Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-25 @ 2:22 AM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-27 @ 1:15 PM
Study NCT ID:
NCT06556134
Status:
COMPLETED
Last Update Posted:
2024-08-15
First Post:
2024-08-10
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
True
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Oral Liposomal Iron Versus Injectable Iron Sucrose for Anemia Treatment in Non-Dialysis Chronic Kidney Disease Patients
Sponsor:
Centre Hospitalier Hassan II - Fès
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Oral Liposomal Iron Versus Injectable Iron Sucrose for Anemia Treatment in Non-Dialysis Chronic Kidney Disease Patients: A Non-Inferiority Study
Status:
COMPLETED
Status Verified Date:
2024-08
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
This study aims to assess the comparative effects of intravenous and liposomal oral iron on hemoglobin levels in non-dialysis CKD patients. Additionally, it seeks to evaluate the rate of hemoglobin correction, iron reserve status during treatment, and therapeutic tolerance to these interventions.
Detailed Description:
The last two and a half decades have seen erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and iron therapy at the forefront of managing anemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. While ESAs have demonstrated significant efficacy in alleviating anemia in this context, recent large-scale randomized controlled trials in both non-dialysis and dialysis CKD patients have shed light on their limitations. Attempts to normalize hemoglobin (Hb) levels with ESAs have shown no significant cardiovascular benefits but have been associated with increased risks of adverse events such as stroke and venous thromboembolism.
Consequently, there has been a reduction in ESA prescription and an increase in blood transfusions, coupled with a notable rise in the use of iron therapy due to its role in addressing hypo responsiveness to ESAs.
Anemia stands as a common complication in CKD, significantly impacting cardiovascular health and quality of life. While renal erythropoietin production deficit remains a primary cause, iron deficiency plays a pivotal role in CKD-related anemia genesis. Iron deficiency, whether absolute or functional, alongside an inflammatory block, often seen in CKD patients, accounts for the main reasons behind hypo responsiveness to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents.
The recent shift in focus from ESA-centered treatment to iron therapy has prompted debates regarding the ideal route of iron administration, particularly in non-dialysis CKD patients. Despite the benefits of oral iron-cost-effectiveness and ease of administration-its usage remains limited due to poor gastrointestinal absorption and high adverse event rates. Conversely, concerns about IV iron revolve around potential kidney damage, infections, atherosclerosis promotion, and other adverse reactions.
Given these considerations, our study aims to compare the efficacy of oral liposomal iron against IV iron in treating anemia in non-dialysis CKD patients in terms of :
1. Martial status under treatment.
2. Hemoglobin level and its correction speed.
3. Therapeutic tolerance.
Consequently, there has been a reduction in ESA prescription and an increase in blood transfusions, coupled with a notable rise in the use of iron therapy due to its role in addressing hypo responsiveness to ESAs.
Anemia stands as a common complication in CKD, significantly impacting cardiovascular health and quality of life. While renal erythropoietin production deficit remains a primary cause, iron deficiency plays a pivotal role in CKD-related anemia genesis. Iron deficiency, whether absolute or functional, alongside an inflammatory block, often seen in CKD patients, accounts for the main reasons behind hypo responsiveness to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents.
The recent shift in focus from ESA-centered treatment to iron therapy has prompted debates regarding the ideal route of iron administration, particularly in non-dialysis CKD patients. Despite the benefits of oral iron-cost-effectiveness and ease of administration-its usage remains limited due to poor gastrointestinal absorption and high adverse event rates. Conversely, concerns about IV iron revolve around potential kidney damage, infections, atherosclerosis promotion, and other adverse reactions.
Given these considerations, our study aims to compare the efficacy of oral liposomal iron against IV iron in treating anemia in non-dialysis CKD patients in terms of :
1. Martial status under treatment.
2. Hemoglobin level and its correction speed.
3. Therapeutic tolerance.
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
False
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: