The differing statistical

significance of the results between the two studies may be explained by the very low numbers in our study hampering our ability selleck chemicals to detect a significant difference in 6MWT results. Alternative possibilities include the differing study populations (unexplained anemia vs. congestive heart failure), dose and formulation of intravenous iron given, and baseline 6MWT results, which were higher in our study. The study intervention was well tolerated, and there were no serious adverse events considered to be related to the study drug. With regard to secondary outcomes, a modest increase in hemoglobin was seen in the immediate intervention group compared to the wait list control group at 12 weeks. In addition, one patient in each group had an increase of at least 1 g/dL in hemoglobin at 12 weeks following initiation of IVIS. This suggests the possibility that a subgroup of subjects

with UAE may respond to parenteral iron therapy. Interestingly, the increase in hemoglobin was not correlated with iron indices, although again, small numbers preclude making more definitive observations about these findings. One of the lessons learned was the great difficulty in recruiting subjects to this type of study. All of the participating institutions were well-established clinical trial sites with histories of robust accrual to clinical trials. Subjects were vigorously recruited through multiple mechanisms, including specialty clinic and primary care referrals, the placement of study flyers at hospital and clinic this website sites, newspaper advertisements, the mailing of thousands of flyers to targeted population areas, electronic PRKACG medical record searching, chart reviews, and investigator-led anemia lectures at local community and senior centers. Approximately 1000 subjects were voluntarily reported by the sites to have been prescreened for the study. Nonetheless, despite intense recruitment efforts, including targeted mailing, which in some studies of the elderly has been shown to be the most effective

recruitment maneuver [20] and [21], enrollment remained poor and the study was terminated early. Poor recruitment was likely driven by multiple factors, including the general clinician tendency to ignore typically mild anemia in older adults in the face of more prominent medical issues, the complex requirements for this study, including extensive functional testing, and the logistical difficulties for older adults in participating in interventional studies with involved follow-up. One of the most important barriers to recruitment was the overly restrictive eligibility criteria, which led to the exclusion of many subjects. In addition, the negative results from studies using erythropoietic agents may have blunted enthusiasm for anemia trials in general [22], [23] and [24].