Potential New Treatment Option for Iron Deficiency Anemia Patients with a History of Unsatisfactory Oral Iron Therapy- Results of a Phase III, Randomized, Open-Label, Active-Controlled Trial of Ferumoxytol.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Abstract 2099 Background: While oral iron is the preferred first-line treatment for patients with iron deficiency anemia (IDA), there are patients who cannot take oral iron, do not tolerate it or do not adequately respond to oral iron. In the US and Canada, the only approved treatment options for these patients are the iron dextrans, which have boxed safety warnings and inconvenient dosing regimens. Therefore, many of these anemic patients do not receive IV iron, and remain inadequately treated and symptomatic. In the EU, several IV irons, including iron sucrose (IS), are approved for second line use. Few studies have evaluated the IV irons in head-to-head studies. Ferumoxytol (FER) is a new IV iron approved for the treatment of IDA in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) that is formulated to allow for bolus IV injection. This randomized, controlled trial was designed to investigate the efficacy and safety of FER compared to IS for the treatment of IDA in patients with a history of unsatisfactory oral iron therapy or in whom oral iron could not be used. Methods: The study was designed to demonstrate non-inferiority and consisted of a 14 day screening period, treatment and a 5 week follow-up period. Key inclusion criteria included a Baseline hemoglobin (Hgb) less than 10 g/dL and >7 g/dL, and transferrin saturation (TSAT) < 20%. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either FER, administered as 2 injections of 510 mg 5±3 days apart, or IS, administered as 5 infusions or injections of 200 mg on 5 non-consecutive days over a 14 day period. Results: A total of 605 subjects were randomized to the 2 treatment arms (FER, n= 406; IS, n=199). FER demonstrated non-inferiority to IS in the proportion of subjects with a >2.0 g/dL increase in Hgb at any time from Baseline to Week 5 (the primary efficacy endpoint), compared to those treated with IS, (FER, 84%; IS 81%) with the lower bound of the 95% CI [-3.89%] above the predefined non inferiority margin [-15%]. In addition at each post-treatment time point, a higher percentage of FER-treated subjects achieved a >2.0 g/dL increase in Hgb compared to those treated with IS. FER also achieved non-inferiority to IS in the mean change in Hgb from Baseline to Week 5 with a robust 2.7g/dL increase in Hgb compared to 2.4g/dL with IS (the lower bound of the 95% CI [0.06g/dL] was above the predefined non-inferiority margin [-0.5g/dL]); this treatment difference (0.3 g/dL) was statistically significant (p=0.0124), and FER actually achieved superiority over IS. The overall rates of adverse events (AEs) and related AEs were lower in the FER group compared to IS-treated subjects. The serious adverse event (SAE) rate was higher in FER-treated subjects (FER, 4.2%; IS, 2.5%), but no pattern or safety trend was observed to suggest a specific safety signal; treatment-related SAEs were reported in 2 (0.5%) FER-treated subjects (1 anaphylactoid reaction and 1 hypertension). Protocol-defined AEs of Special Interest (signs/symptoms of hypotension or hypersensitivity associated with IV iron use) were reported at a higher rate in IS-treated subjects compared to the FER treatment group (IS, 5.0%; FER, 2.7%). Cardiovascular AE rates were comparable in the 2 treatment groups (1.0%). Overall, the safety profile of FER was comparable to that of IS and no new safety signals were identified. Conclusion: In this randomized, controlled trial, the efficacy and safety of 2 doses of FER were shown to be comparable to IS in treating IDA patients with a history of unsatisfactory oral iron therapy or in whom oral iron could not be used. For this IDA patient population, which has limited treatment options in the US and Canada, FER may offer an important, new treatment option with a convenient 2 dose regimen. Disclosures: Off Label Use: Feraheme (ferumoxytol) injection. For treatment of iron deficiency anemia in non-CKD patients. Bernard:AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Strauss:AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Cressman:AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Li:AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Allen:AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".