Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2008 Nov;52(5):897-906.
doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2008.05.033. Epub 2008 Oct 8.

Intravenous versus oral iron supplementation for the treatment of anemia in CKD: systematic review and meta-analysis

Benaya Rozen-Zvi  1 , Anat Gafter-Gvili, Mical Paul, Leonard Leibovici, Ofer Shpilberg, Uzi Gafter
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Intravenous versus oral iron supplementation for the treatment of anemia in CKD: systematic review and meta-analysis

Benaya Rozen-Zvi et al. Am J Kidney Dis. 2008 Nov.

Abstract

Background: Iron supplementation is essential for the treatment of patients with anemia of chronic kidney disease (CKD). It is not clear which is the best method of iron administration.

Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. A search was performed until January 2008 of MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, conference proceedings in nephrology, and reference lists of included trials.

Setting & population: Patients with CKD (stages III to V). We included dialysis patients and patients with CKD not on dialysis therapy (hereafter referred to as patients with CKD).

Selection criteria for studies: We included all randomized controlled trials regardless of publication status or language.

Intervention: Intravenous (IV) versus oral iron supplementation.

Outcomes measures: Primary outcomes assessed: absolute hemoglobin (Hb) level or change in Hb level from baseline. We also assessed all-cause mortality, erythropoiesis-stimulating agent requirement, adverse events, ferritin level, and need for renal replacement therapy in patients with CKD.

Results: 13 trials were identified, 6 including patients with CKD and 7 including dialysis patients. Compared with oral iron, there was a significantly greater Hb level in dialysis patients treated with IV iron (weighted mean difference, 0.83 g/dL; 95% confidence interval, 0.09 to 1.57). Meta-regression showed a positive association between Hb level increase and IV iron dose administered and a negative association with baseline Hb level. For patients with CKD, there was a small but significant difference in Hb level favoring the IV iron group (weighted mean difference, 0. 31 g/dL; 95% confidence interval, 0.09 to 0. 53). Data for all-cause mortality were sparse, and there was no difference in adverse events between the IV- and oral-treated patients.

Limitations: There was significant heterogeneity between trials. Follow-up was limited to 2 to 3 months.

Conclusions: Our review shows that patients on hemodialysis therapy have better Hb level response when treated with IV iron. For patients with CKD, this effect is small.

PubMed Disclaimer