Anemia: Iron, HIF-PH Inhibitors, and Transfusion

Bottom Line

• Proactive IV iron beats reactive iron on hard outcomes. PIVOTAL (RCT, n=2,141 incident hemodialysis patients) cut death, MI, stroke, or heart-failure hospitalization from 32.3% to 29.3% — HR 0.85 (0.73–1.00); ARR 3.0%, NNT 34 over a median 2.1 years — with 19.4% less ESA and no excess infection ^1,2. The proactive arm actually received a median 264 mg of iron a month versus 145 mg ¹.
• KDIGO 2026 codifies PIVOTAL’s protocol for hemodialysis: start IV iron at ferritin ≤500 ng/mL and TSAT ≤30% (2D), dose proactively, and withhold routine iron at ferritin >700 ng/mL or TSAT ≥40% ³. KDIGO itself calls these numbers “somewhat arbitrary” ³.
• ESA sparing plateaus. In a retrospective cohort, the maximal Hb response to epoetin came at ferritin 350–500 ng/mL and TSAT above 30%, falling off gradually above that ⁴. Pushing ferritin from 367 to 620 in an RCT bought an early ESA saving that was no longer significant at 6 months ⁵.
• The harm signals are observational and are about pattern: repeated 1-gram bolus courses (+25 infection hospitalizations per 1,000 patient-years, +73 with a catheter), sustained doses of 400 mg a month or more, ferritin above 1,000–1,200, and protocols that keep dosing at high iron indices ^6,7,8,9.
• Ferritin 700–1,200 with a low TSAT is a physician-trial zone, not a dosing zone. DRIVE (RCT, ferritin 500–1,200, TSAT ≤25%) showed a 1-gram course raised Hb 1.6 versus 1.1 g/dL at 6 weeks, with no difference above or below a ferritin of 800 ¹⁰. KDIGO permits a trial course in that setting; no guideline defines it ³.
• HIF-PH inhibitors are second-line, and in the US there is one. KDIGO 2026 suggests an ESA first (2D) ³. As of September 2026 vadadustat is the only HIF-PHI marketed in the US for dialysis patients; daprodustat was withdrawn from the US market in late 2024 for business reasons, and roxadustat was never FDA-approved ^11,12,13. Transfusion is a real harm for transplant candidates and should be decided on symptoms, not a number ^3,14.

1. Why Hemodialysis Patients Need IV Iron

Hepcidin blocks gut absorption, and hemodialysis losses — roughly 2.5–5.1 L of blood a year on older circuits — outrun what the gut can absorb ^15,16. In a small RCT of 37 patients with renal failure starting EPO, oral ferrous sulfate performed no better than no iron at all, while IV iron dextran raised Hb from 7.3 to 11.9 g/dL ¹⁷. KDIGO 2026 suggests IV over oral iron in hemodialysis (Rec 2.2, 2D), and its evidence review found that iron versus placebo raises Hb by an average of about 0.5 g/dL in patients on an ESA or HIF-PHI and “probably also lowers ESA doses” ³.

In an ESA-treated patient, Hb is fixed and ESA dose is the outcome. Trials manage Hb to a target band (PIVOTAL: 10–12 g/dL), so extra iron shows up as a lower ESA dose rather than a higher Hb ¹. Most of the iron literature therefore reports ESA dose, the ESA resistance index (ERI), or a short-term Hb change at a frozen ESA dose ^5,10 — all surrogates. Only PIVOTAL measured what patients experience ¹.

2. The Floor: Recognizing Iron-Limited Erythropoiesis

Definitions from KDIGO 2026, which also states that the conventional cutoffs correlate poorly with both marrow iron and the Hb response to iron in CKD ³. A TSAT of 20% and ferritin of 200 ng/mL is the floor shared by KDOQI 2006, KDIGO 2026, and the UK Kidney Association; below either, assume iron-limited erythropoiesis ^3,18,19.

Ferritin and TSAT are weak predictors of who will respond to iron. For the Hb response to IV iron in hemodialysis patients on an ESA, ferritin had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.55–0.63 and TSAT 0.59–0.76 ^20,21. TSAT beats ferritin; both are a coin flip weighted a little in the clinician’s favor. In a non-dialysis cohort, one third of patients with iron-replete marrow still responded to iron — the biological case for proactive dosing ²².

Red-cell markers do better but are not the standard. Percent hypochromic red cells above 6% (AUC 0.93) and reticulocyte hemoglobin below 29 pg (AUC 0.798) outperformed ferritin and TSAT as predictors of response ²⁰. In an RCT of 157 patients, CHr-guided iron reached the same hematocrit and epoetin dose as ferritin- and TSAT-guided iron with half the IV iron ²³. No study links marker-guided management to hard outcomes, and KDIGO 2026 lists the markers as a research recommendation ^3,24.

3. Where ESA Sparing Plateaus

Reading the curve. ESA sparing is steepest from deficient to replete — IV versus oral (−46%) and TSAT 30–50% versus 20–30% (−40%) ^25,26. It flattens between ferritin approximately 400 and 700 ⁵. Above ferritin 700 or TSAT 40–50% there is no sustained randomized evidence of further ESA sparing; DRIVE shows that a low TSAT predicts iron response even when ferritin is high, not that raising ferritin above 1,000 helps ¹⁰. Observational US data agree: regular maintenance iron was associated with ESA reduction but not with better Hb target attainment ²⁷.

4. PIVOTAL: What It Proves and What It Does Not

Design. Multicenter UK RCT, open-label with blinded endpoint adjudication. 2,141 adults within 12 months of starting hemodialysis, on an ESA, with ferritin below 400 µg/L and TSAT below 30% at screening. Proactive arm: iron sucrose 400 mg per month, given in the week after the monthly blood draw, withheld when ferritin exceeded 700 µg/L or TSAT reached 40%. Reactive arm: 0–400 mg per month, given only when ferritin fell below 200 or TSAT below 20%. Hb target 10–12 g/dL; iron held during infections judged to contraindicate it ¹.

What each arm received. Median monthly iron was 264 mg (IQR 200–336) versus 145 mg (IQR 100–190) ¹. The investigators describe the proactive arm as held at ferritin “around 600–700 µg/L” ². A DOPPS group reading the supplementary figures estimated 12-month medians of approximately 580 versus 130 µg/L for ferritin and 26% versus 19% for TSAT ²⁸. The reactive arm ran at or below its 200 trigger — a genuinely low-iron strategy, lower than most US units run: the US DOPPS mean ferritin in February 2018 was 828 ng/mL ²⁹, and the 2009–2015 US median was 718 ⁹.

ARR and NNT are derived from first-event percentages. Secondary endpoints were not adjusted for multiplicity ¹.

Critical appraisal

• Sponsor and conduct. Investigator-led, with blinded endpoint adjudication. Kidney Research UK funded it through an unrestricted grant from Vifor Fresenius Medical Care Renal Pharma, which also supplied the iron sucrose; the company had no role in design, data collection, or analysis ¹. Clean conduct by dialysis-trial standards, but not the purely academic funding PIVOTAL is often described as having.
• The primary result sits on a boundary. The upper confidence limit touches 1.00. Recurrent events, MI, and heart failure all point the same way, which is why KDIGO, the KDOQI US commentary, ERBP, and the UK Kidney Association accept it ^3,19,34,35.
• The control arm is the whole story for US units. PIVOTAL proved that avoiding iron deficiency beats flirting with it. KDIGO notes that an intermediate target might have done as well ³, and ERBP adds that the trial does not show a ferritin held around 400 to be inferior ³⁵. Interpretation (author judgment, not trial data): a unit already running ferritin at 600–800 cannot expect PIVOTAL’s 3% absolute benefit from adding iron; it may already have it.
• Population. Incident patients (under 1 year on dialysis), ESA-treated, UK, with exclusions for short life expectancy and active malignancy ^1,35.
• Access thrombosis deserves a look, not alarm. The post hoc multivariable analysis found no independent effect of the iron arm and pointed to grafts, diabetes, female sex, and smoking instead ³³.
• An observational replication went the other way. Emulating both PIVOTAL protocols in 6,325 DOPPS patients — older, longer on dialysis, with higher baseline ferritin — the proactive strategy had higher 1-year mortality (RR 1.20, 1.07–1.33) ²⁸. It is a caution against applying a trial of iron-poor incident patients to iron-rich prevalent ones.

5. KDIGO 2026 Iron Rules for Hemodialysis

• Initiate when ferritin is ≤500 ng/mL and TSAT ≤30% (Rec 2.1, 2D) ³.
• IV route (Rec 2.2, 2D) and proactive maintenance (PP 2.1) ³.
• Withhold routine iron when ferritin is >700 ng/mL or TSAT ≥40% (PP 2.2) ³. ERBP points out that these numbers come from PIVOTAL’s protocol ³⁵. The KDOQI US commentary accepts 700/40 as upper limits that balance benefit against exposure to risk ³⁴.
• Test Hb, ferritin, and TSAT every 1–3 months (PP 2.5), sooner after ESA or HIF-PHI changes, blood loss, or hospitalization; delay TSAT testing after IV iron ³.
• Suspend iron during systemic infection (PP 2.8) ³ — a prudence rule; PIVOTAL and FIND-CKD also paused iron during infection ³⁵.
• Administration safety (PP 2.9): give IV iron only where hypersensitivity and hypotension can be managed; do not exceed the per-dose maximum; routine steroid or antihistamine premedication and test doses are not required ³.

Turning the rules into a protocol. A unit anemia protocol converts monthly labs into standing orders: an iron start rule, proactive maintenance on a fixed schedule, holds for the 700/40 ceiling and for systemic infection, and a blood-loss trigger at ferritin below 45 or MCV below 80 ^1,3. Iron comes before ESA escalation — DRIVE and PIVOTAL both show ESA sparing from iron ^1,10. The exact numbers a unit chooses are a medical-director decision, and hyporesponders, cancer patients, transplant candidates, and anyone on a HIF-PHI need individualized orders.

6. Where Harm and Uncertainty Begin

All of the harm evidence is observational.

Loading versus maintenance. Both US hemodialysis labels are written as 1-gram repletion courses — iron sucrose 100 mg at each of 10 sessions and ferric gluconate 125 mg at each of 8 — and neither sets a ferritin ceiling ^38,39. In 117,050 US patients, bolus dosing (median 700 mg in the exposure month) versus maintenance dosing (median 200 mg) added 25 infection hospitalizations per 1,000 patient-years (16–33), 73 (48–99) in catheter patients, and 57 in those with a recent infection; maintenance dosing versus no iron showed no increase ⁷. That cohort was AHRQ-funded, and bolus dosing clustered in catheter patients and the South, so confounding remains ⁷. Bolus dosing showed no short-term cardiovascular signal (HR 1.03, 0.99–1.07) ⁴⁰.

Infection. Across all clinical settings, IV iron raises infection risk by roughly 17–33% relative (meta-analyses of RCTs: RR 1.33 and RR 1.17) ^41,42. In dialysis specifically, higher versus lower doses showed no clear excess in randomized data (RR 1.02, 0.74–1.41), including in PIVOTAL ^2,43. The signal that survives in hemodialysis is about pattern — bolus, catheter, recent infection — not maintenance dose ⁷.

Iron overload: real on MRI, uncertain in meaning. In 119 “fit” hemodialysis patients on guideline-concordant iron, liver MRI showed overload in 84%, severe in 36% ⁴⁴. In a small series of patients with ferritin above 500, liver iron tracked cumulative iron dose and dialysis vintage, not current ferritin ⁴⁵. KDIGO calls tissue deposition a theoretical concern that has been little studied in CKD ³. PIVOTAL’s 2 years at ferritin approximately 600–700 produced no clinical signal ¹; the real gap is decades of exposure.

7. High Ferritin with Low TSAT: The DRIVE Exception

Inflammation, mostly through IL-6, raises hepatic hepcidin; hepcidin degrades ferroportin, and iron stays locked in macrophages ^3,15. Ferritin climbs while TSAT falls ⁴⁶. In 82 hemodialysis patients, ferritin tracked malnutrition-inflammation scores and CRP independently of iron status, and values anywhere from 200 to 2,000 ng/mL could be raised by factors unrelated to iron ⁴⁷.

What the guidelines say. KDIGO 2026 withholds routine iron above ferritin 700 or at TSAT 40%, but says a trial course may be considered when TSAT is low (for example, below 20%), ferritin is above 700, and the anemia is refractory or ESA requirements are high ³. The KDOQI US commentary notes that DRIVE ran only 6 weeks without long-term safety data and asks for close monitoring and individualized care above 700/40 ³⁴. The UK Kidney Association adds that a ferritin consistently above 800 with a normal CRP suggests true iron overload (1B) ¹⁹. Every guideline that addresses the question lands in the same place: no routine iron, a physician-directed trial allowed. None defines the trial.

What this says, plainly. A one-time, time-limited course can work at ferritin 700–1,200 when TSAT is low; DRIVE is randomized and positive, and its benefit is a surrogate measured over 6–12 weeks ^10,48. Routine dosing in that range is where the harm signal lives: Li 2019’s excess came from protocols that kept bolusing up to 1,200, not from a single course ⁸. Between 700 and 1,000 the ferritin level is mostly an inflammation reading ^4,9,37. Above 1,200 there is no trial evidence at all ¹⁰. DRIVE’s design — ferric gluconate 125 mg for 8 sessions, with the Hb response read at 6 weeks — is the only tested template.

When iron is futile. No Hb rise and no ESA reduction after a defined 1-gram exposure ^10,20,21; a reticulocyte hemoglobin already at 32 pg or above ^19,49; active inflammation with a fixable source such as a tunneled catheter, failed graft, or foot wound, where iron is held and the source treated ³. Hepcidin testing does not help: AUC 0.52 for response, with swings of 9–85% within weeks ^21,50.

8. Formulations, Hypersensitivity, and Other Iron Routes

Anaphylaxis. Life-threatening reactions occur at about 0.6 per million doses of iron sucrose versus 11.3 per million for high-molecular-weight iron dextran ⁵⁴. KDIGO gives a graded response: stop, observe, and rechallenge at a 25–50% rate for minor reactions; epinephrine, fluids, and no future IV iron for severe ones ³.

Ferric citrate is a phosphate binder that also delivers iron. In a 52-week sponsor-funded, open-label RCT (n=441), it raised ferritin and TSAT and reduced IV iron and ESA use; IV iron was prohibited above ferritin 1,000 or TSAT 30%, which partly engineers the saving ^55,56. It is a sensible binder for an iron-hungry patient, not an anemia drug with outcome data.

Dialysate iron (ferric pyrophosphate citrate) reduced ESA and IV iron use in trials ^57,58, but its US applications were discontinued in November 2022 as a business decision ⁵⁹.

9. HIF-PH Inhibitors

HIF-prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors stabilize hypoxia-inducible factor, raising endogenous EPO while lowering hepcidin ⁶⁰. The appeal is an oral agent that works better in inflammation. The cost is that HIF regulates many genes beyond EPO, including angiogenic pathways — the basis for KDIGO’s avoid-list of cancer, proliferative retinopathy, polycystic kidney disease, and pulmonary hypertension ³.

All of these trials used Hb as the efficacy endpoint and met non-inferiority for Hb. A Cochrane review of 51 studies found that, versus ESAs, HIF-PHIs made little or no difference to cardiovascular death (RR 1.05, 0.88–1.26; low certainty) and probably reduced transfusion slightly (RR 0.87, 0.76–1.00) ⁶⁴.

Why KDIGO still says ESA first

• A non-inferiority margin of 1.25 means the trials were designed to tolerate up to a 25% relative MACE excess. The upper bounds in ASCEND-D (1.07) and INNO2VATE (1.11) are reassuring, not proof of equivalence ^61,62.
• Open-label everywhere, with iron protocols not standardized between arms ³⁵. The large programs were manufacturer-funded ^60,61,62,63.
• The same molecule looked safe in dialysis and unsafe in non-dialysis CKD (vadadustat), with unexplained regional heterogeneity ^35,63. A pooled roxadustat dialysis safety analysis was retracted in 2022 ⁶⁵.
• Adherence is a new failure mode. By the first quarter of 2026, approximately two thirds of US vadadustat patients were dosed under observed, in-unit protocols rather than the once-daily label regimen ^11,66.

US regulatory status, September 2026

Vadadustat label essentials ¹¹: a boxed warning that includes vascular access thrombosis; 300 mg once daily, titrated no more often than every 4 weeks, dosed to an Hb of 10–11 g/dL; liver tests monthly for the first 6 months; and taken at least 1 hour before iron products or iron-based binders.

Where HIF-PHIs fit

• First-line: an ESA, not a HIF-PHI (Rec 3.1.1, 2D) ³.
• Reasonable alternative when the patient prefers an oral agent, cannot tolerate an ESA, lacks refrigeration for home dialysis, has persistent hyporesponsiveness, or has recovered from ESA-related PRCA ^3,35.
• Avoid in active cancer or cancer not in remission for 2–5 years, polycystic kidney disease, proliferative retinopathy, pulmonary arterial hypertension, pregnancy, and after a recent cardiovascular or thrombotic event ³.
• Never combine an ESA and a HIF-PHI; use the same Hb thresholds; stop after 3–4 months without response; suspend for stroke, MI, DVT or PE, access thrombosis, or new cancer ³.

10. Transfusion

• Decide on symptoms, not an arbitrary Hb (PP 4.4); transfuse for acute hemorrhage, unstable coronary disease, or urgent preoperative correction (PP 4.5) ³.
• Transplant candidates: avoid transfusion when possible to minimize allosensitization (PP 4.2) ³. HLA sensitization prolongs waiting time and shortens graft survival, and leukocyte reduction does not appear to prevent it ^14,69.
• When transfusion is the better choice: ESA or HIF-PHI failure, or when those drugs may be harmful, as in active or prior malignancy or prior stroke (PP 4.3) ³.
• Inpatient thresholds: AABB 2023 recommends a restrictive strategy — consider transfusion below 7 g/dL in stable hospitalized adults, and below 8 g/dL with preexisting cardiovascular disease ⁷⁰.
• The TREAT trade-off in one line: darbepoetin prevented one transfused patient for every 11 treated and caused one extra stroke for every 42 ⁷¹.

Evidence Gaps

1. No trial of intermediate targets. Ferritin around 400 versus 700 has never been tested on hard outcomes ^3,35.
2. No trial above 700/40. Every benefit claim above PIVOTAL’s cap is extrapolation ^3,34.
3. No trial of loading versus maintenance at equal monthly iron; the best evidence is observational ^7,8.
4. Prevalent, iron-replete patients were not in PIVOTAL, and the one emulation found the opposite mortality direction ²⁸.
5. Ferritin 700–1,200 beyond 12 weeks: no randomized data on repeated courses or outcomes ^10,48.
6. HIF-PHI long-term safety — cancer, retinopathy, cyst growth, thrombosis — and adherence; VOICE (early 2027) will be the first outcome-oriented test of three-times-weekly vadadustat ⁶⁶.

At the Chair

References

Numbered for this page. Each reference was checked against its PubMed record or the primary document (guideline, FDA label, agency page) in September 2026.

1. Macdougall IC, White C, Anker SD, et al. Intravenous Iron in Patients Undergoing Maintenance Hemodialysis. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(5):447-458. PMID: 30365356
2. Macdougall IC, Bhandari S, White C, et al. Intravenous Iron Dosing and Infection Risk in Patients on Hemodialysis: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of the PIVOTAL Trial. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2020;31(5):1118-1127. PMID: 32253271
3. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Anemia Work Group. KDIGO 2026 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Anemia in Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD). Kidney Int. 2026;109(1S):S1-S99. PMID: 41485812
4. Gaweda AE, Goldsmith LJ, Brier ME, et al. Iron, inflammation, dialysis adequacy, nutritional status, and hyperparathyroidism modify erythropoietic response. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;5(4):576-81. PMID: 20110344
5. Susantitaphong P, Siribumrungwong M, Takkavatakarn K, et al. Effect of Maintenance Intravenous Iron Treatment on Erythropoietin Dose in Chronic Hemodialysis Patients: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2020;7:2054358120933397. PMID: 32612843
6. Bailie GR, Larkina M, Goodkin DA, et al. Data from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study validate an association between high intravenous iron doses and mortality. Kidney Int. 2015;87(1):162-8. PMID: 25075769
7. Brookhart MA, Freburger JK, Ellis AR, et al. Infection risk with bolus versus maintenance iron supplementation in hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013;24(7):1151-8. PMID: 23787911
8. Li X, Cole SR, Kshirsagar AV, et al. Safety of Dynamic Intravenous Iron Administration Strategies in Hemodialysis Patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;14(5):728-737. PMID: 30988164
9. Karaboyas A, Morgenstern H, Pisoni RL, et al. Association between serum ferritin and mortality: findings from the USA, Japan and European Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2018;33(12):2234-2244. PMID: 30010940
10. Coyne DW, Kapoian T, Suki W, et al. Ferric gluconate is highly efficacious in anemic hemodialysis patients with high serum ferritin and low transferrin saturation: results of the Dialysis Patients' Response to IV Iron with Elevated Ferritin (DRIVE) Study. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;18(3):975-84. PMID: 17267740
11. Akebia Therapeutics. VAFSEO (vadadustat) tablets, prescribing information with boxed warning, revised March 2024 (FDA Reference ID 5354686).
12. Optum Rx. Jesduvroq (daprodustat) — withdrawal from the market (notice of GSK's voluntary US market withdrawal for business reasons, December 2024).
13. FibroGen, Inc. FibroGen receives complete response letter from the FDA for roxadustat for anemia of chronic kidney disease. Press release, August 11, 2021.
14. Obrador GT, Macdougall IC. Effect of red cell transfusions on future kidney transplantation. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013;8(5):852-860. PMID: 23085723
15. Babitt JL, Lin HY. Molecular mechanisms of hepcidin regulation: implications for the anemia of CKD. Am J Kidney Dis. 2010;55(4):726-741. PMID: 20189278
16. Sargent JA, Acchiardo SR. Iron requirements in hemodialysis. Blood Purif. 2004;22(1):112-123. PMID: 14732819
17. Macdougall IC, Tucker B, Thompson J, et al. A randomized controlled study of iron supplementation in patients treated with erythropoietin. Kidney Int. 1996;50(5):1694-1699. PMID: 8914038
18. KDOQI. KDOQI Clinical Practice Guidelines and Clinical Practice Recommendations for Anemia in Chronic Kidney Disease. Am J Kidney Dis. 2006;47(5 Suppl 3):S11-145. PMID: 16678659
19. Bhandari S, Spencer S, Oliveira B, et al. UK kidney association clinical practice guideline: update of anaemia of chronic kidney disease. BMC Nephrol. 2025;26(1):193. PMID: 40240983
20. Tessitore N, Solero GP, Lippi G, et al. The role of iron status markers in predicting response to intravenous iron in haemodialysis patients on maintenance erythropoietin. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2001;16(7):1416-23. PMID: 11427634
21. Tessitore N, Girelli D, Campostrini N, et al. Hepcidin is not useful as a biomarker for iron needs in haemodialysis patients on maintenance erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010;25(12):3996-4002. PMID: 20538788
22. Stancu S, Bârsan L, Stanciu A, et al. Can the response to iron therapy be predicted in anemic nondialysis patients with chronic kidney disease? Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;5(3):409-16. PMID: 20019121
23. Fishbane S, Shapiro W, Dutka P, et al. A randomized trial of iron deficiency testing strategies in hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int. 2001;60(6):2406-11. PMID: 11737617
24. Chung M, Moorthy D, Hadar N, Salvi P, Iovin RC, Lau J. Biomarkers for Assessing and Managing Iron Deficiency Anemia in Late-Stage Chronic Kidney Disease. AHRQ Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, Report No. 12(13)-EHC140-EF. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012. PMID: 23230575
25. Fishbane S, Frei GL, Maesaka J. Reduction in recombinant human erythropoietin doses by the use of chronic intravenous iron supplementation. Am J Kidney Dis. 1995;26(1):41-6. PMID: 7611266
26. Besarab A, Amin N, Ahsan M, et al. Optimization of epoetin therapy with intravenous iron therapy in hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2000;11(3):530-538. PMID: 10703677
27. Michels WM, Jaar BG, Ephraim PL, et al. Intravenous iron administration strategies and anemia management in hemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2017;32(1):173-181. PMID: 27604984
28. Karaboyas A, Morgenstern H, Fleischer NL, et al. Replicating Randomized Trial Results with Observational Data Using the Parametric g-Formula: An Application to Intravenous Iron Treatment in Hemodialysis Patients. Clin Epidemiol. 2020;12:1249-1260. PMID: 33204166
29. Collister D, Tangri N. Post-PIVOTAL Iron Dosing with Maintenance Hemodialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;14(10):1533-1535. PMID: 31182556
30. Petrie MC, Jhund PS, Connolly E, et al. High-dose intravenous iron reduces myocardial infarction in patients on haemodialysis. Cardiovasc Res. 2023;119(1):213-220. PMID: 34875022
31. Jhund PS, Petrie MC, Robertson M, et al. Heart Failure Hospitalization in Adults Receiving Hemodialysis and the Effect of Intravenous Iron Therapy. JACC Heart Fail. 2021;9(7):518-527. PMID: 34119470
32. Anker SD, Robertson M, McMurray JJV, et al. Recurrent event analyses in patients receiving maintenance dialysis and the effect of higher- versus lower-dose chronic intravenous iron therapy: A report focusing on heart failure events from the PIVOTAL trial. Eur J Heart Fail. 2025;27(6):1007-1015. PMID: 40393927
33. Thomson PC, Mark PB, Robertson M, et al. An Analysis of Vascular Access Thrombosis Events From the Proactive IV irOn Therapy in hemodiALysis Patients Trial. Kidney Int Rep. 2022;7(8):1793-1801. PMID: 35967105
34. Jalal DI, Bansal N, Cho ME, et al. KDOQI US Commentary on the KDIGO 2026 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Anemia in CKD. Am J Kidney Dis. 2026;88(1):1-17. PMID: 42095795
35. Del Vecchio L, Cases A, Eisenga MF, et al. KDIGO 2026 Clinical Practice Guideline for Anemia in Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD): a commentary from the European Renal Best Practice (ERBP). Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2026;41(8):1554-1572. PMID: 41604211
36. Fishbane S. Upper limit of serum ferritin: misinterpretation of the 2006 KDOQI anemia guidelines. Semin Dial. 2008;21(3):217-20. PMID: 18248518
37. Kalantar-Zadeh K, Regidor DL, McAllister CJ, et al. Time-dependent associations between iron and mortality in hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2005;16(10):3070-80. PMID: 16033854
38. Fresenius Medical Care North America (distributor). VENOFER (iron sucrose) injection, prescribing information; manufactured under license from American Regent, Inc. and Vifor (International) Inc. DailyMed set ID f1ab1a22-2b99-4d27-8b5a-9c3bcd5e3040, published November 17, 2025.
39. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC. FERRLECIT (sodium ferric gluconate complex in sucrose) injection, prescribing information. DailyMed set ID 1fe028ff-42ac-4329-b1a5-a9dadfcb79f6, published November 27, 2025.
40. Kshirsagar AV, Freburger JK, Ellis AR, et al. Intravenous iron supplementation practices and short-term risk of cardiovascular events in hemodialysis patients. PLoS One. 2013;8(11):e78930. PMID: 24223866
41. Litton E, Xiao J, Ho KM. Safety and efficacy of intravenous iron therapy in reducing requirement for allogeneic blood transfusion: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. BMJ. 2013;347:f4822. PMID: 23950195
42. Shah AA, Donovan K, Seeley C, et al. Risk of Infection Associated With Administration of Intravenous Iron: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(11):e2133935. PMID: 34767026
43. Hougen I, Collister D, Bourrier M, et al. Safety of Intravenous Iron in Dialysis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018;13(3):457-467. PMID: 29463597
44. Rostoker G, Griuncelli M, Loridon C, et al. Hemodialysis-associated hemosiderosis in the era of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents: a MRI study. Am J Med. 2012;125(10):991-999.e1. PMID: 22998881
45. Ferrari P, Kulkarni H, Dheda S, et al. Serum iron markers are inadequate for guiding iron repletion in chronic kidney disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011;6(1):77-83. PMID: 20876673
46. Wish JB. Assessing iron status: beyond serum ferritin and transferrin saturation. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;1 Suppl 1:S4-8. PMID: 17699374
47. Kalantar-Zadeh K, Rodriguez RA, Humphreys MH. Association between serum ferritin and measures of inflammation, nutrition and iron in haemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2004;19(1):141-9. PMID: 14671049
48. Kapoian T, O'Mara NB, Singh AK, et al. Ferric gluconate reduces epoetin requirements in hemodialysis patients with elevated ferritin. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;19(2):372-9. PMID: 18216316
49. Singh AK, Coyne DW, Shapiro W, et al. Predictors of the response to treatment in anemic hemodialysis patients with high serum ferritin and low transferrin saturation. Kidney Int. 2007;71(11):1163-71. PMID: 17396118
50. Ford BA, Eby CS, Scott MG, et al. Intra-individual variability in serum hepcidin precludes its use as a marker of iron status in hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int. 2010;78(8):769-73. PMID: 20668427
51. American Regent, Inc. VENOFER (iron sucrose) injection, prescribing information (FDA label, 2020).
52. Wang C, Graham DJ, Kane RC, et al. Comparative risk of anaphylactic reactions associated with intravenous iron products. JAMA. 2015;314(19):2062-2068. PMID: 26575062
53. AMAG Pharmaceuticals. FERAHEME (ferumoxytol) injection, prescribing information with boxed warning, revised March 2015.
54. Chertow GM, Mason PD, Vaage-Nilsen O, Ahlmén J. Update on adverse drug events associated with parenteral iron. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2006;21(2):378-382. PMID: 16286429
55. Lewis JB, Sika M, Koury MJ, et al. Ferric citrate controls phosphorus and delivers iron in patients on dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;26(2):493-503. PMID: 25060056
56. Umanath K, Jalal DI, Greco BA, et al. Ferric citrate reduces intravenous iron and erythropoiesis-stimulating agent use in ESRD. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;26(10):2578-2587. PMID: 25736045
57. Fishbane SN, Singh AK, Cournoyer SH, et al. Ferric pyrophosphate citrate (Triferic) administration via the dialysate maintains hemoglobin and iron balance in chronic hemodialysis patients (CRUISE 1 and 2). Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2015;30(12):2019-2026. PMID: 26175145
58. Gupta A, Lin V, Guss C, et al. Ferric pyrophosphate citrate administered via dialysate reduces erythropoiesis-stimulating agent use and maintains hemoglobin in hemodialysis patients (PRIME). Kidney Int. 2015;88(5):1187-1194. PMID: 26154926
59. Rockwell Medical, Inc. Third quarter 2022 results press release (SEC filing), November 14, 2022 — discontinuation of US NDAs for TRIFERIC and TRIFERIC AVNU.
60. Chen N, Hao C, Liu BC, et al. Roxadustat treatment for anemia in patients undergoing long-term dialysis. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(11):1011-1022. PMID: 31340116
61. Singh AK, Carroll K, Perkovic V, et al. Daprodustat for the treatment of anemia in patients undergoing dialysis (ASCEND-D). N Engl J Med. 2021;385(25):2325-2335. PMID: 34739194
62. Eckardt KU, Agarwal R, Aswad A, et al. Safety and efficacy of vadadustat for anemia in patients undergoing dialysis (INNO2VATE). N Engl J Med. 2021;384(17):1601-1612. PMID: 33913638
63. Chertow GM, Pergola PE, Farag YMK, et al. Vadadustat in patients with anemia and non-dialysis-dependent CKD (PRO2TECT). N Engl J Med. 2021;384(17):1589-1600. PMID: 33913637
64. Natale P, Palmer SC, Jaure A, et al. Hypoxia-inducible factor stabilisers for the anaemia of chronic kidney disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;8:CD013751. PMID: 36005278
65. Provenzano R, et al. Retraction notice to "Pooled analysis of roxadustat for anemia in patients with kidney failure incident to dialysis." Kidney Int Rep. 2022;7(3):665. PMID: 35257087
66. Akebia Therapeutics. Akebia Therapeutics reports first quarter 2026 financial results and commercial and pipeline highlights. Press release, May 7, 2026.
67. CSL Vifor / Akebia. Vafseo approved by the U.S. FDA for the treatment of anemia due to chronic kidney disease in dialysis-dependent adult patients. Press release, March 28, 2024.
68. GlaxoSmithKline. JESDUVROQ (daprodustat) tablets, prescribing information (initial U.S. approval 2023).
69. Macdougall IC, Obrador GT. How important is transfusion avoidance in 2013? Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013;28(5):1092-1099. PMID: 23486660
70. Carson JL, Stanworth SJ, Guyatt G, et al. Red blood cell transfusion: 2023 AABB international guidelines. JAMA. 2023;330(19):1892-1902. PMID: 37824153
71. Pfeffer MA, Burdmann EA, Chen CY, et al. A trial of darbepoetin alfa in type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (TREAT). N Engl J Med. 2009;361(21):2019-2032. PMID: 19880844

Also in the Maintenance Hemodialysis module

Part of the Maintenance Hemodialysis mastery module. Module index.

• M17a: Anemia: targets, ESAs, and hyporesponsiveness
• M18: Examining and cannulating the AVF/AVG
• M19: Catheter care, lock solutions, and bloodstream infection
• Module: Infection screening and vaccination: HBV, HCV, vaccines
• Module: CKD-MBD monitoring on HD
• Clinical Mastery: Vascular access selection in older patients starting hemodialysis (ACCESS HD)
• Clinical Mastery: Enterococcal endocarditis in hemodialysis patients
• Complete white paper: Screening and health maintenance in maintenance hemodialysis — §8.1 anemia monitoring, updated to KDIGO 2026