3rd Mediterranean Multidisciplinary Course on Iron Anemia

doi:10.1586/17474086.2015.1044965

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 64 publications

(60 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An observational study by Giordano et al [39] on sucrosomial iron in patients with sideropenic anemia confirmed the reduction of the typical side effects of a conventional martial treatment, determining at the same time an improvement of the patient’s anemic condition in terms of serum iron, Hb, and ferritin [24, 25, 39]. Another study by Pisani et al [27] in patients with chronic kidney disease demonstrated the non-inferiority of the oral sucrosomial iron compared to IV iron therapy in terms of increase in Hb levels.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…The distinguishing feature of this formulation has been assessed in a number of studies [22, 24–27] and has shown to be devoid of common side effects of conventional oral iron supplementation such as stomach pain, nausea, constipation, discoloration of the mucous, and feces. Moreover, its safety has been recently confirmed in a recent randomized study on a cohort of non-anemic pregnant women [26].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Oral sucrosomial iron versus intravenous iron in anemic cancer patients without iron deficiency receiving darbepoetin alfa: a pilot study

Mafodda

Giuffrida²,

Prestifilippo³

et al. 2017

Support Care Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeErythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are often used in treatment of patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia. Many studies have demonstrated an improved hemoglobin (Hb) response when ESA is combined with intravenous iron supplementation and a higher effectiveness of intravenous iron over traditional oral iron formulations. A new formulation of oral sucrosomial iron featuring an increased bioavailability compared to traditional oral formulations has recently become available and could provide a valid alternative to those by intravenous (IV) route. Our study evaluated the performance of sucrosomial iron versus intravenous iron in increasing hemoglobin in anemic cancer patients receiving chemotherapy and darbepoetin alfa, as well as safety, need of transfusion, and quality of life (QoL).Materials and methodsThe present study considered a cohort of 64 patients with chemotherapy-related anemia (Hb >8 g/dL <10 g/dL) and no absolute or functional iron deficiency, scheduled to receive chemotherapy and darbepoetin. All patients received darbepoetin alfa 500 mcg once every 3 weeks and were randomly assigned to receive 8 weeks of IV ferric gluconate 125 mg weekly or oral sucrosomial iron 30 mg daily. The primary endpoint was to demonstrate the performance of oral sucrosomial iron in improving Hb response, compared to intravenous iron. The Hb response was defined as the Hb increase ≥2 g/dL from baseline or the attainment Hb ≥ 12 g/dL.ResultsThere was no difference in the Hb response rate between the two treatment arms. Seventy one percent of patients treated with IV iron achieved an erythropoietic response, compared to 70% of patients treated with oral iron. By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not statistically significant. There were also no differences in the proportion of patients requiring red blood cell transfusions and changes in QoL. Sucrosomial oral iron was better tolerated.ConclusionIn cancer patients with chemotherapy-related anemia receiving darbepoetin alfa, sucrosomial oral iron provides similar increase in Hb levels and Hb response, with higher tolerability without the risks or side effects of IV iron.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00520-017-3690-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract