A Phase III, randomized, open‐label trial of ferumoxytol compared with iron sucrose for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia in patients with a history of unsatisfactory oral iron therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is the most common form of anemia worldwide. Although oral iron is used as first-line treatment, many patients are unresponsive to or cannot take oral iron. This Phase III, open-label, non-inferiority study compared the efficacy and safety of ferumoxytol, a rapid, injectable intravenous (IV) iron product with low immunological reactivity and minimal detectable free iron, with IV iron sucrose in adults with IDA of any cause. Patients (N = 605) were randomized 2:1 to receive ferumoxytol (n = 406, two doses of 510 mg 5 ± 3 days apart) or iron sucrose (n = 199, five doses of 200 mg on five nonconsecutive days over 14 days) and followed for 5 weeks. Ferumoxytol demonstrated noninferiority to iron sucrose at the primary endpoint, the proportion of patients achieving a hemoglobin increase of ≥2 g dL(-1) at any time from Baseline to Week 5 (ferumoxytol, 84.0% [n = 406] vs. iron sucrose, 81.4% [n = 199]), with a noninferiority margin of 15%. Ferumoxytol was superior to iron sucrose (2.7 g dL(-1) vs. 2.4 g dL(-1) ) in the mean change in hemoglobin from Baseline to Week 5 (the alternative preplanned primary endpoint) with P = 0.0124. Transferrin saturation, quality-of-life measures, and safety outcomes were similar between the two treatment groups. Overall, ferumoxytol demonstrated comparable safety and efficacy to iron sucrose, suggesting that ferumoxytol may be a useful treatment option for patients with IDA in whom oral iron was unsatisfactory or could not be used.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".