Premium
Rapid versus standard iron polymaltose infusions: a single centre safety study
Author(s) -
Banakh Iouri,
Lam Alice,
Turek Martha,
Htet Thaw,
Vorlander Camilla
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
journal of pharmacy practice and research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.222
H-Index - 22
eISSN - 2055-2335
pISSN - 1445-937X
DOI - 10.1002/jppr.1236
Subject(s) - medicine , adverse effect , dosing , iron deficiency , pediatrics , confidence interval , population , retrospective cohort study , cohort , surgery , anemia , environmental health
Background Iron deficiency anaemia is a common condition among hospitalised patients and carries significant morbidity. Rapid rate iron polymaltose infusions for total body iron replacement have been recently accepted into practice following a safety study. However, the previous safety study was based on 100 patients and as such it did not provide confidence among healthcare providers. Aim The aims of this study were to review the safety of rapid and standard iron polymaltose infusions in a general hospital population and assess dosing accuracy. Method The Rapid versus Standard Iron Polymaltose infusion study (the RAPSIP study) was a retrospective, non‐randomised cohort study carried out across a healthcare network over a 2‐year period. All patients who were prescribed an iron polymaltose infusion between June 2013 and May 2015 were included. The study was powered to 80% to identify a 3% difference in severe adverse event rates between the standard 5‐h infusions and the rapid 1‐h infusions of iron polymaltose. The accuracy of dose selection was evaluated. Results Six hundred and forty‐eight patients were prescribed an iron infusion during the study period with a wide range of comorbidities and indications. The adverse event rates were 8.6 and 8.0% in the standard and rapid infusion study arms, respectively (p = 0.776). Over 25% of all patients had dosing inaccuracies, with an even higher rate among patients with chronic renal failure. Conclusion This study indicates that the rapid infusion approach to total body iron replacement is safer than previously reported and is a non‐inferior alternative to the standard rate infusions, but dosing accuracy can be improved.