There was no increased risk of infections with IV iron .
Gastrointestinal AEs were reduced with IV iron .
CONCLUSION Intravenous iron therapy is not associated with an increased risk of SAEs or infections .
Infusion reactions are more pronounced with IV iron
OBJECTIVE To amass all available evidence regarding the safety of intravenous ( IV ) iron preparations to provide a true balance of efficacy and safety .
A Randomized, Open-Label, Non-Inferiority Study of Intravenous Iron Isomaltoside 1,000 (Monofer) Compared With Oral Iron for Treatment of Anemia in IBD (PROCEED)
OBJECTIVES : In the largest head-to-head comparison between an oral and an intravenous ( IV ) iron compound in patients with inflammatory bowel disease ( IBD ) so far , we strived to determine whether IV iron isomaltoside 1,000 is non-inferior to oral iron sulfate in the treatment of iron deficiency anemia ( IDA ) . METHODS : This prospect i ve , r and omized , comparative , open-label , non-inferiority study was conducted at 36 sites in Europe and India . Patients with known intolerance to oral iron were excluded . A total of 338 IBD patients in clinical remission or with mild disease , a hemoglobin ( Hb ) < 12 g/dl , and a transferrin saturation ( TSAT ) < 20 % were r and omized 2:1 to receive either IV iron isomaltoside 1,000 according to the Ganzoni formula ( 225 patients ) or oral iron sulfate 200 mg daily ( equivalent to 200 mg elemental iron ; 113 patients ) . An interactive web response system method was used to r and omize the eligible patient to the treatment groups . The primary end point was change in Hb from baseline to week 8 . Iron isomaltoside 1,000 and iron sulfate was compared by a non-inferiority assessment with a margin of −0.5 g/dl . The secondary end points , which tested for superiority , included change in Hb from baseline to weeks 2 and 4 , change in s-ferritin , and TSAT to week 8 , number of patients who discontinued study because of lack of response or intolerance of investigational drugs , change in total quality of life ( QoL ) score to weeks 4 and 8 , and safety . Exploratory analyses included a responder analysis ( proportion of patients with an increase in Hb ≥2 g/dl after 8 weeks ) , the effect of regional differences and total iron dose level , and other potential predictors of the treatment response . RESULTS : Non-inferiority in change of Hb to week 8 could not be demonstrated . There was a trend for oral iron sulfate being more effective in increasing Hb  than iron isomaltoside 1,000 . The estimated treatment effect was −0.37 ( 95 % confidence interval ( CI ) : −0.80 , 0.06 ) with P=0.09 in the full analysis set ( N=327 ) and −0.45 ( 95 % CI : −0.88 , −0.03 ) with P=0.04 in the per protocol analysis set ( N=299 ) . In patients treated with IV iron isomaltoside 1,000 , the mean change in s-ferritin concentration was higher with an estimated treatment effect of 48.7 ( 95 % CI : 18.6 , 78.8 ) with P=0.002 , whereas the mean change in TSAT was lower with an estimated treatment effect of −4.4 ( 95 % CI : −7.4 , −1.4 ) with P=0.005 , compared with patients treated with oral iron . No differences in changes of QoL were observed . The safety profile was similar between the groups . The proportion of responders with Hb ≥2 g/dl ( IV group : 67 % ; oral group : 61 % ) were comparable between the groups ( P=0.32 ) . Iron isomaltoside 1,000 was more efficacious with higher cumulative doses of > 1,000 mg IV . Significant predictors of Hb response to IV iron treatment were baseline Hb and C-reactive protein ( CRP ) . CONCLUSIONS : We could not demonstrate non-inferiority of IV iron isomaltoside 1,000 compared with oral iron in this study . Based on the dose – response relationship observed with the IV iron compound , we suggest that the true iron dem and of IV iron was underestimated by the Ganzoni formula in our study . Alternative calculations including Hb and CRP should be explored to gauge iron stores in patients with IBD
There was no increased risk of infections with IV iron .
Gastrointestinal AEs were reduced with IV iron .
CONCLUSION Intravenous iron therapy is not associated with an increased risk of SAEs or infections .
Infusion reactions are more pronounced with IV iron
OBJECTIVE To amass all available evidence regarding the safety of intravenous ( IV ) iron preparations to provide a true balance of efficacy and safety .