↓ Skip to main content

The role of iron in the management of chemotherapy-induced anemia in cancer patients receiving erythropoiesis-stimulating agents

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
39 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The role of iron in the management of chemotherapy-induced anemia in cancer patients receiving erythropoiesis-stimulating agents
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009624.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rahul Mhaskar, Hesborn Wao, Branko Miladinovic, Ambuj Kumar, Benjamin Djulbegovic

Abstract

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are commonly used to treat chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). However, about half of patients do not benefit. To evaluate the benefits and harms related to the use of iron as a supplement to ESA and iron alone compared with ESA alone in the management of CIA. We searched for relevant trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (issue 1 January 2016), MEDLINE (1950 to February 2016), and www.clinicaltrials.gov without using any language limits. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 'iron plus ESA' or 'iron alone' versus 'ESA alone' in people with CIA were eligible for inclusion. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We included eight RCTs (12 comparisons) comparing ESA plus iron versus ESA alone enrolling 2087 participants. We did not find any trial comparing iron alone versus ESAs alone in people with CIA. None of the included RCTs reported overall survival. There was a beneficial effect of iron supplementation to ESAs compared with ESAs alone on hematopoietic response (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 1.26; P < 0.0001; 1712 participants; 11 comparisons; high-quality evidence). Assuming a baseline risk of 35% to 80% for hematopoietic response without iron supplementation, between seven and 16 patients should be treated to achieve hematopoietic response in one patient. In subgroup analyses, RCTs that used intravenous (IV) iron favored ESAs and iron (RR 1.20 (95% CI 1.10 to 1.31); P < 0.00001; 1321 participants; eight comparisons), whereas we found no evidence for a difference in hematopoietic response in RCTs using oral iron (RR 1.04 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.24); P = 0.68; 391 participants; three comparisons). There was no evidence for a difference between the subgroups of IV and oral iron (P = 0.16). There was no evidence for a difference between the subgroups of types of iron (P = 0.31) and types of ESAs (P = 0.16) for hematopoietic response.The iron supplementation to ESAs might be beneficial as fewer participants treated with iron supplementation required red blood cell (RBC) transfusions compared to the number of participants treated with ESAs alone (RR 0.74 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.92); P = 0.007; 1719 participants; 11 comparisons; moderate-quality evidence). Assuming a baseline risk of 7% to 40% for RBC transfusion without iron supplementation, between 10 and 57 patients should be treated to avoid RBC transfusion in one patient.We found no evidence for a difference in the median time to hematopoietic response with addition of iron to ESAs (hazard ratio (HR) 0.93 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.28); P = 0.65; 1042 participants; seven comparisons; low-quality evidence). In subgroup analyses, RCTs in which dextran (HR 0.95 (95% CI 0.36 to 2.52); P = 0.92; 340 participants; three comparisons), sucrose iron (HR 1.15 (95% CI 0.60 to 2.21); P = 0.67; 102 participants; one comparison) and sulfate iron (HR 1.24 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.56); P = 0.06; 55 participants; one comparison) were used showed no evidence for difference between iron supplementation versus ESAs alone compared with RCTs in which gluconate (HR 0.78 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.94); P = 0.01; 464 participants; two comparisons) was used for median time to hematopoietic response (P = 0.02). There was no evidence for a difference between the subgroups of route of iron administration (P = 0.13) and types of ESAs (P = 0.46) for median time to hematopoietic response.Our results indicated that there could be improvement in the hemoglobin (Hb) levels with addition of iron to ESAs (mean difference (MD) 0.48 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.86); P = 0.01; 827 participants; seven comparisons; low-quality evidence). In RCTs in which IV iron was used there was evidence for a difference (MD 0.84 (95% CI 0.21 to 1.46); P = 0.009; 436 participants; four comparisons) compared with oral iron (MD 0.07 (95% CI -0.19 to 0.34); P = 0.59; 391 participants; three comparisons) for mean change in Hb level (P = 0.03). RCTs in which dextran (MD 1.55 (95% CI 0.62 to 2.47); P = 0.001; 102 participants; two comparisons) was used showed evidence for a difference with iron supplementation versus ESAs alone compared with RCTs in which gluconate (MD 0.54 (95% CI -0.15 to 1.22); P = 0.12; 334 participants; two comparisons) and sulfate iron (MD 0.07 (95% CI -0.19 to 0.34); P = 0.59; 391 participants; three comparisons) were used for mean change in Hb level (P = 0.007). RCTs in which epoetin was used showed evidence for a difference with iron supplementation versus ESAs alone (MD 0.77 (95% CI 0.25 to 1.29); P = 0.004; 337 participants; five comparisons) compared with darbepoetin use (MD 0.10 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.33); P = 0.38; 490 participants; two comparisons) for mean change in Hb level (P = 0.02).We found no evidence for a difference in quality of life with addition of iron to ESAs (standardized mean difference 0.01 (95% CI -0.10 to 0.12); P = 0.88; 1124 participants; three RCTs; high-quality evidence).We found no evidence for a difference in risk of grade III-IV thromboembolic events (RR 0.95 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.65); P = 0.85; 783 participants; three RCTs; moderate-quality evidence). The incidence of treatment-related mortality (TRM) was 0% (997 participants; four comparisons; high-quality evidence).Other common adverse events included vomiting, asthenia, and leukopenia, and were similar in both arms.Overall the risk of bias across outcomes was high to low. Since the included RCTs had shorter follow-up duration (up to 20 weeks), the long-term effects of iron supplementation are unknown. Our main reasons for downgrading the quality of evidence were inconsistency across the included studies and imprecision of results. Our systematic review shows that addition of iron to ESAs offers superior hematopoietic response, reduces the risk of RBC transfusions, and improves Hb levels, and appears to be well tolerated. None of the included RCTs reported overall survival. We found no evidence for a difference in quality of life with iron supplementation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Unknown 94 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 22%
Student > Bachelor 16 16%
Researcher 12 12%
Unspecified 11 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Other 28 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 57%
Unspecified 16 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Engineering 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 12 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 July 2018.
All research outputs
#794,692
of 13,649,352 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,502
of 10,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,384
of 336,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#59
of 194 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,649,352 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,696 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,962 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 194 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.