Interest of Treating Iron Deficiency, Diagnosed According to Hepcidin Quantification, on Outcomes After a Prolonged Icu Stay Compared to Standard Care: A Multicenter, Randomized, Single-blinded Trial

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-73447/v1

Download PDF

Research

Interest of Treating Iron Deficiency, Diagnosed According to Hepcidin Quantification, on Outcomes After a Prolonged Icu Stay Compared to Standard Care: A Multicenter, Randomized, Single-blinded Trial

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-73447/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 15 Feb, 2021

Read the published version in Critical Care →

You are reading this older preprint version

Read the latest preprint version →

Background: Anemia is a significant problem in patients on ICU. Its commonest cause, iron deficiency (ID), is difficult to diagnosed in the context of inflammation. Hepcidin is a new marker of ID. We aimed to assess whether hepcidin levels would accurately guide treatment of ID in critically ill anemic patients after a prolonged ICU stay and affect the post-ICU outcomes.

Methods: In a controlled, single-blinded, multicenter study, anemic (WHO definition) critically ill patients with an ICU stay ≥5 days were randomized when discharge was expected to either intervention by hepcidin treatment protocol or control. In the intervention arm patients were treated with intravenous iron (1g of ferric carboxymaltose) when hepcidin was <20 μg/l and with intravenous iron and erythropoietin for 20≤ hepcidin <41 μg/l. Control patients were treated according to standard care (hepcidin quantification remained blinded). Primary endpoint was the number of days spent in hospital 90 days after ICU discharge (post-ICU LOS). Secondary endpoints were day 15 anemia, day 30 fatigue and day 90 mortality.

Results: Of 405 randomized patients, 399 were analyzed (201 in intervention and 198 in control arm). 220(55%) had ID at discharge (i.e. an hepcidin <41 μg/l). Primary endpoint was not different (medians(IQR) post-ICU LOS 33(13;90) vs 33(11;90) days for intervention and control respectively, median difference -1(-3;1) days, p=0.78). D90 mortality was significantly lower in the intervention arm (16(8%) vs 33(16.6%) deaths, absolute risk difference -8.7 (-15.1 to -2.3)%, p=0.008).

Conclusion: Treatment of ID diagnosed according to hepcidin levels did not reduce the post-ICU LOS, but may reduce the long-term mortality in critically ill patients about to be discharged after a prolonged stay.

Trial Registration: www.clinicaltrial.gov NCT02276690 (October 28, 2014; Retrospectively registered)

Critical Care & Emergency Medicine

critically ill

anemia

iron deficiency

iron (treatment)

hepcidin

mortality

length of stay

erythropoietin

Anemia is common in critically ill patients with more than 60% of them being anemic on intensive care unit (ICU) admission and more than 80% at discharge [1-3]. The two main factors contributing to this anemia are inflammation and iron deficiency (ID)[4]. ID has been found in up to 40% of critically ill patients on ICU admission [5-7]. Because these patients have important blood losses during their stay (due to repeated blood sampling, occult bleedings, surgeries, extracorporeal circuits, etc.)[8], which can exacerbate ID, higher prevalence of ID is expected on ICU discharge. Consequently, iron deficiency is the underlying etiology for anemia in ICU patients. ID at discharge from ICU has been associated with patient fatigue [9]. Indeed, iron is predominantly used for hemoglobin synthesis but also essential to cellular function and energy production processes in all human/living cells (mainly for ATP production in the mitochondria). A shortage of iron therefore impacts many aspects of cellular function including aerobic metabolism resulting in fatigue and muscle weakness, even in the absence of anemia [10]. Correcting ID improves patients’ resistance to exercise and decreases their fatigue [11, 12]. One may thus speculate that treating ID in critically ill patients may shorten their rehabilitation and thus their hospital stay post ICU.

The problem is diagnosing ID in the presence of inflammation as laboratory markers of ferritin or transferrin saturation are often inaccurate and ferritin is elevated as part of the acute phase response [13]. In the last decades, the understanding of iron metabolism has been markedly improved by the discovery of its master regulator, hepcidin [4]. A low hepcidin level has been shown to indicate ID in critically ill patients [4, 5, 14, 15]. Data on hepcidin analysis in ICU suggests that 37% of patients have ID on ICU discharge and this group of patients had worse outcomes at one year, a low hepcidin being an independent predictor of one-year post-ICU mortality [15].

We hypothesized that using hepcidin quantification to identify and treat ID in anemic patients about to be discharged after a prolonged ICU stay, will reduce the length of their post-ICU hospital stay as compared to standard of care.

Study design

We conducted a randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter (n=8, French university hospital ICUs) trial. The protocol has been published elsewhere [16].

Patients

Adult patients with anemia (according to the World Health Organization definitions, for males: hemoglobin (Hb) < 13 g/dL and for females: Hb < 12 g/dL) hospitalized in the ICU for an expected duration of ≥5 days were included if about to be discharged alive. Exclusions included those with known iron metabolism pathology (such as hemochromatosis), chronic anemia (defined as an Hb ≤10 g/dL for more than three months), current chemotherapy, organ transplant, expected survival time < 28 days post discharge, pregnancy, inability to answer a questionnaire for neurological reasons (stroke, brain trauma…) or because of language difficulties (non-French-speakers), or in case of contra-indications to intravenous iron and/or erythropoietin (EPO).

Randomization and blinding

Patients were included when discharge from ICU was expected (and if their ICU-stay was expected to last ≥5 days) and allocated at random to two arms: the intervention and the control arm. Randomization was minimized on study site, age (< vs ≥65 yrs old), severity of the anemia (Hb <8 g/dL and/or transfusion during the previous week vs Hb ≥8 g/dL and no transfusion during the previous week) and the reason for admission (trauma vs non-trauma), based on a 1:1 ratio, using an Internet server (Capture System® Software). Blinding was achieved based on results of the hepcidin quantification; which were only available online in the eCRF (and by email sent to the ICU-physician recruiting the patient) in the hepcidin arm. They did not appear in patient’s file. The patient and the non-ICU physicians remained blinded to these results.

Trial interventions

Due to logistical reasons, mass spectrometry hepcidin quantification was only available on Thursdays (all carried out centrally at the same laboratory by TL and KP). Thus, patients about to be discharged in the following days were screened to be included between Mondays and Wednesdays. Once included, a blood sample was collected on Wednesdays to be shipped on time to the central laboratory for hepcidin quantification using our validated mass spectrometry method [17]. The investigators were informed about the results electronically (by email, on the same day, for patients in the intervention arm). For patients in the control arm, blood samples were drawn on inclusion and stored at -80°C to perform hepcidin quantification at the end of the study, when all the samples were available.

In the intervention arm, absolute ID was defined as a hepcidin level of <20 μg/L (as it corresponds to the hepcidin <130 μg/L cut-off value we observed using an Elisa method [5]) and functional ID as a 20≤ hepcidin <41 μg/L. Intravenous iron was used for absolute ID treatment, using ferric carboxymaltose (1g of iron over 15 minutes, according to product characteristics, see [16] for details). In the intervention arm, functional iron deficiency, had to be treated using ferric carboxymaltose (also 1 g intravenously) and one injection of erythropoietin (EPO, epoetin alpha (Eprex™, Janssen, France) 40.000 UI sub-cutaneously). EPO injection was repeated weekly, if the patient remained anemic and in the ICU. In the control arm, ID diagnosis and treatment was left at the physician’s discretion.

Three visits were scheduled after ICU discharge: on day 15 with a blood sample to assess iron profile, hepcidin quantification and Hb concentration (for patients still hospitalized), on day 30 to assess fatigue (using the multidimensional fatigue inventory 20 (MFI-20) score [18] and a numerical scale for general fatigue (ranging from 0 = no fatigue to 10 = exhausted)) and on day 90, to assess the vital status and the history of all hospital stays post-ICU. We obtained the vital status at 90 days of all the patients by interviewing the relevant local authorities of the patients places of residence.

Outcomes

The primary endpoint was the length of stay (LOS) after leaving the ICU (i.e. D0= day of ICU discharge for the first time in case the patients was readmitted to the ICU), calculated as the number of hospitalization calendar days between discharge from the ICU and D90. Secondary outcomes were prevalence of ID and mean Hb concentrations on D15, prevalence of fatigue on D30 (based on the scores obtained using the MFI-20 questionnaire for the four different dimensions of fatigue and on a general fatigue assessment using a numerical scale graded from 0 to 10), the percentage of patients alive and at home on D90 and the mortality rates on D90.

Statistical analysis.

All results are expressed as mean±SD or median(IQR) for continuous variables, depending on their distribution or n(%) for categorical variables. The statistical analysis followed a prespecified plan [16]. First, data were analyzed using the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle according to their study arm, taking all the patients randomized and fulfilling the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Then, a pre-specified subgroup analysis was performed, to assess the effect of treatment (iron ± EPO) in patients with ID (i.e. in patients having hepcidin concentrations <41 µg/L). For these subgroups’ analyses, patients with ID treated in the intervention arm were compared to patients with ID (defined according to hepcidin quantification) not treated in the control arm.

For the primary endpoint, since the distribution of patients’ LOS is not usually normal, non-parametric tests were used (i.e. Mann-Whitney test) in order to compare the number of days of post-ICU hospitalization between the two experimental arms. For patients with missing data, LOS was arbitrary set at 90 days. Sample size calculation was based on the hypothesis that LOS values obtained in the intervention arm will be shorter than in the control arm in 60% of the pairs compared (taking into account that at least 50% of the patients will have ID in both groups and that treatment of ID in the intervention arm will improve LOS); with a 5% alpha risk and a 90% power, the total number of patients required for this study was 400 [19]. Since the study covers a relatively short period and the duration of patients’ hospitalization is an easy to obtain variable, we did not expect any loss of follow up to occur. However, the number of patients was increased to 405 to compensate for patients included but not leaving the ICU alive.

To account for possible cofounders, we used a logistic regression and adjusted this analysis according to the principal factors imbalanced between the two arms and expected to be associated with post-ICU LOS: diabetes and McCabe score [20]. In sub-group analysis (ID treated vs not treated), logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust the analysis according to the centers for the post-ICU LOS analysis. For all tests, p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS^Ò software, IBM^Ò.

Baseline Characteristics

Between August 1^st 2014 and June 30^th 2016, 405 patients were included and randomized in the eight participating centers, among them 399 patients were analyzed (201 in the intervention group and 198 in the control group, see figure 1 for flowchart) in ITT analysis. The median(IQR) age was 65(55 to 74) years, with 270 (68%) males. Two hundred forty-five (61%) patients had a surgery prior to ICU hospitalization. The median Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) on admission was 40(28 to 53), 318 (80%) patients were ventilated and 262 (66%) received catecholamine. Baseline characteristics of the patients are depicted in Table 1.

Overall, 220 (55%) patients had ID on inclusion, with 136 (34%) having an absolute ID (hepcidin <20 µg/L) and 84 (21 %) having a functional ID (20≤ hepcidin <41 µg/L). In the intervention arm, 71 (35%) patients had absolute ID, but 37 (52%) of them were not treated and 3 (4%) received EPO with iron; 37 (18%) had a functional ID, but 18 (49%) were not treated and 6 (16%) received only iron (without EPO). The median dose of iron (ferric carboxymaltose) received was 1000 (1000;1000) mg per treated patients. The median number of EPO injections was 1 (1;2), with 13 (68%) patients who received 1 and 6 (32%) 2 or more injections. Thus 53 (49%) patients with ID were treated. In the control group, 11 (5%) patients received iron (median dose 800 (300 ; 1500) mg) and 2 (1%) received EPO (respectively 1and 4 injections). According to the hepcidin determination in the control group, 65 (33%) had absolute ID and 47 (24%) had a functional ID. Among them 102 (91%) were not treated (see figure 1).

Primary outcome

In ITT analysis, the length of hospital stay after ICU was not different between the 2 arms (33(13 to 90) vs 33(11 to 90) days for intervention and control respectively, median difference -1 day, 95%CI, -3 to 1, p=0.78), even after adjustment for diabetes and MacCabe score (p=0.96).

Secondary outcomes and sub-group analysis

In the ITT analysis, there was no difference for any of the secondary endpoints, except for lower D90 mortality rate in the intervention arm (16 (8%) vs 33 (16.6%) deaths, absolute risk difference -8.7%; 95%CI, -15.1 to -2.3, p=0.008)(table 2). Twelve patients died before ICU discharge (8 in intervention and 4 in control arm). The D90 survival was also significantly improved in the intervention arm (Figure 2, Panel A).

In the prespecified sub-group analysis, we compared these outcomes in patients with ID: taking into account the 53 patients with ID (hepcidin <41 µg/L) who have been treated in the intervention arm and the 102 patients with ID (hepcidin <41 µg/L) not treated in the control arm. The two groups were comparable with regard to main patient’s characteristics (see eTable 1 in electronic supplementary material). We found no difference in the primary outcome (post-ICU LOS 42 (16 to 90) vs 29 (10 to 90) days, median difference 4.5 (-1 to 10) days, p=0.37) or in main secondary outcomes. This absence of difference persists after adjustment on centers (data not shown). Only the D15 hepcidin concentration was higher in the treated patients, suggesting higher iron stores, without significant differences in hemoglobin levels (Table 3). In this sub-group analysis, D90 mortality was dramatically reduced in ID treated patients (2 (3.8%) vs 17 (16.7%) deaths, absolute risk difference -12.9%; 95%CI, -21.7 to -4.0, p=0.002). The D90 survival was also significantly improved (Figure 2, panel B). Interestingly, the mortality of patients without ID was similar in both study arms (8 (9.6%) vs 10 (13.3%) deaths, absolute risk difference -3.69 (-13.675 to 6.28), p=0.47 in non-ID patients for respectively the intervention (n=83) and control (n=75) arms).

In this randomized controlled trial, including anemic patients about to be discharged from ICU after a prolonged ICU stay, a strategy of treatment of ID diagnosed according to a hepcidin quantification did not reduce the post ICU LOS compared to standard of care. However, this strategy reduced the D90 post-ICU mortality by 50%.

This trial has several strengths. First, contrary to previous trials, evaluating the benefit of iron in critically ill, aimed at reducing blood transfusion [21-23], we chose to evaluate the benefit of treating iron deficiency (rather than giving iron to all patients to treat anemia). Indeed, giving intravenous iron to patients without ID may increase the risk of iron side-effects and of iron overload; whereas giving iron in critically ill patients with ID does not expose to an increased risk of oxidative stress [24]. Second, we used a new biomarker to identify ID, hepcidin [4, 5, 14, 15], because standard laboratory tests are not usable in presence of inflammation [13, 25, 26]. We used a validated mass spectrometry method [17], which is relatively cheap and easy to obtain . These tests were developed years ago [27, 28] and will probably be standardized soon [29]. Third, we focus on the post-ICU period, since rehabilitation and post-ICU survival are now recognized as important outcomes since post-ICU quality of life is frequently poor and mortality rates high [30]. Fourth, although double blinding was impossible because the ICU physician had to be aware of the hepcidin value, the patient and the post-ICU physicians remained blinded to the study arm. At last, we evaluated a mix-ICU population, including medical and surgical patients, increasing the external validity of our results.

Our results demonstrate that iron deficiency may be recognized in a large proportion of critically ill patients (more than 50%). This is consistent with the high proportion of ID observed on ICU admission (between 20-40% using different parameters)[5-7] and with the proportion of ID (defined as a low hepcidin concentration) we and others reported [14, 15]. These prevalence are much higher than the ones observed using standard laboratory tests (less than 10%)[9], confirming the interest of hepcidin quantification as a new ID diagnostic method.

There was no difference in post-ICU LOS between the 2 study arms. It may be that fatigue is not the only (or the main) determinant of post-ICU LOS and/or that treating ID was not sufficient to improve fatigue. Indeed hospital discharge is also dependent on many logistical and organizational factors not directly linked to the patient’s condition. It is also possible that the dose of iron we used was not sufficient. The prevalence of ID and the Hb concentration on D15 were not different in treated and not treated patients. Even if the treatment was efficient to increase hepcidin on D15, indicating an increase in iron stores, a large proportion of patients remained iron deficient according to our definition. It is also possible that Hb concentrations were higher later but not measured. These analyses concern few patients; one should thus remain cautious regarding these results.

In our study, we observed an important reduction (around 50%) of D90 mortality rate in the intervention arm in both intention-to-treat and sub-group analyses. This is consistent with the observed increase in mortality reported in critically ill patients with low hepcidin at discharge from ICU [14, 15]. This is also in line with the results of a recent study in hemodialysis patients, showing that treating ID with higher doses of iron reduces the number of hospitalization episodes (for heart failure)[31] and with improved outcome observed in ID treatment of heart failure patients [32]. It is thus largely plausible that treating ID improved post-ICU survival. In addition, EPO treatment has also been shown to reduce mortality in critically ill patients and may have contributed to the decreased mortality observed [33, 34]. It is now recommended (low grade recommendation) by the French societies of critical care to treat anemia with erythropoietin in ICU [35]. Importantly, we did not observe any side-effects of ID treatment (neither related to IV iron nor to EPO), so that the benefit-risk balance seems largely positive [36].

This trial has several limitations. First, we observed a relatively high rate of protocol violation (i.e. patients with ID not treated in the intervention arm). This is mainly due to the logistic constraints of the study. Indeed, because patients were screened and included exclusively between Mondays and Wednesdays, some patients had left the ICU before the results of the hepcidin dosage were available, and were not followed after ICU discharge (non-ICU physicians had no access to hepcidin dosage). We thus cannot exclude a lack of power of our study to detect a difference in post-ICU LOS, but this is unlikely in regard of the values observed. Second, we have a lot of missing data for the D15 blood samples, so that we cannot evaluate the effect of the intervention on D15 ID and anemia prevalence. Third, we also lack measurement of D30 fatigue. But we have no missing data for the D90 mortality rate, which is clinically a much more important outcome. Fourth, we do not have the cause of mortality. At last, we did not conduct the scheduled medico-economic analysis, since we did not observe any reduction in post ICU LOS, the main driver for cost effectiveness of the intervention.

Treating iron deficiency, diagnosed according to hepcidin quantification, on ICU discharge does not allow to reduce the post-ICU LOS, but it may reduce D90 mortality, in anemic critically ill patients about to be discharged after a prolonged ICU stay.

EPO; erythropoietin,

Hb; hemoglobin,

ID; iron deficiency,

ICU; intensive care unit,

ITT, intention-to-treat,

LOS; length of stay,

MFI 20; multidimensional fatigue inventory 20,

SAPS II; Simplified Acute Physiology Score II.

Ethics approval and consent

Following French law [37], the study protocol has been approved by an IRB (Comité de Protection des Personnes (CPP) Sud Méditerranée IV, REF 13 07 05, protocol N° 2013-A00964-41) and by the CNIL (Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés, MR-001 of May 7, 2012 (N°1585321 v0)). The protocol has been registered by the competent authority (ANSM - Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des produits de santé) under the reference number 2013-192 and on www.clincialtrial.com under the reference NCT02276690 (October 28, 2014). A signed informed consent was obtained from each patient (or from his/her next of kin if the patient was unable to consent).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The corresponding author (SL), had full access to all the study data. The corresponding author (SL) takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests

Sigismond Lasocki has received speaker honoraria from VIFOR Pharma, MASIMO, LFB and fee as member of advisory board and/or steering committee from VIFOR Pharma and Pfizer. . SLa is the coordinator of a multicenter randomized controlled trial on iron and tranexamic acid in hip fractured patients (HIFIT study, NCT02972294), for which PHARMACOSMOS gives iron for free. Philippe Seguin has received fee from LFB. None of the other authors have a conflict to declare.

Funding:

This study was funded by the French ministry of health (STIC 2012 N° 2-12-0006).

The funders of the study had no role in the study design; data collection, analysis, or interpretation; writing of the report; or decision to submit for publication.

Author’s contribution

SLa, TL and SLe contributed substantially to study design. Sla, PA, SJ, MF, TK, KA, PM, PS, KP and SG recruit the patients. KP and TL performed the hepcidin quantification. SLa, TL, KP, NN and SLe carried out data analysis, extraction and interpretation. SLa drafted the manuscript and all authors have critically revised, read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The Hepcidane study group

(Centers involved are presented in alphabetical order), each investigator listed above participate in patients recruitment and data collection and/or analysis:

- CHU Angers medical ICU:

Pierre ASFAR ([email protected]),

François BELONCLE ([email protected])

Alain MERCAT ([email protected]),

- CHU Angers, Surgical ICU:

Thomas GAILLARD ([email protected]),

Soizic GERGAUD ([email protected]),

Sigismond LASOCKI ([email protected])

Maxime LEGER ([email protected])

Emmanuel RINEAU ([email protected])

Cyril SARGENTINI ([email protected])

- CHU Bichat, Surgical ICU

Claire GENEVE ([email protected])

Philippe MONTRAVERS ([email protected])

- CHU Bichat, Laboratoire de Biochimie

Thibaud Lefebvre ([email protected])

Katell PEOC’H ([email protected])

Herve PUY ([email protected])

- CHU Montpellier, DIM

Grégoire Mercier ([email protected])

Nicolas Nagot ([email protected])

Gregory Marin ([email protected])

- CHU Montpellier, Laboratoire de Biochimie - Protéomique Clinique

Constance DELABY ([email protected])

Christophe HIRTZ ([email protected])

Sylvain Lehmann ([email protected])

- CHU Montpellier, Surgical ICU:

Gerald CHANQUES ([email protected])

Samir JABER ([email protected])

- CHU Nantes, Surgical ICU

Karim ASEHNOUNE ([email protected])

Antoine ROQUILLY ([email protected])

- CHU Poitiers, Surgical ICU

Matthieu BOISSON ([email protected])

Claire DAHYOT-FIZELIER ([email protected])

Thomas KERFORNE ([email protected])

Olivier MIMOZ ([email protected])

- CHU Rennes, Surgical ICU

Sonia ISSLAME (Sonia.ISSLAME @chu-rennes.fr)

Yoann LAUNEY ([email protected])

Philippe SEGUIN ([email protected])

- CHU Tours, Surgical ICU

Mathilde BARBAZ ([email protected])

Martine FERRANDIERE ([email protected])

Vincent JL, Baron JF, Reinhart K, Gattinoni L, Thijs L, Webb A, Meier-Hellmann A, Nollet G, Peres-Bota D: Anemia and blood transfusion in critically ill patients. Jama 2002, 288(12):1499-1507.
Walsh TS, Lee RJ, Maciver CR, Garrioch M, Mackirdy F, Binning AR, Cole S, McClelland DB: Anemia during and at discharge from intensive care: the impact of restrictive blood transfusion practice. Intensive Care Med 2006, 32(1):100-109.
Vincent JL, Jaschinski U, Wittebole X, Lefrant JY, Jakob SM, Almekhlafi GA, Pellis T, Tripathy S, Rubatto Birri PN, Sakr Y et al: Worldwide audit of blood transfusion practice in critically ill patients. Crit Care 2018, 22(1):102.
Lasocki S, Longrois D, Montravers P, Beaumont C: Hepcidin and anemia of the critically ill patient. Anesthesiology 2011, 114(3):688-694.
Lasocki S, Baron G, Driss F, Westerman M, Puy H, Boutron I, Beaumont C, Montravers P: Diagnostic accuracy of serum hepcidin for iron deficiency in critically ill patients with anemia. Intensive Care Med 2010, 36(6):1044-1048.
Fernandez R, Tubau I, Masip J, Munoz L, Roig I, Artigas A: Low reticulocyte hemoglobin content is associated with a higher blood transfusion rate in critically ill patients: a cohort study. Anesthesiology 2010, 112(5):1211-1215.
Pieracci FM, Henderson P, Rodney JR, Holena DN, Genisca A, Ip I, Benkert S, Hydo LJ, Eachempati SR, Shou J et al: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of effects of enteral iron supplementation on anemia and risk of infection during surgical critical illness. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2009, 10(1):9-19.
von Ahsen N, Muller C, Serke S, Frei U, Eckardt KU: Important role of nondiagnostic blood loss and blunted erythropoietic response in the anemia of medical intensive care patients. Crit Care Med 1999, 27(12):2630-2639.
Lasocki S, Chudeau N, Papet T, Tartiere D, Roquilly A, Carlier L, Mimoz O, Seguin P, Malledant Y, Asehnoune K et al: Prevalence of iron deficiency on ICU discharge and its relation with fatigue: a multicenter prospective study. Crit Care 2014, 18(5):542.
Haas JD, Brownlie Tt: Iron deficiency and reduced work capacity: a critical review of the research to determine a causal relationship. J Nutr 2001, 131(2S-2):676S-688S; discussion 688S-690S.
Anker SD, Comin Colet J, Filippatos G, Willenheimer R, Dickstein K, Drexler H, Luscher TF, Bart B, Banasiak W, Niegowska J et al: Ferric carboxymaltose in patients with heart failure and iron deficiency. N Engl J Med 2009, 361(25):2436-2448.
Krayenbuehl PA, Battegay E, Breymann C, Furrer J, Schulthess G: Intravenous iron for the treatment of fatigue in nonanemic, premenopausal women with low serum ferritin concentration. Blood 2011, 118(12):3222-3227.
Thomas DW, Hinchliffe RF, Briggs C, Macdougall IC, Littlewood T, Cavill I, British Committee for Standards in H: Guideline for the laboratory diagnosis of functional iron deficiency. Br J Haematol 2013, 161(5):639-648.
Shah A, Wray K, James T, Shine B, Morovat R, Stanworth S, McKechnie S, Kirkbride R, Griffith DM, Walsh TS et al: Serum hepcidin potentially identifies iron deficiency in survivors of critical illness at the time of hospital discharge. Br J Haematol 2019, 184(2):279-281.
Lasocki S, Lefebvre T, Mayeur C, Puy H, Mebazaa A, Gayat E, group F-Is: Iron deficiency diagnosed using hepcidin on critical care discharge is an independent risk factor for death and poor quality of life at one year: an observational prospective study on 1161 patients. Crit Care 2018, 22(1):314.
Lasocki S, Puy H, Mercier G, Lehmann S, Hepcidane study g: Impact of iron deficiency diagnosis using hepcidin Mass Spectrometry dosage methods on hospital stay and costs after a prolonged ICU stay: study protocol for a multicentre, randomised, single-blinded medico-economic trial. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med 2017, 36(6):391-396.
Lefebvre T, Dessendier N, Houamel D, Ialy-Radio N, Kannengiesser C, Manceau H, Beaumont C, Nicolas G, Gouya L, Puy H et al: LC-MS/MS method for hepcidin-25 measurement in human and mouse serum: clinical and research implications in iron disorders. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015.
Gentile S, Delaroziere JC, Favre F, Sambuc R, San Marco JL: Validation of the French 'multidimensional fatigue inventory' (MFI 20). Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2003, 12(1):58-64.
Noether GE: Sample Size Determination for Some Common Nonparametric Tests. Journal of American Statistical Association 1987, 82(398):645-647.
Jackson GG, Arana-Sialer JA, Andersen Br Grieble HG, Mc CW: Profiles of pyelonephritis. Arch Intern Med 1962, 110:63-75.
Investigators I, Litton E, Baker S, Erber WN, Farmer S, Ferrier J, French C, Gummer J, Hawkins D, Higgins A et al: Intravenous iron or placebo for anaemia in intensive care: the IRONMAN multicentre randomized blinded trial : A randomized trial of IV iron in critical illness. Intensive Care Med 2016, 42(11):1715-1722.
Pieracci FM, Stovall RT, Jaouen B, Rodil M, Cappa A, Burlew CC, Holena DN, Maier R, Berry S, Jurkovich J et al: A multicenter, randomized clinical trial of IV iron supplementation for anemia of traumatic critical illness. Crit Care Med 2014, 42(9):2048-2057.
Shah A, Fisher SA, Wong H, Roy NB, McKechnie S, Doree C, Litton E, Stanworth SJ: Safety and efficacy of iron therapy on reducing red blood cell transfusion requirements and treating anaemia in critically ill adults: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. J Crit Care 2019, 49:162-171.
Lasocki S, Piednoir P, Couffignal C, Rineau E, Dufour G, Lefebvre T, Puy H, Duval X, Driss F, Schilte C: Does IV Iron Induce Plasma Oxidative Stress in Critically Ill Patients? A Comparison With Healthy Volunteers. Crit Care Med 2016, 44(3):521-530.
Garcia-Casal MN, Pena-Rosas JP, Pasricha SR: Rethinking ferritin cutoffs for iron deficiency and overload. Lancet Haematol 2014, 1(3):e92-94.
Garcia-Casal MN, Pasricha SR, Martinez RX, Lopez-Perez L, Pena-Rosas JP: Are Current Serum and Plasma Ferritin Cut-offs for Iron Deficiency and Overload Accurate and Reflecting Iron Status? A Systematic Review. Arch Med Res 2018, 49(6):405-417.
van der Vorm LN, Hendriks JC, Laarakkers CM, Klaver S, Armitage AE, Bamberg A, Geurts-Moespot AJ, Girelli D, Herkert M, Itkonen O et al: Toward Worldwide Hepcidin Assay Harmonization: Identification of a Commutable Secondary Reference Material. Clin Chem 2016, 62(7):993-1001.
Kroot JJ, van Herwaarden AE, Tjalsma H, Jansen RT, Hendriks JC, Swinkels DW: Second round robin for plasma hepcidin methods: first steps toward harmonization. Am J Hematol 2012, 87(10):977-983.
Diepeveen LE, Laarakkers CMM, Martos G, Pawlak ME, Uguz FF, Verberne K, van Swelm RPL, Klaver S, de Haan AFJ, Pitts KR et al: Provisional standardization of hepcidin assays: creating a traceability chain with a primary reference material, candidate reference method and a commutable secondary reference material. Clin Chem Lab Med 2019, 57(6):864-872.
Gayat E, Cariou A, Deye N, Vieillard-Baron A, Jaber S, Damoisel C, Lu Q, Monnet X, Rennuit I, Azoulay E et al: Determinants of long-term outcome in ICU survivors: results from the FROG-ICU study. Crit Care 2018, 22(1):8.
Macdougall IC, White C, Anker SD, Bhandari S, Farrington K, Kalra PA, McMurray JJV, Murray H, Tomson CRV, Wheeler DC et al: Intravenous Iron in Patients Undergoing Maintenance Hemodialysis. N Engl J Med 2019, 380(5):447-458.
Anker SD, Kirwan BA, van Veldhuisen DJ, Filippatos G, Comin-Colet J, Ruschitzka F, Luscher TF, Arutyunov GP, Motro M, Mori C et al: Effects of ferric carboxymaltose on hospitalisations and mortality rates in iron-deficient heart failure patients: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Eur J Heart Fail 2018, 20(1):125-133.
Litton E, Latham P, Inman J, Luo J, Allan P: Safety and efficacy of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med 2019, 45(9):1190-1199.
Mesgarpour B, Heidinger BH, Roth D, Schmitz S, Walsh CD, Herkner H: Harms of off-label erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for critically ill people. Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 2017, 8:CD010969.
Lasocki S, Pene F, Ait-Oufella H, Aubron C, Ausset S, Buffet P, Huet O, Launey Y, Legrand M, Lescot T et al: Management and prevention of anemia (acute bleeding excluded) in adult critical care patients. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med 2020.
Lasocki S, Kimmoun A, Chanques G, Velly L, Pene F: Treating critically ill anaemic patients with erythropoietin: why not?Intensive Care Med 2020.
Toulouse E, Masseguin C, Lafont B, McGurk G, Harbonn A, J AR, Granier S, Dupeyron A, Bazin JE: French legal approach to clinical research. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med 2018, 37(6):607-614.

Table 1: Patients characteristics according to the study group

Data are expressed as mean±SD, median(Q1;Q3) or n(%).

BMI, Body Mass Index; COPD, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; ICU, Intensive Care Unit; SAPS II, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II; SOFA, Simplified Organ Failure Assessment; Hb, Hemoglobin; LOS, Length of stay; MV, Mechanical Ventilation; CRP, C Reactive Protein; TSAT, Transferrin Saturation. Absolute ID, Absolute iron deficiency was defined as an hepcidin <20 µg/L; Functional ID, Functional iron deficiency was defined as 20≤ hepcidin <41 µg/L.

* Transfusion before inclusion is defined as having received a blood transfusion during the week before inclusion.

	Intervention (n=201)	Control (n=198)
Age (yrs)	63.4±14.8	63.1±14.3
Women	60 (31.1)	65 (33.5)
BMI (kg/m²)	27.7 (23.4 ; 32.8)	27.1 (24.1 ; 30.8)
At least one chronic disease	160 (79.6)	157 (79.3)
Diabetes	42 (26.3)	60 (38.2)
Cirrhosis	12 (7.5)	18 (11.6)
Heart Failure	13 (8.2)	14 (8.9)
Arterial Hypertension	106 (66.3)	93 (59.6)
Coronary artery disease	26 (16.3)	18 (11.6)
Chronic Renal Failure	13 (8.1)	13 (8.3)
COPD	23 (14.4)	21 (13.5)
Mc CABE score
Non-fatal	140 (71.8)	143 (74.1)
Ultimately fatal (1-4 years)	47 (24.1)	36 (18.7)
Rapidly fatal (<1 year)	8 (4.1)	14 (7.3)
ICU admission
Recent surgical history	122 (60.7)	123 (62.1)
Sepsis on admission	72 (35.8)	75 (37.9)
Significant bleeding on admission	35 (17.4)	37 (18.7)
Transfusion before inclusion*	92 (45.8)	90 (44.5)
SAPS II	38 (29 ; 51)	41 (27 ; 55)
SOFA	6 (4 ; 9)	7 (4 ; 10)
Hb (g/dL)	11.1±2.2	11.2±2.7

ICU Stay
ICU LOS (Days)	13 (7 to 22)	12 (7 to 20)
Mechanical ventilation	158 (78.6)	160 (80.8)
Duration of MV (days)	4 (2 ; 12)	5 (2 ; 12)
Renal support	31 (15.4)	26 (13.1)
Duration of support (days)	7 (2 ; 14)	4 (2 ; 13)
Catecholamine	129 (64.2)	133 (67.2)
Duration of catecholamine (days)	3 (2 ; 5)	3 (2 ; 5)
ICU Discharge
Hb (g/dL)	10.0 (9.1 ; 10.8)	9.7 (8.8 ; 10.7)
CRP (mg/L)	66.0 (39.0;102.9)	69.0 (34.0;128.0)
Ferritin (µg/L)	710 (363 ; 1201)	584 (286 ; 903)
TSAT (%)	14 (10 ; 22)	14 (12 ; 19)
Hepcidin (µg/L)	31.10 (13.35 ; 56.25)	33.70 (13.55 ; 65.45)
Absolute ID (n)	71 (35.3)	65 (32.8)
Functional ID (n)	37 (18.4)	47 (23.7)

Table 2: Primary and secondary outcomes (ITT analysis)

Data are expressed as mean±SD, median(Q1;Q3) or n(%).

Somme data are missing (i.e. Hb concentrations at D15, Fatigue assessment at D30), in that cases the number of available data is indicated. ITT; intention-to-treat; Hb, ICU, intensive care unit; LOS, length of stay; Hb, Hemoglobin; MFI-20, Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory;

	n	Intervention (n=201)	n	Control (n=198)	P
Post ICU LOS (Days)	201	33 (13;90)	198	33 (11;90)	0.78
Day 15 Hb (g/dL)	127	10.3± 1.7	119	10.30± 1.5	0.81
Day 15 Hepcidin (µg/L)	69	34.6(17.4 ; 53.7)	68	27.7(11.9 ; 62.7)	0.63
Day 30 Fatigue (scale 1-10)	120	5(3 ; 6)	114	5 (3 ; 7)	0.44
Day 30 MFI-20,	126		120
General fatigue (score 9-45)	126	27 (18 ; 31)	120	24.5 (18 ; 30)	0.41
Mental Fatigue (score 6-30)	126	24 (20 ; 28)	120	26 (21 ; 29)	0.26
Reduced Activity (score 3-15 )	126	8 (6 ; 10)	120	8 (6 ; 11)	0.66
Reduced Motivation (score 2-10)	126	8 (6 ; 10)	120	8 (6 ; 10)	0.72
Deaths at Day 90	201	16 (8.0)	198	33 (16.67)	0.008

Table 3: Effect of iron deficiency treatment (scheduled sub-group analysis)

Data are expressed as mean±SD, median(Q1;Q3) or n(%). We compared the outcomes of patient with iron deficiency (ID, defined as an hepcidin concentration <41µg/L) treated in the hepcidin arm to the patients with ID not treated in the control arm.

ICU, intensive care unit; LOS, length of stay; MFI-20, Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory; Hb, Hemoglobin;

* absolute risk difference

	n	Patients with ID treated in Hepcidin arm (n= 53)	n	Patients with ID not treated in control arm (n=102)	p
Post ICU LOS (Days)	53	42 (16 ; 90)	102	29 (11 ; 90)	0.37
Number of days alive at home at Day 90	53	50 (0 ; 76)	102	61 (0 ; 82)	0.21
Death at Day 90	53	2 (3.8)	102	17 (16.7)	0.02
Fatigue (scale 1-10)	39	5.0 (3.0 ; 6.0)	61	6.0 (3.0 ; 7.0)	0.13
MFI-20
General fatigue (score 9-45)	40	28 (22 ; 31)	63	26 (18 ; 30)	0.33
Mental Fatigue (score 6-30)	40	25 (20 ; 28)	63	25 (20 ; 28)	0.75
Reduced Activity (score 3-15 )	40	8 (6 ;10)	63	8 (6 ;11)	0.66
Reduced Motivation (score 2-10)	40	8.(6 ;10)	63	8 (6 ; 10)	0.24
Day 15 Hb (g/dL)	40	10.7 ±1.6	59	10.4±1.4	0.24
Day 15 Hepcidin (µg/L)	19	35.7 (23.0 ; 53.7)	31	18.0 (7.6 ; 44.0)	0.04

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 15 Feb, 2021

Read the published version in Critical Care →

Editorial decision: Major revision
10 Oct, 2020
Review #2 received at journal
09 Oct, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed at journal
27 Sep, 2020
Review #1 received at journal
20 Sep, 2020
Reviewers invited by journal
09 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed at journal
09 Sep, 2020
Editor assigned by journal
08 Sep, 2020
Submission checks completed at journal
07 Sep, 2020
Editor invited by journal
07 Sep, 2020
First submitted to journal
06 Sep, 2020

You are reading this older preprint version

Read the latest preprint version →

Interest of Treating Iron Deficiency, Diagnosed According to Hepcidin Quantification, on Outcomes After a Prolonged Icu Stay Compared to Standard Care: A Multicenter, Randomized, Single-blinded Trial

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

List Of Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Tables

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1