Safety profiles of total dose infusion of low-molecular-weight iron dextran and high-dose iron sucrose in renal patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Iron sucrose and low-molecular-weight iron dextran (LMW-ID), two commonly used iron solutions, have been compared in terms of allergic adverse event profiles to date. However, the safety of total dose infusion of LMW-ID has been investigated by only one study in chronic kidney disease (CKD) (not dialysis) patients. Thus, we aimed to compare adverse event profiles of total and high-dose LMW-ID and iron sucrose infusions in a heterogenous renal patient group comprising CKD, hemodialysis, and peritoneal dialysis. In this retrospective chart review study, we included 110 predialysis CKD, 101 peritoneal dialysis, and 118 hemodialysis patients. We included a total of 329 patients who were administered parenteral iron sucrose or LMW-ID between September 2006 and April 2010. Adverse events were determined both by medical and nursing follow-up notes. Laboratory data and clinical characteristics were collected from patient charts. Adverse event rates were compared between iron sucrose and LMW-ID infusions. In a total of 329 patients, 530 infusions (3470 ampules) were administered. We detected adverse reaction in only 1 patient. This adverse reaction, which manifested as generalized pruritus, occurred in a patient who received 500 mg of iron sucrose infusion. There were neither anaphylactic reactions nor deaths associated with infusion of either preparation. We did not observe any other adverse event related to administration of 500 and 1000 mg of iron sucrose at single infusion. The results of this study showed comparable safety of total dose LMW-ID and high-dose iron sucrose in a heterogenous group of renal patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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".