throbber
Nephrol Dial Transplant (2004) 19: 1571–1575
`DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfh185
`
`Original Article
`
`Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ndt/article-abstract/19/6/1571/1857376 by Harvard Law School Library user on 02 October 2019
`
`On the relative safety of parenteral iron formulations
`
`Glenn M. Chertow1, Phillip D. Mason2, Odd Vaage-Nilsen3 and Jarl Ahlme´ n4
`
`1Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA,
`2Oxford Kidney Unit, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, UK, 3Nebo a/s, Holbaek, Denmark and 4Department of Renal
`Medicine, Skaraborgs Hospital, Sko¨ vde, Sweden
`
`Abstract
`Background. Intravenous iron is usually required to
`optimize the correction of anaemia in persons with
`advanced chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal
`disease. Randomized clinical trials may have insuffi-
`cient power to detect differences in the safety profiles
`of specific formulations.
`Methods. We obtained data from the US Food and
`Drug Administration on reported adverse drug events
`(ADEs) related to the provision of three formulations
`of intravenous iron during 1998–2000. We estimated
`the relative risks [odds ratios (OR)] of ADEs asso-
`ciated with the use of higher molecular weight iron
`dextran and sodium ferric gluconate complex com-
`pared with lower molecular weight iron dextran using
`2  2 tables.
`Results. The total number of reported parenteral iron-
`related ADEs was 1981 among 21 060 000 doses
`administered, yielding a rate of 9.4  10
`5, or 94
`per million. Total major ADEs were significantly
`increased among recipients of higher molecular
`weight iron dextran (OR 5.5, 95% CI 4.9–6.0) and
`sodium ferric gluconate complex (OR 6.2, 95% CI
`5.4–7.2) compared with recipients of lower molecular
`weight iron dextran. We observed significantly higher
`rates of
`life-threatening ADEs,
`including death,
`anaphylactoid reaction, cardiac arrest and respiratory
`depression among users of higher molecular weight
`compared with lower molecular weight iron dextran.
`There was insufficient power to detect differences in
`life-threatening ADEs when comparing lower molecu-
`lar weight iron dextran with sodium ferric gluconate
`complex.
`iron-related ADEs are rare.
`Conclusions. Parenteral
`Using observational data, overall and most specific
`
`Correspondence and offprint requests to: Glenn M. Chertow, MD,
`MPH, Department of Medicine Research, University of California
`San Francisco, UCSF Laurel Heights Suite 430, 3333 California
`Street, San Francisco, CA 94118-1211, USA. Email: chertowg@
`medicine.ucsf.edu
`
`ADE rates were significantly higher among recipients
`of higher molecular weight iron dextran and sodium
`ferric gluconate complex than among recipients of
`lower molecular weight iron dextran. These data may
`help to guide clinical practice, as head-to-head clinical
`trials comparing different formulations of intravenous
`iron have not been conducted.
`
`iron dextran; par-
`Keywords: adverse drug events;
`enteral iron; sodium ferric gluconate complex
`
`Introduction
`
`Despite the use of recombinant erythropoietin, anae-
`mia remains a significant problem for patients with
`advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage
`renal disease (ESRD).
`Iron deficiency commonly
`complicates both conditions, and tends to be more
`severe among individuals on haemodialysis [1]. Blood
`loss
`into the haemodialyser
`system and routine
`discarding of small aliquots (5–10 ml) of blood (in
`patients using indwelling catheters) account for a large
`fraction of the blood loss seen in the haemodialysis
`population. Occult
`gastrointestinal haemorrhage,
`anticoagulation-related blood loss and accidental
`blood loss from arteriovenous fistulae and grafts
`also contribute to blood loss and iron deficiency. On
`average, maintenance haemodialysis is associated with
`a loss of at least 1–1.5 g of elemental iron each year [2].
`Oral iron preparations have proved ineffective and
`relatively poorly tolerated in the ESRD population
`[3]. Comparative studies of oral versus parenteral
`iron administration have unequivocally established
`the superiority of intravenous preparations in replacing
`iron stores [4]. As a result, the use of parenteral
`iron in conjunction with erythropoietin has become
`standard practice in most maintenance haemodialysis
`programmes worldwide, and has been endorsed by
`professional societies in the USA, Europe and else-
`where [1,5].
`
`Nephrol Dial Transplant Vol. 19 No. 6 ß ERA–EDTA 2004; all rights reserved
`
`PGR2020-00009
`Pharmacosmos A/S v. American Regent, Inc.
`Petitioner Ex. 1032 - Page 1
`
`

`

`Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ndt/article-abstract/19/6/1571/1857376 by Harvard Law School Library user on 02 October 2019
`
`1572
`
`During the 1980s and 1990s, several fomulations of
`iron dextran were commercially available in the USA.
`While effective at repleting iron stores, enthusiasm for
`the use of these agents was tempered by the risk of
`adverse drug events (ADEs), especially anaphylaxis,
`associated with their use. Newer, non-dextran formula-
`tions of iron have been introduced, and have been
`marketed as equally effective and safer than iron
`dextran formulations.
`Fletes et al. [6] recently reported on the frequency of
`iron dextran-related ADEs during a 6-month period
`using data derived from Fresenius Medical Care North
`America Clinical Variance Reports. In the current
`study, we aimed to extend our inquiry to the entire US
`haemodialysis population, using data reported to the
`US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and
`obtained from the World Health Organization. Incor-
`porating reports filed during the calendar years
`1998–2000, we sought to estimate overall ADEs for
`two iron dextran preparations that differ in the molec-
`ular weight and structure of the dextran moiety (InFedÕ
`and DexferrumÕ) and for sodium ferric gluconate
`complex (FerrlecitÕ). We also sought to determine the
`relative frequency of specific ADEs. Since parenteral
`iron-related ADEs are rare, population-based cohort
`analyses are necessary to provide valid estimates of
`safety.
`
`Materials and methods
`
`iron-related ADEs reported to the FDA
`All parenteral
`during the calendar years 1998–2000 were obtained from the
`World Health Organization in Uppsala, Sweden. Deaths
`were reviewed in detail and duplicates were eliminated.
`Specific ADEs were categorized according to the FDA’s
`system organ class criteria and summarized. Detailed clini-
`cal information, including dialysis status, on the affected
`individuals was not available.
`The ADE rate was determined by dividing the number
`of overall or specific ADEs by the number of dose vials
`dispensed. The vial size of sodium ferric gluconate complex
`(62.5 mg) is lower than the vial size of the two iron dextran
`preparations (100 mg). Therefore, unadjusted ADE rates,
`and ADE rates adjusted per 100 mg of iron dispensed for the
`ferric gluconate in sucrose solution, were calculated.
`We classified 17 types of ADEs as serious ADEs. These
`included: death,
`cardiac arrest, myocardial
`infarction,
`coma, anaphylactic shock, anaphylactoid reactions, seizures,
`arrhythmia, apnoea, respiratory depression,
`tachycardia,
`bradycardia, allergic reaction, hypertension, hypotension,
`cyanosis and urticaria. We further subclassified ADEs into
`life-threatening (death, anaphylactoid reactions, cardiac
`arrest and respiratory depression) and non-life-threatening
`ADEs (all others). Low molecular weight
`iron dextran
`(InFedÕ in the USA, CosmoferÕ outside the USA) was used
`as the referent group. The relative risks [odds ratios (ORs)] of
`ADEs associated with high molecular weight iron dextran
`(DexferrumÕ)
`and sodium ferric
`gluconate
`complex
`(FerrlecitÕ) use were estimated from 2  2 tables. The level
`of statistical significance was determined by the Yates-
`corrected 2 test. Confidence intervals (CIs) were computed
`
`using the method of Fleiss [7]. Two-tailed P-values <0.05
`were considered statistically significant.
`
`G. M. Chertow et al.
`
`Results
`
`Frequency of ADEs
`
`The total number of reported parenteral iron-related
`ADEs was 1981 among 21 060 000 doses admini-
`stered, yielding a rate of 9.4  10–5, or 94 per million.
`Twenty-one individuals died in association with an
`ADE (0.0001%). The number of patients affected by
`parenteral iron-related ADEs was lower than the actual
`number of ADEs. The average number of ADEs
`reported per patient was 3.6, 3.0 and 3.1 for
`FerrlecitÕ, DexferrumÕ and InFedÕ, respectively.
`
`Relative frequency of ADEs by formulation
`
`Table 1 shows the actual number of reported ADEs
`associated with each iron formulation. The latter two
`columns show the ORs and 95% CIs for each ADE
`comparing FerrlecitÕ and DexferrumÕ with InFedÕ.
`Total ADEs were significantly increased among reci-
`pients of higher molecular weight iron dextran (OR 5.5,
`95% CI 4.9–6.0) and sodium ferric gluconate complex
`(OR 6.2, 95% CI 5.4–7.2) compared with lower
`molecular weight iron dextran. The odds of death
`associated with the use of higher molecular weight
`compared with lower molecular weight iron dextran
`was 3.6 (1.4–9.4). The risks of other specific ADEs
`(including life-threatening and non-life-threatening
`ADEs) were increased 2- to 12-fold in persons given
`higher molecular weight compared with lower mole-
`cular weight
`iron dextran. The risks of non-life
`threatening ADEs (including other allergic reactions,
`back pain, chest pain, dyspnoea and vomiting, among
`others) were increased 4- to 14-fold in persons given
`sodium ferric gluconate complex. In contrast, the risks
`of life-threatening ADEs (death, anaphylactoid reac-
`tion, cardiac arrest and respiratory depression) were
`not
`significantly different when comparing lower
`molecular weight
`iron dextran and sodium ferric
`gluconate complex, due in part to the low number of
`events. Figure 1 summarizes the overall serious ADE
`rate per million doses (normalized to 100 mg intrave-
`nous iron per dose).
`
`Inclusion of non-specified ADEs
`
`There were 221 iron dextran-related ADEs reported by
`generic name only and five iron gluconate-related
`ADEs reported by generic name only (including two
`deaths). If we were to assign all 221 iron-dextran-
`related ADEs to the low molecular weight iron dextran
`group (InFedÕ) group, we would not extinguish the
`increase in ADE risk associated with alternative
`formulations. Under these extreme assumptions, the
`OR and 95% CI for DexferrumÕ for all ADEs would
`
`PGR2020-00009
`Pharmacosmos A/S v. American Regent, Inc.
`Petitioner Ex. 1032 - Page 2
`
`

`

`Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ndt/article-abstract/19/6/1571/1857376 by Harvard Law School Library user on 02 October 2019
`
`The relative safety of parenteral iron formulations
`
`Table 1. Major ADEs by parenteral iron formulation
`
`1573
`
`ADE
`
`FerrlecitÕ
`(n ¼ 1 083 000)
`
`DexferrumÕ
`(n ¼ 5 058 000)
`
`InFedÕ
`(n¼ 14 919 000)
`
`OR FerrlecitÕ
`vs InFedÕ
`
`OR DexferrumÕ
`vs InFedÕ
`
`Death
`Anaphylactoid reaction
`Allergic reaction
`Facial oedema
`Pruritus
`Urticaria
`Back pain
`Cardiac arrest
`Chest pain
`Tachycardia
`Hypotension
`Dyspnoea
`Respiratory depression
`Nausea
`Vomiting
`Sweating
`Total
`
`1
`3
`7
`1
`10
`5
`15
`0
`23
`2
`23
`18
`0
`15
`9
`5
`271
`
`11
`14
`4
`10
`57
`24
`94
`25
`87
`24
`72
`107
`13
`43
`23
`32
`1112
`
`9
`28
`13
`5
`19
`10
`23
`14
`33
`10
`35
`57
`7
`21
`9
`9
`598
`
`1.5 (0.1–11.7)
`1.5 (0.4–5.0)
`7.4 (2.7–19.9)
`2.8 (0.1–23.9)
`7.3 (3.1–16.4)
`6.9 (2.1–21.8)
`9.0 (4.5–17.3)
`0 (0–5.1)
`9.6 (5.5–13.8)
`2.8 (0.4–13.3)
`9.1 (5.2–15.8)
`4.4 (2.5–7.6)
`0 (0–10.8)
`9.8 (4.8–19.9)
`13.8 (5.0–37.7)
`7.7 (2.2–24.9)
`6.2 (5.4–7.2)
`
`3.6 (1.4–9.4)
`1.5 (0.7–2.9)
`0.9 (0.3–3.0)
`5.8 (1.9–19.7)
`8.8 (5.1–15.4)
`7.0 (3.2–15.7)
`12.1 (7.5–19.5)
`5.3 (2.6–10.7)
`7.8 (5.5–11.8)
`7.0 (3.2–15.7)
`6.1 (4.0–9.3)
`5.5 (4.0–7.7)
`2.3 (1.0–4.9)
`6.0 (3.5–10.5)
`7.5 (3.3–17.4)
`10.5 (4.8–23.6)
`5.5 (4.9–6.0)
`
`Two additional deaths were reported in association with iron dextran (formulation unknown). If the additional deaths were associated with
`InFedÕ, the OR and 95% CI for FerrlecitÕ vs InFedÕ would be 1.3 (0.1–9.3).
`
`Total reported serious ADEs
`per million doses of 100 mg
`57.9
`
`49.6
`
`11.6
`
`Dexferrum®
`
`Ferrlecit®
`
`INFeD®
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Fig. 1.
`
`be reduced to 4.0 (3.7–4.3), and for FerrlecitÕ to 4.6
`(4.0–5.3).
`
`Consideration of alternative vial size and total ADEs
`
`The results outlined above normalize results per
`100 mg iron equivalent. If one were to assume that
`FerrlecitÕ were administered only in 62.5 mg incre-
`ments, then the OR and 95% CI per dose (rather than
`per 100 mg) would be reduced from 6.2 (5.4–7.2) to 4.2
`(3.6–4.9). If one were to assume that Ferrlecit were
`administered only in 125 mg increments, then the OR
`and 95% CI per dose would be increased to 7.8
`(6.7–9.0).
`
`Discussion
`
`The efficacy of parenteral iron in supporting erythro-
`poiesis is indisputable [1]. While several reports on the
`safety data of parenteral iron preparations have been
`published, the study designs and clinical settings have
`varied widely. Older studies included solely non-ESRD
`patients and many described ADEs with formulations
`of intravenous iron that are no longer commercially
`available [8]. Few studies have directly compared
`different formulations of parenteral iron until recently
`[9,10].
`Fletes et al. [6] aimed to determine the incidence
`iron dextran-related ADEs in clinical practice,
`of
`and to attempt to characterize risk factors and describe
`outcomes associated with iron dextran-related ADEs.
`The authors identified 165 suspected ADEs among
`841 252 intravenous
`iron dextran administrations
`during a 6-month study period, corresponding to
`an overall rate of 0.000196%, or 20 per 100 000
`doses. While some differences between the cases
`and the >85 000 patient cohort were statistically
`significant,
`the authors were unable to identify
`clinically significant differences in patient characteris-
`tics associated with iron dextran-related ADEs. A
`post hoc analysis revealed an 8-fold higher ADE rate
`associated with the use of the higher molecular weight
`iron dextran formulation (DexferrumÕ) that could not
`be explained by differences in patient or facility
`characteristics.
`McCarthy et al. [11] described iron dextran-related
`ADEs during 665 courses of parenteral iron dextran
`given to 254 patients over a 5-year period. The
`higher molecular weight iron dextran was associated
`with a significantly higher ADE rate than a lower
`molecular weight formulation, with rates of 11 out of
`197 (5.6%) vs 10 out of 468 (2.1%) (P ¼ 0.02). There
`were no differences
`in haemoglobin or
`serum
`
`PGR2020-00009
`Pharmacosmos A/S v. American Regent, Inc.
`Petitioner Ex. 1032 - Page 3
`
`

`

`Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ndt/article-abstract/19/6/1571/1857376 by Harvard Law School Library user on 02 October 2019
`
`1574
`
`ferritin concentrations (i.e. efficacy) between the two
`groups.
`More recently, Michael et al. [12] reported on the
`results of a placebo-controlled randomized trial using
`sodium ferric gluconate complex (FerrlecitÕ) in hae-
`modialysis patients. Overall event rates were extremely
`low. Compared with placebo, there was a significant
`increase in drug intolerance associated with FerrlecitÕ
`administration (intolerance defined as an ADE pre-
`cluding re-exposure). The authors reported a highly
`significant difference in ADE rates between iron
`dextran and sodium ferric gluconate complex (2.47 vs
`0.44%, P<0.0001). These findings led the authors to
`state that ‘routine use of iron dextran in hemodialysis
`patients should be discontinued’.
`A more careful examination of the control studies
`is warranted. Four studies were pooled in what the
`authors described as a meta-analysis, although no
`information was provided on study quality, hetero-
`geneity or other factors that might indicate appropri-
`ateness for meta-analytic study. Hamstra et al.
`[8]
`reported on the frequency of life-threatening events
`occurring in 471 patients and 10 prisoners with iron
`deficiency, with or without other non-renal auto-
`immune or inflammatory diseases. This study used
`ImferonÕ, a high molecular weight
`iron dextran
`formulation that was recalled by the FDA in 1990,
`and soon after withdrawn from the market. The doses
`of iron dextran given in this study were typically in the
`250–500 mg range. A second control formulation was
`FeridexÕ, an aqueous colloid of superparamagnetic
`iron oxide associated with dextran used as a radio-
`contrast medium (for magnetic resonance imaging)
`[13]. FeridexÕ has never been used therapeutically for
`correction of iron deficiency anaemia or in the context
`of ESRD. Indeed, publications describing the efficacy
`of Feridex in imaging have concentrated on persons
`with focal hepatic lesions (e.g. hepatocellular carci-
`noma, hepatic metastases) [14]. Faich and Strobos [15]
`refer to unpublished data from a 100-hospital network
`database, where the authors considered the simulta-
`neous administration of iron dextran and intravenous
`epinephrine during hospitalization as an ADE. The
`authors provided no detail on the five alleged events,
`and failed to distinguish among different iron dextran
`formulations. The fourth control was a well-conducted
`open label trial of a lower molecular weight iron
`dextran formulation (InFedÕ) in 573 haemodialysis
`patients treated over a 2-year period [16]. Twenty-seven
`of 573 (4.7%) patients experienced ADEs, of which
`four
`(0.7%) were classified as
`serious
`(requiring
`hospitalization). While the ADE rate appears higher,
`the unit of evaluation was the patient, rather than a
`dose, as in the study of Michael et al. [12]. If one were to
`conservatively estimate the number of doses of iron
`dextran administered over 2 years at 20 per patient
`(providing 1 g of elemental iron per year, less than usual
`losses), then the overall ADE rate per dose of iron
`dextran would be 0.24%. The rate of iron dextran-
`related ADEs precluding re-exposure
`from the
`Fishbane et al. study was not calculated, but was
`
`G. M. Chertow et al.
`
`probably <0.24%. In contrast, 3.9% of subjects who
`received a single dose of sodium ferric gluconate
`complex (FerrlecitÕ) in the study of Michael et al. [12]
`experienced an ADE considered by the investigator to
`be possibly or probably related to the study drug, a
`value
`significantly higher
`than placebo (2.5%,
`P ¼ 0.0006).
`Multiple investigators have explored the associations
`among laboratory proxies of iron status and out-
`comes in the haemodialysis population, and have
`generally shown hyperferritinaemia to be associated
`with increased mortality and morbidity. Whether this
`association relates to iron overload or associated
`inflammation is unclear. Fewer
`epidemiological
`studies have focused on the provision of intravenous
`iron and associated outcomes. Feldman et al.
`[17]
`reported an 11% increase in the risk of death and 12%
`increase in the risk of hospitalization associated with
`the provision of >10 vials of intravenous iron over a
`6-month period in a study of >5000 patients with
`ESRD in the USA. The formulations used in this study
`were not reported.
`Immediate or short-term toxicities of iron have been
`attributed jointly to the effect of free iron on oxidative
`stress, and the relative protective and allergic effects of
`the carbohydrate shields (e.g. dextran, gluconate and
`sucrose). The most comprehensive experimental study
`in this area was published by Zager et al. [18] who
`compared three commercially available iron formula-
`tions (low molecular weight iron dextran and sodium
`ferric gluconate complex, described above, along with
`iron sucrose) and iron oligosaccharide, on in vitro
`proxies of oxidative injury. Briefly, all parenteral agents
`were pro-oxidant, although the relative effects of
`different
`formulations depended on the particular
`experimental model
`tested. While provocative,
`the
`experimental data available to date cannot explain the
`findings we have observed.
`There are several
`important limitations to these
`analyses. We had no detailed clinical information on
`the patients treated with parenteral iron. We could not
`learn whether the patients treated had ESRD, CKD or
`other conditions associated with iron deficiency (e.g.
`blood loss due to menorrhagia) and inflammation (e.g.
`rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune diseases).
`However, patients on haemodialysis account for the
`vast majority of intravenous iron infused in the USA
`(A. J. Collins, personal communication). Confounding
`by indication or provider preference cannot be ruled
`out, but is unlikely to account for a multiple fold
`increase in the risk of parenteral iron-related ADEs.
`The differences between higher and lower molecular
`weight iron dextran formulations have been identified
`previously [6,11]. It is possible that clinicians may have
`been more vigilant with patients exposed to sodium
`ferric gluconate complex (FerrlecitÕ) since this agent
`had not been widely used in ESRD, so that the fraction
`of cases reported may have been higher. However, a
`reporting bias is unlikely to explain the large observed
`inter-agent differences. Given the voluntary nature
`of ADE reporting,
`it is likely that all ADEs were
`
`PGR2020-00009
`Pharmacosmos A/S v. American Regent, Inc.
`Petitioner Ex. 1032 - Page 4
`
`

`

`Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ndt/article-abstract/19/6/1571/1857376 by Harvard Law School Library user on 02 October 2019
`
`1575
`
`References
`
`1. NKF-K/DOQI Clinical Practice Guidelines for Anemia of
`Chronic Kidney Disease: update 2000. Am J Kidney Dis 2001;
`37 [1 Suppl 1]: S182–S238
`2. Nissenson AR, Strobos J. Iron deficiency in patients with renal
`failure. Kidney Int Suppl 1999; 69: S18–S21
`3. Wingard RL, Parker RA, Ismail N, Hakim RM. Efficacy of
`oral
`iron therapy in patients receiving recombinant human
`erythropoietin. Am J Kidney Dis 1995; 25: 433–439
`4. Macdougall IC. Strategies for iron supplementation: oral versus
`intravenous. Kidney Int Suppl 1999; 69: S61–S66
`5. Horl WH,
`Jacobs C, Macdougall
`IC, Valderrabano F,
`Parrando I, Thompson K. European best practice guidelines
`14–16: inadequate response to epoetin. Nephrol Dial Transplant
`2000; 15 [Suppl 4]: 43–50
`6. Fletes R, Lazarus JM, Gage J, Chertow GM. Suspected iron
`dextran-related adverse drug events in hemodialysis patients.
`Am J Kidney Dis 2001; 37: 743–749
`7. Fleiss JL. Confidence intervals for the odds ratio in case–control
`studies: the state of the art. J Chronic Dis 1979; 32: 69–77
`8. Hamstra RD, Block MH, Schocket AL. Intravenous iron
`dextran in clinical medicine. J Am Med Assoc 1980; 243:
`1726–1731
`9. Kosch M, Bahner U, Bettger H, Matzkies F, Teschner M,
`Schaefer RM. A randomized, controlled parallel-group trial on
`efficacy and safety of iron sucrose (Venofer) vs iron gluconate
`(Ferrlecit)
`in haemodialysis patients treated with rHuEpo.
`Nephrol Dial Transplant 2001; 16: 1239–1244
`safety of
`10. Fishbane S, Kowalski EA. The
`comparative
`intravenous iron dextran, iron saccharate, and sodium ferric
`gluconate. Semin Dial 2000; 13: 381–384.
`11. McCarthy JT, Regnier CE, Loebertmann CL, Bergstralh EJ.
`Adverse events
`in chronic hemodialysis patients
`receiving
`intravenous iron dextran—a comparison of two products. Am J
`Nephrol 2000; 20: 455–462
`12. Michael B, Coyne DW, Fishbane S et al. Sodium ferric
`gluconate complex in hemodialysis patients: adverse reactions
`compared to placebo and iron dextran. Kidney Int 2002; 61:
`1830–1839
`13. http://www.berleximaging.com/pdf/Feridex.pdf
`14. Schultz JF, Bell JD, Goldstein RM, Kuhn JA, McCarty TM.
`Hepatic tumor imaging using iron oxide MRI: comparison with
`computed tomography, clinical impact, and cost analysis. Ann
`Surg Oncol 1999; 6: 691–698
`15. Faich G, Strobos J. Sodium ferric gluconate complex in
`sucrose: safer intravenous iron therapy than iron dextrans. Am
`J Kidney Dis 1999; 33: 464–470
`16. Fishbane S, Ungureanu VD, Maesaka JK, Kaupke CJ, Lim V,
`Wish J. The safety of intravenous iron dextran in hemodialysis
`patients. Am J Kidney Dis 1996; 28: 529–534
`17. Feldman HI, Santanna J, Guo W et al. Iron administration and
`clinical outcomes in hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol
`2002; 13: 734–744
`18. Zager RA, Johnson AC, Hanson SY, Wasse H. Parenteral iron
`formulations: a comparative toxicologic analysis and mechan-
`isms of cell injury. Am J Kidney Dis 2002; 40: 90–103
`19. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/medwatch/
`20. Lasser KE, Allen PD, Woolhandler SJ, Himmelstein DU,
`Wolfe SM, Bor DH. Timing of new black box warnings and
`withdrawals for prescription medications. J Am Med Assoc
`2002; 287: 2215–2220
`
`Received for publication: 10.11.03
`Accepted in revised form: 4.2.04
`
`The relative safety of parenteral iron formulations
`
`underascertained, especially more minor ADEs. Major
`ADEs, such as those listed in Table 1, would be more
`likely to be reported under any circumstances. We did
`not include data on iron sucrose, since it was rarely
`used during the time frame studied. These analyses
`should be updated after sufficient patient-years of iron
`sucrose exposure. Finally,
`the data used for the
`analyses were not derived from a randomized clinical
`trial. However, for exceptionally rare events such as
`serious parenteral
`iron-related ADEs, data from
`ongoing clinical practice may be more sound than
`data from clinical trials, since the power of clinical trials
`to detect rare but clinically important events is usually
`severely limited. These results highlight the importance
`of ongoing vigilance and active reporting of ADEs [19].
`Lasser et al. [20] showed that >10% of drugs approved
`by the FDA between 1975 and 1999 either acquired a
`new black box warning, or were withdrawn from the
`market.
`In summary, using data obtained from the FDA
`Medwatch programme, we demonstrated an increase in
`the risk of ADEs when comparing higher vs lower
`molecular weight iron dextran formulations, and when
`comparing sodium ferric gluconate complex with lower
`molecular weight iron dextran. While the absolute
`ADE risk was low, the magnitude of the increased risks
`exceeded what might be expected from confounding or
`reporting biases. Since large-scale, long-term clinical
`trials comparing various parenteral iron formulations
`may not be practical (due to limited power and great
`expense), these data may be used to guide clinical
`decision making. We identified no benefit and an
`increase in risk associated with higher molecular weight
`relative to lower molecular weight iron dextran. We
`were unable to confirm or refute the contention that
`non-dextran formulations of parenteral
`iron are
`associated with a reduced risk of death, anaphylactoid
`reactions, cardiac arrest or respiratory depression.
`Additional research will be required to determine the
`optimal formulation, dose and schedule of parenteral
`iron in haemodialysis patients.
`
`Acknowledgements. Presented in part as an oral communication
`at the World Congress of Nephrology, Berlin, Germany (June 9,
`2003).
`
`Conflict of interest statement. O.V.-N. is employed by Nebo a/s, a
`Danish company responsible for the marketing of CosmoFerÕ, a
`lower molecular weight iron dextran. O.V.-N. was included as a
`co-author of the manuscript with the unanimous approval of the
`other authors, because of his intellectual contributions. G.M.C.
`conducted the statistical analyses, and the authors collectively were
`responsible for data interpretation, without influence by O.V.-N. or
`any other employee or affiliate of Nebo a/s.
`
`PGR2020-00009
`Pharmacosmos A/S v. American Regent, Inc.
`Petitioner Ex. 1032 - Page 5
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket