Intravenous iron for heart failure with evidence of iron deficiency: a meta-analysis of randomised trials

Background The recent AFFIRM-AHF trial assessing the effect of intravenous (IV) iron on outcomes in patients hospitalised with worsening heart failure who had iron deficiency (ID) narrowly missed its primary efficacy endpoint of recurrent hospitalisations for heart failure (HHF) or cardiovascular (CV) death. We conducted a meta-analysis to determine whether these results were consistent with previous trials. Methods We searched for randomised trials of patients with heart failure investigating the effect of IV iron vs placebo/control groups that reported HHF and CV mortality from 1st January 2000 to 5th December 2020. Seven trials were identified and included in this analysis. A fixed effect model was applied to assess the effects of IV iron on the composite of first HHF or CV mortality and individual components of these. Results Altogether, 2,166 patients were included (n = 1168 assigned to IV iron; n = 998 assigned to control). IV iron reduced the composite of HHF or CV mortality substantially [OR 0.73; (95% confidence interval 0.59–0.90); p = 0.003]. Outcomes were consistent for the pooled trials prior to AFFIRM-AHF. Whereas first HHF were reduced substantially [OR 0.67; (0.54–0.85); p = 0.0007], the effect on CV mortality was uncertain but appeared smaller [OR 0.89; (0.66–1.21); p = 0.47]. Conclusion Administration of IV iron to patients with heart failure and ID reduces the risk of the composite outcome of first heart failure hospitalisation or cardiovascular mortality, but this outcome may be driven predominantly by an effect on HHF. At least three more substantial trials of intravenous iron are underway. Graphic abstract Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00392-021-01837-8.


Introduction
Patients with heart failure often have evidence of iron deficiency (ID), with or without anaemia, which is associated with more severe symptoms, lower exercise capacity and higher rates of hospitalisations for heart failure (HHF) and mortality [1,2]. In an individual patient meta-analysis of four trials including 839 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and serum markers of ID, Anker and colleagues suggested that administration of intravenous iron (IV) reduced the risk of first and recurrent HHF when compared to placebo [3]. Recently, the AFFIRM-AHF trial narrowly missed its primary efficacy endpoint of recurrent HHF or cardiovascular (CV) death [4]. Therefore, we produced an updated the meta-analysis to investigate whether the effects of IV iron were consistent amongst the randomised trials reported so far and whether sufficient evidence had accumulated to indicate a conclusive effect on HHF and CV mortality.

Methods
We searched for English language trials from 1st January 2000 to 5th December 2020 in PubMed using pre-specified search terms (see Supplements), and from additional sources including a recent systematic review [5]. Only published randomised trials investigating the effects of IV iron compared to a control group that did not receive IV iron in patients with heart failure, regardless of participants' left ventricular ejection fraction, the formulation of IV iron, concomitant therapy, or definition of ID, that reported either HHF or CV mortality were included in the main report. If mortality was not explicitly reported but HHF was, it was assumed that no deaths had occurred. An additional analysis was done including two unpublished trials, with data derived from the meta-analysis reported by Anker et al. [3].
Data were extracted by two independent reviewers (FG and PP). Deaths not clearly declared as CV or non-CV were adjudicated independently by two authors, both of whom are experienced in clinical end-point adjudication. Adjudication was based on the clinical information provided by authors in the text. Disparities were resolved by discussion or by checking with a third author (JGFC). Outcomes assessed were the composite of HHF or CV mortality as first events, and HHF as a first event and CV mortality separately. Data analysed were the numbers of first events and numbers of participants in each treatment arm for each trial. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the effect of treatment with IV iron relative to control were calculated for each trial. The data were analysed using both fixed effects (primary analysis) and random effects models. Forest plots with odds ratios and corresponding (95% confidence intervals) were produced and reported. A level of significance of 5% was considered statistically significant.
To assess the impact of results from the largest trial to date, additional analysis comparing odds ratios for studies excluding AFFIRM-AHF to the AFFIRM-AHF trial alone were carried out.
All analyses were conducted with Review Manager (Rev-Man) Version 5.4 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020).
When AFFIRM-AHF was excluded from the model, the point estimates for the effect of IV iron were OR 0.  Fig. 3). The odds ratios for all outcomes were not significantly different for the pooled data excluding AFFIRM-AHF compared to AFFIRM-AHF alone (Table 3).

Discussion
This meta-analysis suggests that IV iron reduces the risk of the composite outcome of first HHF or CV death for patients with serum markers of ID and heart failure. This result was driven predominantly by an effect on HHF with no convincing evidence of a reduction in CV mortality. Because HHF is associated with a higher risk of CV mortality, the effect of IV iron for each outcome might be expected to be rather similar. The relatively small number of deaths, the short duration of follow-up and the play of chance might explain this possible anomaly. A longer duration of followup might show a greater effect on CV mortality, but the trial with the longest follow-up to date, albeit only one year, showed little effect on this outcome [4]. The AFFIRM-AHF trial suggests that the reduction in hospitalisations for heart failure is not observed until 8-12 weeks after administration of IV iron, consistent with its benefits being mediated through the synthesis of new red blood cells, myoglobin and other metalloproteins. Accordingly, large effects observed in some small trials lasting 3 months or less may reflect chance effects.
The effects of IV iron appeared somewhat greater in a pooled analysis of trials excluding AFFIRM-AHF, although differences were not statistically significant. IV iron might be more effective in clinically stable populations. Differences in study design, inclusion criteria, iron dosing and length of follow-up may affect the outcome. The small size of some trials confounded statistical assessment of heterogeneity. Instead, we produced both fixed and random effects models which, for the composite outcome, yielded similar results, although less secure for effects on HHF in the random effects model.
Whether the definition of ID used in these trials is optimal is uncertain. Using a TSAT < 20% alone might be a better guide to ID than one based on ferritin [24][25][26]. This is important because giving IV iron to patients who are not iron-deplete is unlikely to be beneficial. Fortunately, ID appears common in patients with heart failure and therefore an effect might be detected even if the diagnostic accuracy of the test for ID is poor. Perhaps most patients with heart failure have ID and the key question is how severe it is, rather than whether it is present; ID should not be a binary, all-or-nothing classification. We did not conduct subgroup analyses, which are best left to an individual-patient-data (IPD) meta-analysis that can adjust for confounding variables. In an IPD meta-analysis [3], lower TSAT but not lower serum ferritin predicted greater benefit from IV iron. In AFFIRM-AHF it appeared that lower serum ferritin or a lower TSAT were associated Fig. 3 Fixed-effects meta-analysis model of all trials, excluding AFFIRM-AHF, detailing the pooled effect of intravenous iron on the composite of first hospitalisations for heart failure or cardiovascular mortality (a), and first hospitalisation for heart failure (b) and cardiovascular mortality (c) alone. Although not included in the pooled analysis, odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals are presented for AFFIRM-AHF for comparison. IV intravenous, CI confidence interval Table 3 Comparison of fixed-effects odds ratios (ORs) between pooled trials prior to AFFIRM-AHF and AFFIRM-AHF Odds ratio (95% confidence interval) P for comparison OR (95% confidence interval) of comparison with greater benefit from IV iron, but > 80% of participants had a TSAT < 20%. Further analyses are required. Haemoglobin concentration has not predicted benefit but, because women have lower concentrations than men, such analyses may be confounded by participants' sex. The AFFIRM-AHF trial enrolled patients with new-onset heart failure, 1 3 which is unusual for trials of heart failure; these patients may have had somewhat less benefit from IV iron possibly because they were less likely to have true ID or because the determinants of outcome in such patients are different.
In AFFIRM-AHF patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy appeared to have greater benefit; the reasons for this are unclear. The reduction in events with IV iron, compared to control, might have been underestimated because treatments for heart failure might have been more likely to be intensified in the control group who did not receive the symptomatic benefits of iron therapy. This possibility should be explored in the future analysis of substantial long-term trials.
Results from three other large ongoing trials should clarify the effects of IV iron on morbidity and mortality in patients with HFrEF and ID and provide further insights into the possible predictors of response [27]. Trials in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction are also underway but limited data currently exist [23].

Limitations
We did not investigate the effect of IV iron on all-cause mortality as this is not yet reported for AFFIRM-AHF. The composite outcome reported for CONFIRM-HF [19] was HHF and all-cause mortality, which included one non-CV death amongst patients assigned to iron and two to placebo. This would not materially alter our overall results. An analysis of recurrent HHF rather than just the first event would make the result more robust but requires access to IPD. An IPD metaanalysis has many advantages when exploring the interaction amongst variables [28][29][30]. In particular, an IPD would have allowed analysis of the potential interaction between sex and the effects of IV iron. However, aggregate data have the advantage that it includes all the published data rather than the proportion where IPD is available to the authors. Each type of meta-analysis has advantages, and they are complimentary. All meta-analyses should be interpreted cautiously, particularly for analyses involving a number of small studies where there will be little power to detect heterogeneity. Fixed effects meta-analysis provides an estimate of an average treatment effect in the studies conducted but uncertainty about heterogeneity may make it difficult to extrapolate that effect to a particular clinical context. Random effects analyses assume that studies have underlying treatment effects arising from a random distribution and provide estimates of the average of, and variation in, the treatment effect in that distribution. However, if the variation is systematic and not random then the random effects analysis may not be helpful in extrapolating a treatment effect to a new situation. In the context of this analysis, length of follow-up, clinical status of patients at recruitment and IV iron dosing strategy are systematically different amongst the studies. Whether these factors systematically impact the treatment effect is difficult to determine with the data available.

Conclusion
In a meta-analysis of seven trials, administration of IV iron to patients with heart failure and ID reduced the risk of the composite outcome of heart failure hospitalisation or cardiovascular mortality in the following 12 months. To date, this outcome is driven predominantly by an effect on HHF. Longer term effects of repeated administration of IV iron are unknown. More evidence is desirable.

Funding
No funding was received for conducting this study.

Data availability Not applicable.
Code availability Not applicable.

Declarations
Conflict of interest FG reports receipt of sponsorship from Vifor to attend an international meeting. JGFC reports receipt of personal honoraria for lectures and advisory boards from Pharmacosmos and Vifor, and from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Novartis and Servier. IF reports receipt of research grants from Vifor and Pharmacosmos. MCP reports receipts for Consultancy and/or Endpoint Committees for Boehringer Ingleheim, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Abbvie, Bayer, Takeda, Cardiorentis and Pharmacosmos. MCP and JGFC are supported by the British Heart Foundation (BHF) Centre of Research Excellence Award (RE/13/5/30177 and RE/18/6/34217 +). PRK reports receipt of personal honoraria for lectures, advisory boards and research/quality improvement grants from Pharmacosmos and Vifor. PRK reports receipt of personal honoraria for lectures and advisory boards from Ackea, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer and Servier.

Ethics approval Not applicable.
Informed consent Not applicable.

Consent for publication
All authors consent to the publication of this manuscript in its current form.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.