time be like fertilizing your blood for bacteremia? I mean that's the whole reason it gets sequestered by the body in infection, it's one of the most important factors for bacterial growth, although I can't say IV Fe increases risk

you can often ask the pharmacist to get a sense of what things cost and even if there's other reasons why not that alone often makes me feel better about letting it go

in any case, in the patient you describe, can you make a very compelling argument for why exposing this patient to the risk and expense of an IV administered compound justifies it over PO which is often cheaper and safer?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I was told it was fairly expensive as well, like $1000 per course or transfusion, vs like $6 for 3 months worth of PO (I think, attending told me this)

there was a study that showed post-MI a higher crit was associated with significant benefits short term, otherwise I'm not convinced or would have to review literature to see if the risks/cost of rapid iron deficiency correction vs your 3 mo course of PO Fe really justifies doing that, I'm guessing no

also anything IV carries greater risk than PO (thromboplebitis, etc) and is always more expensive than PO equivalent is a reasonable rule of thumb to have mentally
on my checklist everyday is to look at my inpt's med list and make anything IV ---> PO if I can, anything given IV I feel I have to have a justification why I'm not doing it PO

I might be wrong but wouldn't having all that free iron around in your blood during that time be like fertilizing your blood for bacteremia? I mean that's the whole reason it gets sequestered by the body in infection, it's one of the most important factors for bacterial growth, although I can't say IV Fe increases risk

you can often ask the pharmacist to get a sense of what things cost and even if there's other reasons why not that alone often makes me feel better about letting it go

in any case, in the patient you describe, can you make a very compelling argument for why exposing this patient to the risk and expense of an IV administered compound justifies it over PO which is often cheaper and safer?

- PO Fe does an extremely ****ty job of repleting iron, and in some series ~50% of pts discontinue it for GI side effects. It ain't helping if you ain't taking it.
- the 'Fe/bacteremia' bit is probably overstated...there's no evidence that it actually promotes or worsens bacteremia, and the whole 'no IV iron when someone is or has been bacteremic' is probably closer to unexamined dogma than truth
- hgb/hct responds far more rapidly to IV iron than PO, if that's a concern
- iron sucrose, ferumoxytol and ferric gluconate (in other words, the three IV iron formulations that are still used in the US to any extent) have very low absolute risks of anaphylactic reactions
- I agree the expense is a problem

In general, I think it's probably underutilized but this is probably limited by cost factors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
FWIW, IV Iron can effect MRI and exams should be delayed 1 week to 6 months based upon formulation.

Some institutions are even testing use of IV iron formulations as MR contrast agents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
FWIW, IV Iron can effect MRI and exams should be delayed 1 week to 6 months based upon formulation.

Some institutions are even testing use of IV iron formulations as MR contrast agents.

In all honesty, never had this be a problem in clinical practice:

1 week- Iron sucrose, ferric gluconate, iron carboxymaltase

1 mo- Low molecular wt iron dextran

3- 6 months- fenumoxitol and iron dextran
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
- PO Fe does an extremely ****ty job of repleting iron, and in some series ~50% of pts discontinue it for GI side effects. It ain't helping if you ain't taking it.
- the 'Fe/bacteremia' bit is probably overstated...there's no evidence that it actually promotes or worsens bacteremia, and the whole 'no IV iron when someone is or has been bacteremic' is probably closer to unexamined dogma than truth
- hgb/hct responds far more rapidly to IV iron than PO, if that's a concern
- iron sucrose, ferumoxytol and ferric gluconate (in other words, the three IV iron formulations that are still used in the US to any extent) have very low absolute risks of anaphylactic reactions
- I agree the expense is a problem

In general, I think it's probably underutilized but this is probably limited by cost factors.
I think the compliance issue with PO iron is way underestimated. Patients absolutely hate it. Plus, there is a lot to be said for completely replacing all the body's iron in 1 day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Thanks, it's clear both the anaphylaxis and infection risks of IV iron are overrated and debunked with the mot recent evidence/formulations, you all confirmed my suspicions that there is really nothing inherently wrong with giving iron on consecutive days. And while cost is an issue, it seems reasonable (to begin to replete) the fe stores of severely iron deficient folks who are admitted with GIB and usually other comorbidities with IV iron while in house. While benefits haven't been seen for liberal transfusion goals, it still seems better to give them the iron to retic to a somewhat normal hemoglobin sometime in the near future then to DC them with a stable hgb of 8.5 and a pill they're not going to take. I will continue to look for more evidence supporting this approach though
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

eh too lazy for NNH in above, but the risk wasn't as small I might have thought.

Not sure why patient compliance is so crap for Fe. How many mg are in your typical multivitamin vs what we Rx for deficiency? My understanding was a lower dose broken up a bit (BID vs once daily) and with food can help a lot, but maybe not.

For the truly deficient I'm not suggesting that they focus just on dietary sources, but if I wanted to get away with a lower dose of PO Fe especially and in any case I always stress dietary sources cuz that can't hurt. I tell my patients it's the one time I'll encourage more red meat so treat yourself, keep it to recommended deck of cards portion size, have a good size helping of spinach with it, can up from 2 per week to 3 per week because I don't think a few months of that is going to do a lot of cholesterol harm long term while treating deficiency short term. Bowl of fortified cereal every morning, although Ca affects Fe absorption so I dunno don't go nuts with milk. I can't remember other good sources at the moment, usually the EHR can print a little patient handout that has a list. If all I can get them to do is try to eat more, take a Flintstones or Centrum or just something, and bleed less, that might be as good as I can get out of them.

am I remembering right that vitamin C helps absorption? so have a glass of OJ if your stomach tolerates the acid to wash down that steak and spinach?

A good point was brought up that Rx PO Fe does a crap job repleting, but food sources while not usually 100% do better absorbed although mg will be less, it's not for nothing

again I think expense is the big limiter of IV Fe

if your patient is otherwise not that sick and has GIB event (not like a Crohn's whose always losing bits) that leads to deficiency, again, I'm not sure why the expensive rush to replete. They can likely tolerate a few months deficiency while you try to beef them up even if you can't use as high a dose of Fe and you're also using beef to beef them up.

Women on OCPs I might also suggest doing extended cycling during that time as well if it's not something they do anyway.

I don't have evidence for those strategies of upping their iron except it seems common sensical to me.

TLDR
do what you can in the PO Rx Fe to get compliance
diet counseling is just always a good thing
I still think expense and risk of IV Fe doesn't really justify it, maybe I'm being a bit grizzly "suffer suck it up and get your iron the old fashioned way PO & diet"
 
eh too lazy for NNH in above, but the risk wasn't as small I might have thought.

Not sure why patient compliance is so crap for Fe. How many mg are in your typical multivitamin vs what we Rx for deficiency? My understanding was a lower dose broken up a bit (BID vs once daily) and with food can help a lot, but maybe not.

For the truly deficient I'm not suggesting that they focus just on dietary sources, but if I wanted to get away with a lower dose of PO Fe especially and in any case I always stress dietary sources cuz that can't hurt. I tell my patients it's the one time I'll encourage more red meat so treat yourself, keep it to recommended deck of cards portion size, have a good size helping of spinach with it, can up from 2 per week to 3 per week because I don't think a few months of that is going to do a lot of cholesterol harm long term while treating deficiency short term. Bowl of fortified cereal every morning, although Ca affects Fe absorption so I dunno don't go nuts with milk. I can't remember other good sources at the moment, usually the EHR can print a little patient handout that has a list. If all I can get them to do is try to eat more, take a Flintstones or Centrum or just something, and bleed less, that might be as good as I can get out of them.

am I remembering right that vitamin C helps absorption? so have a glass of OJ if your stomach tolerates the acid to wash down that steak and spinach?

A good point was brought up that Rx PO Fe does a crap job repleting, but food sources while not usually 100% do better absorbed although mg will be less, it's not for nothing
An 8 oz steak has between 5 and 10mg of elemental iron. A bunch of spinach has about 9mg. Half a can of clams has 40mg. A single ferrous sulfate or gluconate capsule has 62 or 67mg (depending on the manufacturer).

So yes, 5 or 6 pounds of steak, or a bushel or 2 of spinach a day for a few months are good way to replete iron stores. But so are a Venofer infusion or 2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
@Crayola227
I see what you are saying, but a a few things to consider:

-The maximum absorption of any given PO dose of iron may only be 25 mg (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=408116), though this is old and now we know that hepcidin levels may tell us who is responsive
-2015 meta-analysis: IV iron is not associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events or infections (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=25572192). APC journal club review of this article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25984881)
-IV iron can be considered when we need to rapidly correct anemia, such as in the instances I described, it may also be cost effective (though that study was in IBD pts) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26222575)

Edit: just saw the reply above by D&G, thank you!
 
Here's a point for you
this basic review points out I think what I'm getting at, which is that in this country our diet is so darn full of iron that in a patient that otherwise doesn't have a bunch of other medical problems except they had this GIB, and yes there are certain groups at higher risk of IDA like lactating mothers, etc, I still think we can skip the expensive IV Fe once they are out of the transfusion zone
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Iron-HealthProfessional/

if they eat a normal diet, stock up on some beef, and take some extra vitamins, OK maybe not the 65 mg monster pill of doom TID no one wants to eat, they will get over the deficiency. eventually.

part of conclusion of link http://www.bloodjournal.org/content/126/17/1971
"It may be that our orthodox treatment of iron deficiency anemia is all wrong. It results in an ∼12% to 15% absorption of iron and produces unpleasant side effects. Rather than administering 1 large iron pill 3 times per day, maybe we should treat iron deficiency anemia by giving a single substantial dose of elemental ferrous iron before breakfast on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Recall that we need to absorb only ∼180 mg of iron per week to meet and beat the best current program."

OK guys sorry yeah not chasing down primary lit papers, I love that you are cuz I'm learning from you, but the paper answers the one question I had which is that the PO Fe should be given on an empty stomach

eh, I'm lazy but this mostly for gutonc
http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/iron_absorption.html
quotes that (yes not a primary citation, this is an SDN google-based post)
Heme is absorbed by machinery completely different to that of inorganic iron. The process is more efficient and is independent of duodenal pH . Consequently meats are excellent nutrient sources of iron. In fact, blockade of heme catabolism in the intestine by a heme oxygenase inhibitor can produce iron deficiency (Kappas et al., 1993).

Whatever the mechanism of iron uptake, normally only about 10% of the elemental iron entering the duodenum is absorbed. However, this value increases markedly with iron deficiency (Finch, 1994). Let's say it goes up to 15% for the math I'm going to do.

So away from that, google books
https://books.google.com/books?id=m1xuAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=percentage+of+heme+iron+absorbed&source=bl&ots=AWcN_J3QFo&sig=YBO8zPipCRqxWmT2TVsU-reeXGc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTnIewr5LKAhVB5GMKHdy6As04ChDoAQguMAQ#v=onepage&q=percentage of heme iron absorbed&f=false
pulls up that in iron deficient state absorption of iron from meat can be up to 47% and from plants 21%

Menstration increases the average daily iron loss to about 2 mg per day in premenopausal female adults (Bothwell and Charlton, 1982)
so extended cycling while treating iron deficiency in a woman at least (sorry guys) could let me make up about 14 mg/wk

Given the numbers above, the numbers gutonc taunted me with, it still suggests that encouraging dietary sources is a good plan
however, not the clams

per this link about bioavailability of iron in clams https://www.researchgate.net/public...n_bioavailability_in_live_and_processed_clams

patient is going to eat at least a 16 oz steak when they sit down to do it (assuming they can afford red meat) so based on 10 mg iron/8 oz that would be 20 mg, and patient absorbs 47%, that would be 9.4 mg

4 times per week big steak as I suggest, that's 37.6 mg weekly
that's 20% of the Blood paper's goal for treatment of IDA, so no, you don't have to eat a whole cow for it to be worthwhile to add some high quality heme sources of iron to your diet for deficiency

I can take 2 Flintstones vitamins daily with no ill effects, n=1 says up to 36 mg PO this way is tolerable, assuming 15% not 10% absorption becuz deficient for sake of argument, 5.4 mg daily, or 37.8 mg weekly

the NIH link above says 16.3–18.2 mg/day in men and 12.6–13.5 mg/day in women older than 19 is average daily intake that I can bank on just cuz they eating food, and I know I'm not adding as much iron as I would like because the patient was likely already eating some red meat
but for simplifying that math let's say it's 13 mg daily baseline, in this population that amount is enough to stay iron replete, which according to the links above we need to absorb about 2 mg daily to make up for normal losses, so that's 91 mg weekly from regular eating

I'mma scrap the spinach what I was just reading suggests it's crap absorption

So my plan of likely tolerable vitamins and red meat supplemention plus whatever else they eat gets us close to 166 mg weekly


my menstruating patient per numbers above I would save 14 mg weekly with extended cycling, getting me to 180 mg weekly goal

and remember in this case it's 36 mg PO Flintstone I was giving, not the 70 mg TID as the Blood paper mentions, which they don't seem to recommend, I could get us to goal 180 mg weekly with the steak and PO vitamin plan if we just increase the supplement a little, now I need to find the paper that shows that 36 mg PO iron (the amount in my 2 Flinstones, I'm still a kid at heart) BID is more tolerable in term of GI side effects/patient perspective

So the math checks out that a common sensical approach to compliance, ie steak (most of my patients are glad for a blessing to scarf down red meat) and a reduced but still increased sized supplement of iron, could meet the Blood paper's goal for treatment


So the whole point I'm making is in line with the med student's scenario, I'm just arguing we skip the "convenience" of IV Fe and go PO. And I was making a point of how we can go PO that isn't a ****ty giant horsepill TID tons of SEs and low compliance but will work.
 
@Crayola227
I see what you are saying, but a a few things to consider:

-The maximum absorption of any given PO dose of iron may only be 25 mg (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=408116), though this is old and now we know that hepcidin levels may tell us who is responsive
-2015 meta-analysis: IV iron is not associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events or infections (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=25572192). APC journal club review of this article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25984881)
-IV iron can be considered when we need to rapidly correct anemia, such as in the instances I described, it may also be cost effective (though that study was in IBD pts) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26222575)

Edit: just saw the reply above by D&G, thank you!

"Subgroup analysis revealed a decreased rate of SAEs when IV iron was used to treat heart failure (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.29-0.70; I(2)=0%). Severe infusion reactions were more common with IV iron (RR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.43-4.28; I(2)=0%). There was no increased risk of infections with IV iron. Gastrointestinal AEs were reduced with IV iron."

What's funny is the paper concludes there is no increase in SAE overall using IV Fe. But I ask you this, what is a severe infusion reaction, which they do note is increased? How can we have more severe infusion reactions but not have increased our rate of SAEs? Obviously this analysis is not classifying a severe infusion reaction as SAE. So like with any paper you really have to ask yourself what are the endpoints and how are you looking at that. Maybe a severe infusion reaction isn't a SAE, not saying it is just posing the question.

"The most common adverse reactions associated with newer parenteral preparations are related to transient capillary leak syndrome (nausea, hypotension, tachycardia, chest pain, dyspnea and edema)." http://www.acphospitalist.org/archives/2012/03/expert.htm

which goes on about cost
Based on this dose, the cost of IV iron versus blood (with 1 g of iron) is as follows:
  • iron dextran, approximately $377/g
  • iron gluconate, approximately $688/g
  • iron sucrose, approximately $688/g
  • blood transfusion, approximately $761 ± 294 per unit (approximately 250 mg of iron per unit) × 4 = $3,044/g

Unfortunately I can't pull up the full text on the one about cost effectiveness in IBD patients.

So far with these posts, is that the Blood paper linked to suggested there is a tri-weekly PO course that will work for responders (more likely to be a GIB that isn't inflammatory, ie not an inflamed hepcidin laden patient), and I've done some math that some steak, a good diet, and supplements that aren't horsepills, can also meet the treatment goal in the Blood paper. I can't disagree with one poster that the typical supplements get poor compliance, steak gets better compliance I'm sure (studies show patients are already eating more red meat than we recommend).

So again, why do we need to do IV Fe in this patient without heart failure or IBD? To decrease GI upset? I just outlined a plan to do that.

The analyses I've seen tonight definitely support that if IV Fe helps you to save yourself transfused units in the near future, that a transfusin of IV Fe is way cheaper than a unit of blood from the bank.
 
Po should be first line I agree I the vast majority of cases, My original question was about whether there was something dangerous about then IV iron on consecutive days above and beyond the concern for reactions.

In terms of indications for IV for non IBD/CKD pts, I happen to have recently seen some bad GIBs meaning frequent flyers for GAVE, AVMs, HHT, or pts s/p bilroths or roux en y or colectomy that have anastomotic ulcerations. They show up with a hgb 5-6 get transfused a few units, scoped, pushed, capsuled, and sometimes angio'd but they may very well have continued slow bleed or open up again at some point. If they are severely iron deficient, which many are, I think it is worth the cost and the small risk to replete their stores at the very least with IV iron while in house so they are able to begin to make their own RBCs, if for no other reason it may potentially prevent severe symptomatic anemia or decrease the need for transfusion for such in the next few months. Po iron alone would take months to have the same effect and is not as predictable.

Your plan is possible but compliance and vagaries in absorption make it much less certain than the 1g of iron that I know they need that I know they will get if I give it IV right now. I will still dc them on Po TIW

I do not think this is irresponsible use of healthcare dollars in these types of pts. They have bad fe def, they are at risk for further fe def, and I can go a long way to fix it with a pretty safe med. Certainly we spend more on less efficacious treatments.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
As a private practice nephrologist I give iron ALOT. PO, IV in both CKD and ESRD patients. I've never had issues with daily dosing of IV iron. I tend to give up to 1 gram total IV. I use IV iron sucrose and ferric gluconate. Never had any reactions from these formulations. If a patient has severe iron deficiency, go IV. If the patient has inflammation from chronic illness for whatever reason, IV may be the better absorbed route. And there is absolutely no convincing prospective data to suggest that IV iron preparations increase the rate of infection or should otherwise be contraindicated during infection. There is rat data, but no human data. Having said that, I would err on the side of caution and avoid during infectious states.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
So far with these posts, is that the Blood paper linked to suggested there is a tri-weekly PO course that will work for responders (more likely to be a GIB that isn't inflammatory, ie not an inflamed hepcidin laden patient), and I've done some math that some steak, a good diet, and supplements that aren't horsepills, can also meet the treatment goal in the Blood paper. I can't disagree with one poster that the typical supplements get poor compliance, steak gets better compliance I'm sure (studies show patients are already eating more red meat than we recommend).
So let's do the math on this one. Let's take an 80kg male (good luck finding one of those but that's a different issue) with a GI bleed and a Hgb of 8. To get him back to 15, his iron deficit is a little over 2 grams (but we'll round down). If someone can tolerate PO iron TID and has 100% absorption (which is a fantasy all the way around), they could replace that deficit in about 2 weeks. The more likely scenario, one iron pill a day with 30-50% absorption puts you closer to 3 months to replete (never mind maintenance).

For the steak example, 20mg of iron /# of steak puts you at 100# of steak to replete iron stores. The only physician out there recommending somebody eat 100# of red meat in a month is the interventional cardiologist who owns his own cath lab. Pretty similar for spinach...you're looking at a bushel or more of spinach a day for 2 or 3 months...but without the excess CV risk of eating the equivalent of an entire cow a year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Po should be first line I agree I the vast majority of cases, My original question was about whether there was something dangerous about then IV iron on consecutive days above and beyond the concern for reactions.
The short answer to your question is no. Your hospital (like mine) may have a policy about giving more than 1g of iron a week, but that's strictly a cost issue. Current IV Fe formulations have minimal reaction risk and if they do, it's typically on the first infusion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Thanks very much, I wanted to make sure I wasn't overlooking something glaring

(And don't forget about the colon ca with all that red meat lol)
 
Top