throbber
Safety in Iron Management
`
`Steven Fishbane, MD
`
`@ Intravenous (IV) iron therapy has becomean integral part of hemodialysis managementduring the past several
`decades, and the National Kidney Foundation-Kidney Disease OutcomesQuality Initiative guidelines recognize that
`most patients undergoing hemodialysis will require IV iron therapy on a regular basis to reach target hemoglobin
`(Hgb) levels. There now are three IV iron compoundsavailable in the United States: iron dextran, sodium ferric
`gluconate,and iron sucrose. Although all have been proven effective for increasing Hgb/hematocrit levels, recent
`data showdifferencesin their relative safety profiles. During the past two decades, more than 30 deaths have been
`attributed to the use of IV iron dextran. The two newer compounds available in the United States, sodium ferric
`gluconate andiron sucrose, have more favorable safety profiles, with the largest prospective safety comparison to
`date showing sodium ferric gluconate to be similar to placebo in the incidence of serious anaphylactoid-type
`reactions. This article reviews safety data surrounding theIV iron therapies. Am J Kidney Dis 41(S5):S18-S26.
`© 2003 by the National Kidney Foundation,Inc.
`
`INDEX WORDS: Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (K/DOQI); iron therapy; sodium ferric gluconate; iron
`sucrose; iron dextran.
`
`LL TREATMENTdecisions that physicians
`make involve the weighing of risks and
`benefits, including nephrologists’ treatment deci-
`sions involving the use of intravenous (IV) iron
`therapy. Benefits of IV iron therapy for hemodi-
`alysis patients are well established; [V iron is
`essential for enabling most tron-deficient hemo-
`dialysis patients to achieve target hemoglobin
`(Hgb)levels of 11 to 12 g/dL (110 to 120 g/L).!
`Correction of anemia may provide numerous
`benefits, including a significant decrease in left
`ventricular mass index and septal wall thickness;
`increased work capacity; improvements in fa-
`tigue, depression,and relationships; reduced hos-
`pitalization; and normalization of increased car-
`diac output.2© Because iron is vital for normal
`energy use by cells and has an important role in
`oxygen delivery and overall health status, it is
`important for hemodialysis patients to maintain
`adequate levels of storageiron.
`Both the European Anemia Best Practices
`Panel’ and the National Kidney Foundation-
`Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative
`guidelines in the United States! have conducted
`an analysis of risks versus benefits of TV iron
`
`From Winthrop-University Hospital, Mineola, NY.
`Supported by an unrestricted educational grant from
`Watson Pharma, Inc.
`Address reprint requests to Steven Fishbane, MD, Direc-
`tor of Dialysis Services, Winthrop-University Hospital, 200
`Old Country Rd, #135, Mineola, NY 11501. E-muil:
`sfishbane @winthrop.org
`© 2003 by the National Kidney Foundation, Inc.
`0272-6386/03/4106-0504$30.00/0
`doi:10.1016/S0272-638(03)003 73-1
`
`therapyfor the treatment of anemia. In each case,
`it was concluded that IV iron forms a cornerstone
`of hemodialysis therapy. Nevertheless, questions
`remain in some nephrologists’ minds about the
`possible risks associated with IV tron therapy,
`including the risk for adverse reactions, cardio-
`vascular disease (CVD), and infection. Much of
`the concem relates to problems of iron in its
`free-circulating form, in which iron can create
`reactive oxygen species that can result in inflam-
`mation, endothelial damage, and a potential in-
`creased risk for infection. This article discusses
`
`the evidence surrounding the potential risks of
`IV iron therapy.
`
`ADVERSE REACTIONS TO IV IRON THERAPY
`
`Good quantitative data from several analyses
`of adverse reactions to IV iron therapy have
`emerged during the past several years. Although
`a number of adverse reactions have been re-
`ported with the use of IV iron compounds,includ-
`ing injection-site reactions, diarrhea, and nau-
`sea,®” reactions that pose the greatest danger to
`patients and thus are of greatest concern are
`anaphylactoid or allergic-type reactions. These
`are generally characterized by signs and symp-
`tomsthat include urticaria, rash, dyspnea, hypo-
`tension, and, in the most severe cases, shock and
`death. The risk for anaphylactoid reactions ap-
`pears to be greatest with [V iron dextran, prob-
`ably because of the dextran component of the
`compound. High-molecular-weight dextran com-
`plexes alone are known to be antigenic even
`when not complexed to iron.!° Possibly, the im-
`
`$18
`
`American Journal of Kidney Diseases, Vol 41, No 6, Suppl 5 (June), 2003: pp $18-S26
`
`PGR2020-00009
`PharmacosmosA/S v. American Regent, Inc.
`Petitioner Ex. 1040 - Page 1
`
`PGR2020-00009
`Pharmacosmos A/S v. American Regent, Inc.
`Petitioner Ex. 1040 - Page 1
`
`

`

`IRON SAFETY
`
`$19
`
`Oxygen
`
`Oxygen Oxygen
`
`Ferric Oxide
`Function
`
`Sucrose
`
`
`
`Oxygen
`
`Oxygen
`
`Sucrose
`
`4. Carboxylate
`| Function
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sucrose
`
`
`Sucrose
`
`
`Ovygen
`
`mm
`
`Oxygen
`
`Ferric Oxide
`Function
`
`
`
`Fig1. Themolecular struc-
`ture of sodium ferric glu-
`conate consists of an iron
`core surrounded by sac-
`charate networks, which are
`linked together by a glu-
`conate function. The result
`is a stable complex of high
`molecular weight (289,000 to
`440,000 d) that resists disso-
`ciation in serum andis non-
`dialyzable. (Data from Watson
`Pharma,Inc.1*)
`
`mune response is caused by a direct effect on
`mast cells and basophils.
`The risk for immediate severe anaphylactoid
`reactions appears to be, at a minimum, approxi-
`mately 0.6% with IV iron dextran, and this agent
`has been associated with a number of deaths
`during the past several decades. A 1980 review
`by Hamstraet al!! examined the use of IV iron
`dextran in 481 hemodialysis patients adminis-
`tered a total of 2,099 doses of 250 or 500 mg. In
`this patient group, life-threatening reactions oc-
`curred in 3 patients (0.6%), characterized by
`respiratory arrest, hypotension, syncope, and
`wheezing. Eight additional patients had delayed
`nonlethal reactions that included myalgia, arthral-
`gia, and pulmonary embolus. These data were
`borne out in later IV iron dextran studies by
`Woodman et al,!? in which anaphylactoid reac-
`tions were seen in 1.8% of 1,260 patients, and by
`Fishbane et al,? in which such reactions were
`seen in 1.7% of 573 patients treated during a
`2-year period.
`Even with IV iron dextran, the expected risk
`for serious anaphylactoid reactions, approxi-
`mately 6/1,000 patients,is relatively low, and the
`risk to the individual patient is low. However, the
`risk is far from negligible, and viewed in the
`context of a large hemodialysis practice that
`treats several hundred patients, it is likely that
`several severe reactions will be encountered over
`the course of time with IV iron dextran. Data by
`Faich and Strobos,!° published in 1999, have
`illustrated this significant risk for potentially
`fatal reactions. Using a database drawing on the
`
`Gluconate Function
`
`US experience with IV iron dextran during a
`two-decade period (1976 to 1996), a total of 196
`serious anaphylactoid reactions and 31 deaths
`were reported with the use of this compound.
`Among patients administered iron dextran who
`experiencedallergic reactions, there was a mini-
`mum case fatality rate of 15.8%. (Because data
`from this study were drawn from retrospective
`reports, many of which did not list final out-
`comes,
`the actual case fatality rate may have
`been even greater.!°)
`The two newer compounds introduced in the
`United States, sodium ferric gluconate and iron
`sucrose, appear to be associated with a far lower
`risk for anaphylaxis. This reducedrisk appearsto
`be related to the absence of dextran chains in
`these molecules; both compounds consist of a
`sucrose network surroundinga ferric ion core. In
`the case of sodium ferric gluconate, sucrose
`networks are linked by a gluconate function to
`create a highly stable nondialyzable macromo-
`lecular complex (Fig 1).
`This reduced risk has been shown in data
`published on sodium ferric gluconate. In 2002,
`Michael et al'* published results of the largest
`prospective safety analysis conducted in hemodi-
`alysis patients. The study, which involved 2,493
`hemodialysis patients, compared the rate of ad-
`verse reactions prospectively with placebo and
`with a historical control group of IV iron dextran
`users. Patients in this study were administered
`placebo or a 125-mg single dose of sodium ferric
`gluconate delivered by IV push at a rate of 12.5
`mg/min during one session and then were crossed
`
`PGR2020-00009
`PharmacosmosA/S v. American Regent, Inc.
`Petitioner Ex. 1040 - Page 2
`
`PGR2020-00009
`Pharmacosmos A/S v. American Regent, Inc.
`Petitioner Ex. 1040 - Page 2
`
`

`

`S20
`
`STEVEN FISHBANE
`
`overto the opposite treatmentat the next session.
`The IV iron dextran comparison was drawn from
`four published trials involving 3,768 drug expo-
`sures to different forms of this compound.
`The rate of life-threatening adverse reactions
`(immediate reactions requiring institution of re-
`suscitative measures) was reduced from 0.61%
`in the IV iron dextran study population to 0.04%
`in the sodium ferric gluconate study population
`(~4/10,000 patients). The relative risk reduction
`was 93% (Table 1).!4 The single life-threatening
`reacuion associated with sodium ferric gluconate
`consisted of shortness of breath, hypotension,
`and lower back pain. It resolved within 20 min-
`utes, enabling the patient to complete the dialysis
`treatment and return home the same day.
`In the placebo-controlled portion of this study,
`there was no significant difference in incidence
`of life-threatening reactions with sodium ferric
`gluconate compared with placebo (Table 2).!*
`Although there wasa statistically significant dif-
`ference in incidence of drug-intolerance events
`(ie, any event that would preclude further study
`drug administration), most of these reactions
`consisted of lower-level gastrointestinal tract re-
`actions.
`Fewer safety data are available on the newest
`agent, TV iron sucrose. Unlike sodium ferric
`gluconate, iron sucrose has not beentested in a
`large-scale prospective studysince its introduc-
`tion in the United States. However, available
`data suggest a similar safety profile. In studies by
`Van Wyckct al® and Charytanct al! involving a
`total of approximately 1,000 doses of 100 mg of
`iron sucrose administered through IV infusion or
`push, no deaths and no potentially fatal anaphy-
`
`Table 1. US Safety Study of Sodium Ferric
`Gluconate: Adverse Events for Sodium Ferric
`Gluconate Versus Iron Dextran
`
`Sodium Ferric
`
`
` Gluconate Iron Dextran P
`
`
`
`0.61, 23/3,768,
`0.04, 1/2,493,
`Life-
`0.36-0.86
`0.00-0.22
`threatening
`0.44, 11/2,493, 2.47, 64/2,589, <0.0001
`Drug
`intolerance 1.87-3.07 0.21-0.71
`
`
`
`0.0001
`
`NOTE. Comparison with iron dextran was taken from
`historical controls in published studies of iron dextran.
`Values expressed as percent, number/total number, 95%
`confidenceinterval.
`
`Reprinted with permission.'4
`
`Table 2. US Safety Study of Sodium Ferric
`Gluconate: Adverse Events for Sodium Ferric
`Gluconate Versus Placebo
`
`Sodium Ferric
`Gluconate
`(N = 2,493)
`
`Placebo
`(N = 2,487)
`
`P
`
`Life-threatening
`Drug intolerance
`
`1 (0.04)
`11 (0.4)
`
`0 (0)
`2 (0.1)
`
`Not available
`0.02
`
`NOTE. Values expressed as number (percent).
`Reprinted with permission.'4
`
`lactoid reactions were attributed to use of this
`compound. In the largest analysis of IV iron
`sucrose use, encompassing 1,004,477 patients
`worldwide from 1992 to 2001, a total of 788
`adverse
`events were reported (incidence,
`0.028%), including 52 anaphylactoid reactions.
`No deaths were reported.'® Data for these two
`compoundsstrongly suggestthat they are signifi-
`cantly safer than IV iron dextran in terms of
`serious adverse reactions, and the use of IV iron
`dextran should be restricted to selected patients
`in whom there is a particular need to treat with
`this compound.
`
`CVD RISK
`
`The link between CVD and TV iron therapy
`has good biological plausibility, at least in theory.
`Iron is an element with a high degree of acute-
`phase reactivity that can lead to a state of in-
`creased oxidative stress. Catalytically active iron
`is involved in the production of hydroxyl radical,
`a damaging reactive oxygen species. Hydroxyl
`radicals, in turn, lead to lipid peroxidation and
`the development of additional lipid-derived free
`radicals, which generate still other free radicals
`in a chain reaction.!”
`Most of the data associating iron with an
`increased risk for CVD have been drawn from
`population-based studies involving serum fer-
`ritin Jevel as a measure of iron stores. A senes of
`Finnish studies by Salonen et al'®?° were among
`the first to test the “iron hypothesis” of an in-
`creased risk for CVD with increased iron stores.
`In these studies, an increased risk for myocardial
`infarction (MI) was found in men with greater
`serumferritin levels compared with those with
`lowerlevels.!® Subsequent studies by this same
`group showedthat regular blood donors had a
`lower average serum ferritin level and decreased
`
`PGR2020-00009
`PharmacosmosA/S v. American Regent, Inc.
`Petitioner Ex. 1040 - Page 3
`
`PGR2020-00009
`Pharmacosmos A/S v. American Regent, Inc.
`Petitioner Ex. 1040 - Page 3
`
`

`

`IRON SAFETY
`
`$21
`
`risk for acute MI over time compared with non—
`blood donors.'?° A large-scale Canadian survey
`by Morrison et al?!
`that followed up nearly
`10,000 participants also showed an increased
`risk for fatal MI in those in the highest category
`of serum ferritin level (175 g/dL).
`Nevertheless, it is exceedingly difficult to draw
`reasoned conclusions from these data about the
`risk for CVD in hemodialysis patients on IV iron
`therapy. First,
`these studies were population-
`based analyses that in most cases involved only
`male patients. An equal number of population-
`based studies that have examined the relation-
`ship between serum ferritin level and MI con-
`cluded there is no increased risk for CVD with
`greater iron stores and no protective effect with
`blood donation.?”°
`Second, serum ferritin levels may not be a
`reliable markerfor actual elevationsin ironstores.
`Chronic inflammatory conditions, such as CVD,
`tend to elevate serum ferritin measures, making
`it questionable whether observational studies are
`measuring an increase in iron levels or results of
`an occult inflammatory process.
`Third, such population-based studies also have
`not controlled for the presence of hemochromato-
`sis, a hereditary disorder that results in massive
`accumulation of storage iron over a period of
`decades. Because this disorderis fairly common
`(1 of 300 Caucasians are homozygous for the
`Cys282Tyr mutation of HIE, one of the genes
`involved in hemochromatosis), failure to control
`for its presence may influcnce the outcomes of
`population-based analyses.
`Finally, population-based studies involving
`body iron stores contribute little to our knowl-
`edge of the specific CVD risk associated with [V
`iron therapy in hemodialysis patients. The few
`studies to date conducted in the hemodialysis
`population tended to showa slight, but signifi-
`cant, increase in relative risk (~ 1.1 to 2.4).?7??
`However, this modest increase in risk must be
`weighed against
`the serious and well-docu-
`mented health consequencesof failing to correct
`iron-deficiency anemiain these patients.
`
`RISK FOR INFECTION
`
`Iron is crucial for survival in most organisms
`and is necessary for erythrocyte production and
`the making and storage of adenosine triphos-
`phate. Oxidative phosphorylation,
`the produc-
`
`Oo
`
`i
`Tyr191
`OngoS
`AspSe Tyr 93
`
`His 252
`
`Fig 2. An iron-protein complex. Such complexes
`tend to be large glycoprotein complexes wrapped
`around a central core of iron that protects the body
`from exposureto free iron.
`
`is highly dependent on
`tion of usable energy,
`iron. Therefore, the body strives to obtain iron
`and is very resistant to tron elimination. Of the
`estimated 4,000 mg of iron in the body, only
`approximately | mg/d is lost in healthy individu-
`als. Nevertheless, the potent oxidizing ability of
`iron makesit a potentially toxic compound in the
`body in its free form. Because of this potential
`toxicity, the majority of iron that is not actively
`circulating as Hgb in red blood cells is safely
`sequestered in the form of ferritin and hemosid-
`erin in macrophages of the reticuloendothelial
`system (RES). Molecules that hold iron tend to
`be very large, containing a central core of iron
`with a proteinaceous envelope that insulates the
`body from the iron atom (Fig 2). In healthy
`individuals, free iron rarcly is a problem. Con-
`versely, in cases of hemochromatosis, in which
`serumferritin levels can increase to more than
`10,000 ng/mL,the body is presented with unman-
`ageable levels of free iron.
`In hemodialysis patients on IV iron therapy,
`althoughironis introduceddirectly into the circu-
`lation as opposedto the gastrointestinal tract, the
`body generally retains its ability to protect against
`free-iron release by taking up the iron-carbohy-
`drate complex into the RES in its bound form.In
`the RES, iron is dissociated from its carbohy-
`drate ligand, stored as ferritin or hemosiderin,
`and only then is turned over to transferrin, the
`body’s primary serum buffer against free iron,
`for delivery to the erythroid marrow for use in
`Hgb production. A series of pharmacokinetic
`analyses by Seligman et al®° and Kimkoetal?!
`showed that sodium ferric gluconate delivered at
`
`PGR2020-00009
`PharmacosmosA/S v. American Regent, Inc.
`Petitioner Ex. 1040 - Page 4
`
`PGR2020-00009
`Pharmacosmos A/S v. American Regent, Inc.
`Petitioner Ex. 1040 - Page 4
`
`

`

`S22
`
`STEVEN FISHBANE
`
`
`
`> 8
`80—
`
`
`
`
`
`Transferrin
`
`Saturation(%
`PatientsWith(JFree
`Iron(%)
`
`
`
`= 1
`
`50
`
`180
`
`210
`
`0
`
`30
`
`60
`
`T
`90
`
`F
`120
`
`Time (min)
`
`60
`50
`40
`
`30
`20
`10
`
`0
`
`
`T
`te
`T
`Te
`“Tv
`“e
`30
`60
`90
`120
`150
`180
`
`210
`
`0
`
`Time (min)
`
`(A) Transferrin
`3.
`Fig
`saturation and (B) percent-
`age of patients with free iron
`after administration of iron
`sucrose, 100 mg, by IV push.
`Reprinted with permission.**
`
`a dose of 125 mg by IV infusion or push follows
`this normal pathwayof iron distribution. In these
`studies,
`the sodium ferric gluconate complex
`was taken up directly by the RES before being
`delivered back to transferrin. Release offree iron
`directly into the circulation was negligible, and
`no transferrin oversaturation was observed, even
`at an infusion rate greater than 15 mg/min. After
`the iron was taken up by the RES, turnoverto
`transferrin was orderly: The majority of iron
`(~80%) was delivered back to transferrin and
`made available to the erythroid marrow within
`24 hoursof infusion.*°*!
`An increasing number of studies during the
`past 2 years have shownthat the same protection
`against free-iron release may not be seen with [V
`iron sucrose. A pharmacokinetic study by Daniel-
`son et al*’ showed that iron sucrose follows two
`pathways after administration: Although part of
`the iron is transported directly to the RES inits
`carbohydrate-bound complex, a portion is re-
`leased directly into the circulation, existing as
`nontransferrin-bound free tron. Subsequent stud-
`ies have shown the potential detrimental effects
`of this method ofiron release in terms of infec-
`tion risk and oxidative damage. In 2000, Parkki-
`nen et al** published results of an elegant series
`of studies on the release of free iron with iron
`sucrose and risk for infection. This study ana-
`lyzed 12 stable hemodialysis patients with fer-
`
`ritin levels less than 400 ng/mL who received
`treatment with 100 mg of iron sucrose adminis-
`tered by IV push. Transferrin saturation was
`measuredat 5, 30, 90, and 210 minutespostinjec-
`tion, and serum iron was measured by meansof
`two spectrophotometric methods using ferozine
`and ferene-S as the chromogenic agents.
`Transferrin saturation increased rapidly imme-
`diately after injection (Fig 3A),** a phenomenon
`that would only occur if iron was moving di-
`rectly to transferrin. Transferrin saturation contin-
`ucd to increase, averaging morc than 80% within
`3.5 hours. In addition, there was a consistent
`increase in number of patients with measurable
`free iron in the circulation as detected by bleomy-
`cin assay, climbing to 50% at 3.5 hours (Fig
`3B).*
`These findings have several clinical implica-
`tions. First, patients with lowertransferrin levels
`(which may occur in hemodialysis patients be-
`cause of inadequate transferrin production in the
`liver) are likely at greater risk for having free
`iron in the circulation with IV iron sucrose.
`Second, the presence of free iron in the circula-
`tion may increase the risk for infection. This
`increased risk was shown bythis group by intro-
`ducing Staphylococcus epidermidis into serum
`samples in patients with free iron. Although S$
`epidermidis normally does not grow in serum in
`the absence of free iron,
`the organism grew
`
`PGR2020-00009
`PharmacosmosA/S v. American Regent, Inc.
`Petitioner Ex. 1040 - Page 5
`
`PGR2020-00009
`Pharmacosmos A/S v. American Regent, Inc.
`Petitioner Ex. 1040 - Page 5
`
`

`

`IRON SAFETY
`
`$23
`
`Adding apotransferrin to the sera-inhibited staph growth
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`~t¢-3.5 h sample with
`apotransterrin
`added; growth
`index 0
`
`~@-Serum sample
`before IV iron:
`growth index 0
`
`—-Normal serum:
`growth index0
`
`—A- Serum sample
`3.5 h after IV iron;
`growth index 0.4
`
`Fig 4. Growth of Staphy-
`lococcus epidermidis in se-
`rum samplesof patients with
`catalytically active free iron
`after administration of IV iron
`sucrose. The addition of apo-
`transferrin to bind free iron
`reduced the growth of S epi-
`dermidis to normal
`levels.
`Reprinted with permission.**
`
`rapidly in samples from patients with free iron
`and in direct proportion to the level of free iron
`in serum (Fig 4).** Adding apotransferrin to the
`samples to bind free iron prevented S epidermi-
`dis growth in these samples. The investigators
`concluded from this study that an iron sucrose
`dose of 100 mg delivered by IV push maybe too
`large.
`Damiani et al*+ compared clinical infection
`outcomes between IV iron sucrose and sodium
`ferric gluconate in a study of 61 hemodialysis
`patients treated at a single center. Baseline char-
`acteristics of the two patient groups were similar,
`with the exception of a greater mean recombi-
`nant human erythropoietin dose at baseline in the
`iron sucrose group. At follow-up, there were no
`significant differences in recombinant human
`erythropoietin dose requirements or Hgb levels.
`However, at months 6 and 8, transferrin satura-
`tions and serum ferritin levels were greater in the
`iron sucrose group. The infection rate in the iron
`sucrose group was significantly greater than in
`the sodium ferric gluconate group: 1 for every 10
`patient-months versus | for every 17 patient-
`months.*4
`Zager et al®° conducted a series of in vitro
`studies of four [TV iron compounds: iron sucrose,
`sodium ferric gluconate, iron dextran, and iron
`oligosaccharide (which is not available in the
`United States). Using isolated mouse proximal
`tubule segments and cultured human proximal
`tubule (HK-2) cells,
`the researchers assessed
`oxidant injury through malondialdehyde (MDA)
`generation, as well as lethal cell injury through
`
`Times (hours)
`
`lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) release and cell
`proliferation/viability through tetrazolium dye
`(MTT)assay. All four IV iron compounds were
`found to cause some degree of lipid peroxida-
`tion, measured by MDA generation, with iron
`dextran and iron oligosaccharide causing slightly
`greater levels of oxidation than the other two
`compounds.
`However, when cellular toxicity was exam-
`ined based on LDHrelease, IV iron sucrose was
`shown to cause a dramatic increase in mouse
`proximal tubule cell death compared with the
`other three compounds (which were similar to
`placebo; lig 5).*° This significant increasein cell
`death with IV iron sucrose also was seen in
`human proximal tubule cclls, measured by both
`LDH release (Fig 6A) and MITuptake (Fig
`6B).*> The response was robustly dose depen-
`dent.
`Two additional studies, both published in 2002,
`have addressed the issue of free tron and oxida-
`tive stress with IV iron sucrose. Kooistra et al°°
`examined effects of iron sucrose in IV push
`administration of 100 mg in 6 minutes in 10
`hemodialysis patients. In these patients, an in-
`crease in transferrin saturation ranging from 26%
`to 491% was observed. A slower infusion (100
`mg in 60 minutes) did not affect the increase in
`transferrin saturation; abundant free iron was
`seen in both methods of administration. In a
`study by Rooyakkers*’ involving 20 healthy vol-
`unteers administered IV iron sucrose, 100 mg in
`60 minutes, a 400% increase in non-transferrin-
`bound iron was seen, accompanied by an in-
`
`PGR2020-00009
`PharmacosmosA/S v. American Regent, Inc.
`Petitioner Ex. 1040 - Page 6
`
`PGR2020-00009
`Pharmacosmos A/S v. American Regent, Inc.
`Petitioner Ex. 1040 - Page 6
`
`

`

`
`
`P<0.002
`(9)} OSLDHRelease
`
`
`Glue
`” Dext |
`Fe (i mg/mL)
`
`Fig 5. Cell death in mouse proximal tubule cells
`shownbythe percentage of LDH release with four IV
`iron preparations(iron oligosaccharide [OS], sodium
`ferric gluconate [Gluc], iron dextran [Dext], and iron
`sucrose [Sucr]) compared with placebo. Abbreviation:
`Cont, continued. Reprinted with permission.*°
`
`30
`
`25
`
`& 20
`
`——$$——
`
`
`
`0.5 mg/mL
`[]0.42 mg/mL|
`M0 mg/mL.
`
`
`
`STEVEN FISHBANE
`
`crease in superoxide levels ranging from 53%to
`70%. Moreover, Tovbin et al?® studied iron su-
`crose at a dose of 100 mg administered to 19
`hemodialysis patients on high-flux dialysis
`therapy. They found significant increases in pro-
`tein oxidation. Recently, Drtieke et al*? studied
`79 hemodialysis patients administered IV iron
`sucrose and foundsignificant evidence for oxida-
`tive stress and acceleration of atherosclerosis in
`proportion to the amountof iron sucrose admin-
`istered.
`
`CONCLUSIONS
`
`Viewedtogether, these data show several po-
`tential risks of IV iron administration, including
`anaphylaxis, CVD, and increasedrisk for infec-
`tion. Risks for adverse events generally have
`been quantifiable, with the newer IV iron com-
`
`L
`
`t
`a
`
`.
`
`*
`
`
`
`
`.
`.
`|
`Fe Gluc
`Fe Sucr
`
`
`k
`
`ok
`
`%
`
`2
`
`.
`Fe Gluc
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`fi mo/mi
`0.5 mg/mL
`Fig 6. Lethalcell injury to
`(10.12 mg/mL
`cultured human proximal tu-
`HB 0.06 mg/m bule (HK-2) cells determined
`by (A) LDH release and (B)
`MTT uptake with varying
`dosesof iron (Fe) oligosac-
`charide (OS), sodium ferric
`gluconate (Gluc),
`iron dex-
`tran (Dext), and iron sucrose
`(Sucr). For (A), *P < 0.05 and
`TP < 0.001. For (B), *P <
`0.001. Modified and reprinted
`with permission.25
`
`ok
`
`te
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fe Suer
`
`PGR2020-00009
`PharmacosmosA/S v. American Regent, Inc.
`Petitioner Ex. 1040 - Page 7
`
`@
`3157
`cc
`
`10—
`
`5A
`
`5 an
`
`0
`
`A
`
`<
`od
`ae
`a
`=
`E
`s
`
`O-
`
`B
`
`PGR2020-00009
`Pharmacosmos A/S v. American Regent, Inc.
`Petitioner Ex. 1040 - Page 7
`
`

`

`IRON SAFETY
`
`S25
`
`pounds, sodiumferric gluconate and iron su-
`crose, having a lower incidence ofallergic and
`anaphylactoid-type reactions. A numberofstud-
`ies during the past 2 years have pointed to a risk
`for free-iron release and infection with iron su-
`crose. Further research is needed to quantify the
`risk of this free-iron release in terms of clinical
`outcomes. Nevertheless, in weighing risks ver-
`sus benefits of IV iron therapy, it is clear that [V
`iron is not only a beneficial component of hemo-
`dialysis, but also a necessary one for the majority
`of patients who are iron deficient. Specific risks
`and benefits should be balanced on an individual
`patient basis.
`
`REFERENCES
`
`1. National Kidney Foundation: K/DOQI Clinical Prac-
`tice Guidelines for Anemia of Chronic Kidney Disease,
`2000. Am J Kidney Dis 37:$182-S238, 2001 (suppl 1)
`2. Cannella G, La Canna G, Sandrini M,et al: Reversal of
`left ventricular hypertrophy following recombinant human
`erythropoietin treatment of anaemic dialysed uraemic pa-
`tients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 6:31-37, 1991
`3. Lim VS: Recombinant human erythropoietin in predi-
`alysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 18:534-S37, 1991 (suppl 1)
`4. Churchill DN, Muirhead N, Goldstein M,et al: Effect
`of recombinant human erythropoietin on hospitalization of
`hemodialysis patients. Clin Nephrol 43:184-188, 1995
`5. Powe NR, Griffiths RI, Watson AJ, et al: Lffect of
`recombinant erythropoietin on hospital admissions, readmis-
`sions, length of stay, and costs of dialysis patients. JAm Soc
`Nephrol 4:1455-1465, 1994
`6. Harnett JD, Kent GM, Foley RN, Parfrey PS: Cardiac
`function and hematocrit level. Am J Kidney Dis 25:S3-S7,
`1995 (suppl 1)
`7. Jacobs C, Hérl WH, Macdougall IC, et al: European
`Best Practice Guidelines 9-13: Anaemia management. Neph-
`rol Dial Transplant 15:$33-S42, 2000 (suppl 4)
`8. Van Wyck DB, Cavallo G, Spinowitz BS: Safety and
`efficacy of iron sucrose in patients sensitive to iron dextran:
`North American Clinical Trial. Am J Kidney Dis 36:88-97,
`2000
`
`9. Fishbane S, Ungureanu V-D, Maesaka JK, Kaupke CJ,
`Lim V, Wish J: The safety of intravenous iron dextran in
`hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 28:529-534, 1996
`10. Faich G, Strobos J: Sodium ferric gluconate complex
`in sucrose: Safer intravenous iron therapy than iron dex-
`trans. Am J Kidney Dis 33:464-470, 1999
`11. Hamstra RD, Block MH, Schocket AL: Intravenous
`iron dextran in clinical medicine. JAMA 243:1726-1731,
`1980
`12. Woodman J, Shaw RJ, Shipman AJ, Edwards AM: A
`surveillance programme on a long-established product: Im-
`feron (iron dextran BP). Pharmaceut Med 1:289-296, 1987
`13. Watson Pharma, Inc: Data on file. Morristown, NJ,
`Watson Pharma, Inc
`14. 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
`61:1830-1839, 2002
`15. Charytan C, Levin N, Al-Saloum M, Hafeez T, Gag-
`non S, Van Wyck DB: Efficacy and safety of iron sucrose for
`iron deficiency in patients with dialysis-associated anemia:
`North American Clinical Trial. Am J Kidney Dis 37:300-
`307, 2001
`16. Macdougall I, Bailie G, Richardson D,et al: World-
`wide safety profile of iron sucrose injection (Venofer):
`Analysis of 1,004,477 patients from 1992 to 2001. Presented
`at: ASN World Congress of Nephrology, October 13-17,
`2001, San Francisco, CA
`17. Besarab A: Iron and cardiac discase in the end-stage
`renal disease setting. Am J Kidney Dis 34:S18-S24, 1999
`(suppl 2)
`18. Salonen JT, Nyyssonen K, Korpela H, et al: High
`stored iron levels are associated with cxcess risk of myocar-
`dial infarction in Eastern Finnish men. Circulation 86:803-
`811, 1992
`19. Salonen JT, Korpela H, NyyssénenK,et al: Lowering
`of body iron stores by blood Ictting and oxidation resistance
`of serum lipoproteins: A randomized cross-overtrial in male
`smokers. J Intern Med 237:161-168, 1995
`20. Salonen JT, Tuomainen T-P, Salonen R, T.akka TA,
`Nyyssénen K: Donation of blood is associated with reduced
`risk of myocardial infarction: The Kuopio Ischaemic Heart
`Disease Risk Factor Study. Am J Epidemiol 148:445-451,
`1998
`
`21. Morrison HI, Semenciw RM, Mao Y, Wigle DT:
`Serum iron and risk of fatal acute myocardial infarction.
`Epidemiology 5:243-246, 1994
`22. Manttéri M, Manninen V, Huttunen JK, et al: Serum
`ferritin and ceruloplasmin as coronary risk factors. Eur
`Heart J 15:1599-1603, 1994
`23. Reunanen A, Takkunen H, Knekt P, Seppanen R,
`Aromaa A: Bodyiron stores, dietary iron intake and coro-
`nary heart disease mortality. J Intern Med 238:223-230,
`1995
`
`24. Danesh J, Appleby P: Coronary heart disease and iron
`status: Meta-analyses of prospective studies. Circulation
`99:852-854, 1999
`25. Sempos CT, Looker AC, Gillum RF, McGee DL,
`Vuong CV, Johnson CL: Serum ferritin and death from all
`causes and cardiovascular disease: The NHANESI Mortal-
`ity Study. Ann Epidemiol 10:441-448, 2000
`26. Ascherio A, Rimm EB, Giovannucci E, Willett WC,
`Stampfer MJ: Blood donations and risk of coronary heart
`disease in men. Circulation 103:52-57, 2001
`27. Collins A, Ebben J, Ma J, Xia H: IV iron dosing
`patterns and mortality. J Am Soc Nephrol 9:205A, 1998
`(abstr)
`28. Besarab A, Bolton WK, Browne JK: Theeffects of
`normal as compared with low hematocrit values in patients
`with cardiac disease who are receiving hemodialysis and
`epoetin. N Engl J Med 339:584-590, 1998
`29. Feldman HI, Santanna J, Guo W,et al: Iron adminis-
`tration and clinical outcomes in hemodialysis patients. J Am
`Soc Nephrol 13:734-744, 2002
`30. Seligman P, Schleicher R, Meyer G, et al: Fast IV
`iron: Sodium ferric gluconate complex (SFGC)is safe with
`
`PGR2020-00009
`PharmacosmosA/S v. American Regent, Inc.
`Petitioner Ex. 1040 - Page 8
`
`PGR2020-00009
`Pharmacosmos A/S v. American Regent, Inc.
`Petitioner Ex. 1040 - Page 8
`
`

`

`$26
`
`STEVEN FISHBANE
`
`no “free” iron toxicity. J Am Soc Nephrol 11:278A, 2000
`(abstr)
`31. Kimko HC, Karhu D, Nissenson A, Strobos J,
`Seligman P: Evidence for iron delivery to erythroid
`marrow by sodium ferric gluconate complex (Ferrlecit®).
`J Am Soc Nephrol 11:297A-298A, 2000 (abstr)
`32. Danielson BG, Salmonson T, Derendorf H, Geisser P:
`Pharmacokinetics of iron(III)-hydroxide sucrose complex
`after a single intravenous dose in

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