-
Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery Apr 2023Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a stroke with a high morbidity and mortality rate. Deferoxamine (DFX) is thought to be effective in treating Intracerebral Hemorrhage.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a stroke with a high morbidity and mortality rate. Deferoxamine (DFX) is thought to be effective in treating Intracerebral Hemorrhage. In our study, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the treatment effects of DFX.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database in Jan 2022 for studies on DFX for ICH patients. Outcome measures included relative hematoma volume, relative edema volume, good neurological functional outcome and adverse events. Odds risk (OR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used to evaluate clinical outcomes.
RESULTS
After searching 636 articles, 4 RCTs, 2 NRCTs, and 1cohort study were included. We found that DFX was effective in hematoma absorption on day 7 after onset, but the difference was not significant on day 14. DFX could suppress edema expansion on days 3, 7, and 14 after onset. DFX did not contribute to better outcomes after 3 and 6 months when used the modified Rankin Scale and the Glasgow Outcome Scale to evaluate neurological prognosis. The pooled results showed no statistically significant difference in Serious adverse events between the experimental and control groups.
CONCLUSIONS
DFX could limit edema expansion on days 3, 7, and 14 after commencement and facilitate hematoma absorption at week 1 without significantly increasing the risk of adverse events, but it did not improve neurological prognosis.
Topics: Humans; Deferoxamine; Siderophores; Cerebral Hemorrhage; Stroke; Hematoma
PubMed: 36857886
DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2023.107634 -
PloS One 2018Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Several recent controlled trials have reported that deferoxamine (DFX)... (Review)
Review
Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Several recent controlled trials have reported that deferoxamine (DFX) therapy appears to be effective for ICH. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of DFX therapy for ICH patients and evaluate the efficacy and safety of DFX therapy for ICH patients. We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, clinicaltrials.gov, all Chinese databases and the reference lists of all included studies and review articles. We then performed a systematic review of studies involving the administration of DFX following ICH. Only two studies were included, a prospective, randomized clinical trial and a prospective,observational cohort study with concurrent groups. Qualitative analysis of each study revealed one randomized controlled trial of moderate quality with a moderate risk of bias and one observational cohort study of moderate quality with a moderate risk of bias. DFX may be an effective treatment for edema in patients with ICH. However, due to the small number of trials and small sample sizes of these trials, insufficient evidence exists to determine the effect of DFX on neurologic outcomes after ICH and the safety of this intervention. Further investigation is required before DFX can become a routine treatment for ICH.
Topics: Cerebral Hemorrhage; Deferoxamine; Humans
PubMed: 29566000
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193615 -
Caspian Journal of Internal Medicine 2017Hearing disorders are reported in thalassemia patients treated with deferoxamine. This study aimed to assess hearing loss in Iranian thalassemia major patients treated... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hearing disorders are reported in thalassemia patients treated with deferoxamine. This study aimed to assess hearing loss in Iranian thalassemia major patients treated with deferoxamine.
METHODS
This review article was designed based on PRISMA guidelines. To review the literature, two researchers studied national and international databases including Iranmedex, Magiran, Medlib, SID, Scopus, PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science and Google Scholar without time limit until May 2017. Cochran's Q test and I index were used to assess the heterogeneity of the studies. The data were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 2 and p<0.05 was considered significant.
RESULTS
A total of 17 articles involving 1,835 Iranian thalassemia major patients treated with deferoxamine were included in the meta-analysis. The overall prevalence of hearing loss was estimated 27.3% (95% confidence intervals (CI): 19-37.6). The prevalence of sensorineural, conductive and mixed hearing loss was estimated 10.6% (95% CI: 5.7-18.8), 14.6% (95% CI: 10.5-20.6) and 9.1% (95% CI: 5.6-14.6), respectively. No significant differences were noted regarding the relationship hearing loss and mean serum ferritin (P=0.29) and average daily deferoxamine (P=0.30). Meta-regression model showed an increased significance in the prevalence of hearing loss based on the year of studies (p<0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
There is a high prevalence of hearing loss in Iranian thalassemia major patients treated with deferoxamine. Therefore, periodic hearing assessments and regular check-ups after the initiation of chelation therapy are necessary.
PubMed: 29201313
DOI: 10.22088/cjim.8.4.239 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Stroke is the second leading cause of death and a major cause of morbidity worldwide. Retrospective clinical and animal studies have demonstrated neuroprotective...
BACKGROUND
Stroke is the second leading cause of death and a major cause of morbidity worldwide. Retrospective clinical and animal studies have demonstrated neuroprotective effects of iron chelators in people with haemorrhagic or ischaemic stroke. This is the first update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of iron-chelating drugs in people with acute stroke.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (2 September 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2019, Issue 9; 2 September 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (2 September 2019), Embase Ovid (2 September 2019), and Science Citation Index (2 September 2019). We also searched ongoing trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of iron chelators versus no iron chelators or placebo for the treatment of acute stroke, including subarachnoid haemorrhage.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the search results. We obtained the full texts of potentially relevant studies and evaluated them for eligibility. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Two RCTs (333 participants) were eligible for inclusion; both compared the iron-chelating agent deferoxamine against placebo. Both studies evaluated participants with spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage. We assessed one study to have a low risk of bias; the other study had potential sources of bias. The limited and heterogeneous data did not allow for meta-analysis of the outcome parameters. The evidence suggests that administration of deferoxamine may result in little to no difference in deaths (8% in placebo vs 8% in deferoxamine at 180 days; 1 RCT, 291 participants; low-certainty evidence). These RCTs suggest that there may be little to no difference in good functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0 to 2) between groups at 30, 90 and 180 days (placebo vs deferoxamine: 67% vs 57% at 30 days and 36% vs 45% at 180 days; 2 RCTs, 333 participants; low-certainty evidence). One RCT suggests that administration of deferoxamine may not increase the number of serious adverse events or deaths (placebo vs deferoxamine: 33% vs 27% at 180 days; risk ratio 0.81, 95 % confidence interval 0.57 to 1.16; 1 RCT, 291 participants; low-certainty evidence). No data were available on any deaths within the treatment period. Deferoxamine may result in little to no difference in the evolution of National Institute of Health Stroke Scale scores from baseline to 90 days (placebo vs deferoxamine: 13 to 4 vs 13 to 3; P = 0.37; 2 RCTs, 333 participants; low-certainty evidence). Deferoxamine may slightly reduce relative oedema surrounding intracerebral haemorrhage at 15 days (placebo vs deferoxamine: 1.91 vs 10.26; P = 0.042; 2 RCTs, 333 participants; low-certainty evidence). Neither study reported quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We identified two eligible RCTs for assessment. We could not demonstrate any benefit for the use of iron chelators in spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage. The added value of iron-chelating therapy in people with ischaemic stroke or subarachnoid haemorrhage remains unknown.
Topics: Acute Disease; Bias; Deferoxamine; Hemorrhagic Stroke; Humans; Iron Chelating Agents; Neuroprotective Agents; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33236783
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009280.pub3 -
Cureus Nov 2023Despite the established efficacy of iron chelation therapy in transfusion-induced iron-overloaded patients, there is no universal agreement regarding the choice of an... (Review)
Review
Despite the established efficacy of iron chelation therapy in transfusion-induced iron-overloaded patients, there is no universal agreement regarding the choice of an optimal chelating regimen. Deferasirox (DFX) and deferiprone (DFP) are two oral iron chelators, and combination usage demonstrated effectiveness as an alternative to monotherapies in patients with a limited response to monotherapy. The present systematic review aimed to assess the evidence regarding the outcomes of combined DFP and DFX in iron-overloaded patients. An online search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases. Interventional and observational studies that assessed the outcomes of combined DFP and DFX in iron-overloaded patients were included. Eleven studies (12 reports) were considered in this meta-analysis. The studies included dual iron chelation strategies for a number of diagnoses. Single-arm studies (n =7) showed a reduction of serum ferritin, which reached the level of statistical significance in three studies. Likewise, most studies reported a numerical reduction in liver iron concentration (LIC) and increased cardiac MRI-T2* values after chelating therapy. Alternatively, comparative studies showed no significant difference in post-treatment serum ferritin between DFX plus DFP and DFX/DFP plus deferoxamine (DFO). The adherence to combination therapy was good to average in nearly 66.7-100% of the patients across four studies. One study reported a poor adherence rate. The combined regimen was generally tolerable, with no reported incidence of serious adverse events among the included studies. In conclusion, the DFP and DFX combination is a safe and feasible option for iron overload patients with a limited response to monotherapy.
PubMed: 38058350
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.48276 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2017Thalassaemia is a hereditary anaemia due to ineffective erythropoiesis. In particular, people with thalassaemia major develop secondary iron overload resulting from... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Thalassaemia is a hereditary anaemia due to ineffective erythropoiesis. In particular, people with thalassaemia major develop secondary iron overload resulting from regular red blood cell transfusions. Iron chelation therapy is needed to prevent long-term complications.Both deferoxamine and deferiprone are effective; however, a review of the effectiveness and safety of the newer oral chelator deferasirox in people with thalassaemia is needed.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral deferasirox in people with thalassaemia and iron overload.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 12 August 2016.We also searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Biosis Previews, Web of Science Core Collection and three trial registries: ClinicalTrials.gov; the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; and the Internet Portal of the German Clinical Trials Register: 06 and 07 August 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled studies comparing deferasirox with no therapy or placebo or with another iron-chelating treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS
Sixteen studies involving 1807 randomised participants (range 23 to 586 participants) were included. Twelve two-arm studies compared deferasirox to placebo (two studies) or deferoxamine (seven studies) or deferiprone (one study) or the combination of deferasirox and deferoxamine to deferoxamine alone (one study). One study compared the combination of deferasirox and deferiprone to deferiprone in combination with deferoxamine. Three three-arm studies compared deferasirox to deferoxamine and deferiprone (two studies) or the combination of deferasirox and deferiprone to deferiprone and deferasirox monotherapy respectively (one study). One four-arm study compared two different doses of deferasirox to matching placebo groups.The two studies (a pharmacokinetic and a dose-escalation study) comparing deferasirox to placebo (n = 47) in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia showed that deferasirox leads to net iron excretion. In these studies, safety was acceptable and further investigation in phase II and phase III studies was warranted.Nine studies (1251 participants) provided data for deferasirox versus standard treatment with deferoxamine. Data suggest that a similar efficacy can be achieved depending on the ratio of doses of deferoxamine and deferasirox being compared. In the phase III study, similar or superior efficacy for the intermediate markers ferritin and liver iron concentration (LIC) could only be achieved in the highly iron-overloaded subgroup at a mean ratio of 1 mg of deferasirox to 1.8 mg of deferoxamine corresponding to a mean dose of 28.2 mg per day and 51.6 mg per day respectively. The pooled effects across the different dosing ratios are: serum ferritin, mean difference (MD) 454.42 ng/mL (95% confidence interval (CI) 337.13 to 571.71) (moderate quality evidence); LIC evaluated by biopsy or SQUID, MD 2.37 mg Fe/g dry weight (95% CI 1.68 to 3.07) (moderate quality evidence) and responder analysis, LIC 1 to < 7 mg Fe/g dry weight, risk ratio (RR) 0.80 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.92) (moderate quality evidence). The substantial heterogeneity observed could be explained by the different dosing ratios. Data on mortality (low quality evidence) and on safety at the presumably required doses for effective chelation therapy are limited. Patient satisfaction was better with deferasirox among those who had previously received deferoxamine treatment, RR 2.20 (95% CI 1.89 to 2.57) (moderate quality evidence). The rate of discontinuations was similar for both drugs (low quality evidence).For the remaining comparisons in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia, the quality of the evidence for outcomes assessed was low to very low, mainly due to the very small number of participants included. Four studies (205 participants) compared deferasirox to deferiprone; one of which (41 participants) revealed a higher number of participants experiencing arthralgia in the deferiprone group, but due to the large number of different types of adverse events reported and compared this result is uncertain. One study (96 participants) compared deferasirox combined with deferiprone to deferiprone with deferoxamine. Participants treated with the combination of the oral iron chelators had a higher adherence compared to those treated with deferiprone and deferoxamine, but no participants discontinued the study. In the comparisons of deferasirox versus combined deferasirox and deferiprone and that of deferiprone versus combined deferasirox and deferiprone (one study, 40 participants), and deferasirox and deferoxamine versus deferoxamine alone (one study, 94 participants), only a few patient-relevant outcomes were reported and no significant differences were observed.One study (166 participants) included people with non-transfusion dependent thalassaemia and compared two different doses of deferasirox to placebo. Deferasirox treatment reduced serum ferritin, MD -306.74 ng/mL (95% CI -398.23 to -215.24) (moderate quality evidence) and LIC, MD -3.27 mg Fe/g dry weight (95% CI -4.44 to -2.09) (moderate quality evidence), while the number of participants experiencing adverse events and rate of discontinuations (low quality evidence) was similar in both groups. No participant died, but data on mortality were limited due to a follow-up period of only one year (moderate quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Deferasirox offers an important treatment option for people with thalassaemia and secondary iron overload. Based on the available data, deferasirox does not seem to be superior to deferoxamine at the usually recommended ratio of 1 mg of deferasirox to 2 mg of deferoxamine. However, similar efficacy seems to be achievable depending on the dose and ratio of deferasirox compared to deferoxamine. Whether this will result in similar efficacy and will translate to similar benefits in the long term, as has been shown for deferoxamine, needs to be confirmed. Data from randomised controlled trials on rare toxicities and long-term safety are still limited. However, after a detailed discussion of the potential benefits and risks, deferasirox could be offered as the first-line option to individuals who show a strong preference for deferasirox, and may be a reasonable treatment option for people showing an intolerance or poor adherence to deferoxamine.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Benzoates; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Deferasirox; Deferiprone; Deferoxamine; Erythrocyte Transfusion; Ferritins; Humans; Iron Chelating Agents; Iron Overload; Patient Satisfaction; Pyridones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thalassemia; Triazoles
PubMed: 28809446
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007476.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014The myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) comprises a diverse group of haematopoietic stem cell disorders. Due to symptomatic anaemia, most people with MDS require supportive... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) comprises a diverse group of haematopoietic stem cell disorders. Due to symptomatic anaemia, most people with MDS require supportive therapy including repeated red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. In combination with increased iron absorption, this contributes to the accumulation of iron resulting in secondary iron overload and the risk of organ dysfunction and reduced life expectancy. Since the human body has no natural means of removing excess iron, iron chelation therapy, i.e. the pharmacological treatment of iron overload, is usually recommended. However, it is unclear whether or not the newer oral chelator deferasirox leads to relevant benefit.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral deferasirox for managing iron overload in people with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 03 April 2014: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Biosis Previews, Web of Science, Derwent Drug File and four trial registries: Current Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), ICTRP (www.who.int./ictrp/en/), and German Clinical Trial Register (www.drks.de).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing deferasirox with no therapy, placebo or with another iron-chelating treatment schedule.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We did not identify any trials eligible for inclusion in this review.
MAIN RESULTS
No trials met our inclusion criteria. However, we identified three ongoing and one completed trial (published as an abstract only and in insufficient detail to permit us to decide on inclusion) comparing deferasirox with deferoxamine, placebo or no treatment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We planned to report evidence from RCTs that evaluated the effectiveness of deferasirox compared to either placebo, no treatment or other chelating regimens, such as deferoxamine, in people with MDS. However, we did not identify any completed RCTs addressing this question.We found three ongoing and one completed RCT (published as an abstract only and in insufficient detail) comparing deferasirox with deferoxamine, placebo or no treatment and data will hopefully be available soon. These results will be important to inform physicians and patients on the advantages and disadvantages of this treatment option.
Topics: Benzoates; Chelation Therapy; Deferasirox; Humans; Iron Chelating Agents; Iron Overload; Myelodysplastic Syndromes; Triazoles
PubMed: 25348770
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007461.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2023Regularly transfused people with sickle cell disease (SCD) and people with thalassaemia are at risk of iron overload. Iron overload can lead to iron toxicity in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Regularly transfused people with sickle cell disease (SCD) and people with thalassaemia are at risk of iron overload. Iron overload can lead to iron toxicity in vulnerable organs such as the heart, liver and endocrine glands, which can be prevented and treated with iron-chelating agents. The intensive demands and uncomfortable side effects of therapy can have a negative impact on daily activities and wellbeing, which may affect adherence.
OBJECTIVES
To identify and assess the effectiveness of different types of interventions (psychological and psychosocial, educational, medication interventions, or multi-component interventions) and interventions specific to different age groups, to improve adherence to iron chelation therapy compared to another listed intervention, or standard care in people with SCD or thalassaemia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations & Global Theses, Web of Science & Social Sciences Conference Proceedings Indexes and ongoing trial databases (13 December 2021). We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register (1 August 2022).
SELECTION CRITERIA
For trials comparing medications or medication changes, only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion. For studies including psychological and psychosocial interventions, educational interventions, or multi-component interventions, non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series studies with adherence as a primary outcome were also eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For this update, two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 19 RCTs and one NRSI published between 1997 and 2021. One trial assessed medication management, one assessed an education intervention (NRSI) and 18 RCTs were of medication interventions. Medications assessed were subcutaneous deferoxamine, and two oral chelating agents, deferiprone and deferasirox. We rated the certainty of evidence as very low to low across all outcomes identified in this review. Four trials measured quality of life (QoL) with validated instruments, but provided no analysable data and reported no difference in QoL. We identified nine comparisons of interest. 1. Deferiprone versus deferoxamine We are uncertain whether or not deferiprone affects adherence to iron chelation therapy (four RCTs, unpooled, very low-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 1.21; 3 RCTs, 376 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or serious adverse events (SAEs) (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.46; 1 RCT, 228 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adherence was reported as "good", "high" or "excellent" by all seven trials, though the data could not be analysed formally: adherence ranged from 69% to 95% (deferiprone, mean 86.6%), and 71% to 93% (deferoxamine, mean 78.8%), based on five trials (474 participants) only. 2. Deferasirox versus deferoxamine We are uncertain whether or not deferasirox affects adherence to iron chelation therapy (three RCTs, unpooled, very low-certainty evidence), although medication adherence was high in all trials. We are uncertain whether or not there is any difference between the drug therapies in serious adverse events (SAEs) (SCD or thalassaemia) or all-cause mortality (thalassaemia). 3. Deferiprone versus deferasirox We are uncertain if there is a difference between oral deferiprone and deferasirox based on a single trial in children (average age 9 to 10 years) with any hereditary haemoglobinopathy in adherence, SAEs and all-cause mortality. 4. Deferasirox film-coated tablet (FCT) versus deferasirox dispersible tablet (DT) One RCT compared deferasirox in different tablet forms. There may be a preference for FCTs, shown through a trend for greater adherence (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 88 participants), although medication adherence was high in both groups (FCT 92.9%; DT 85.3%). We are uncertain if there is a benefit in chelation-related AEs with FCTs. We are uncertain if there is a difference in the incidence of SAEs, all-cause mortality or sustained adherence. 5. Deferiprone and deferoxamine combined versus deferiprone alone We are uncertain if there is a difference in adherence, though reporting was usually narrative as triallists report it was "excellent" in both groups (three RCTs, unpooled). We are uncertain if there is a difference in the incidence of SAEs and all-cause mortality. 6. Deferiprone and deferoxamine combined versus deferoxamine alone We are uncertain if there is a difference in adherence (four RCTs), SAEs (none reported in the trial period) and all-cause mortality (no deaths reported in the trial period). There was high adherence in all trials. 7. Deferiprone and deferoxamine combined versus deferiprone and deferasirox combined There may be a difference in favour of deferiprone and deferasirox (combined) in rates of adherence (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.99) (one RCT), although it was high (> 80%) in both groups. We are uncertain if there is a difference in SAEs, and no deaths were reported in the trial, so we cannot draw conclusions based on these data (one RCT). 8. Medication management versus standard care We are uncertain if there is a difference in QoL (one RCT), and we could not assess adherence due to a lack of reporting in the control group. 9. Education versus standard care One quasi-experimental (NRSI) study could not be analysed due to the severe baseline confounding.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The medication comparisons included in this review had higher than average adherence rates not accounted for by differences in medication administration or side effects, though often follow-up was not good (high dropout over longer trials), with adherence based on a per protocol analysis. Participants may have been selected based on higher adherence to trial medications at baseline. Also, within the clinical trial context, there is increased attention and involvement of clinicians, thus high adherence rates may be an artefact of trial participation. Real-world, pragmatic trials in community and clinic settings are needed that examine both confirmed or unconfirmed adherence strategies that may increase adherence to iron chelation therapy. Due to lack of evidence this review cannot comment on intervention strategies for different age groups.
Topics: Child; Humans; Anemia, Sickle Cell; Chelating Agents; Chelation Therapy; Deferoxamine; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Iron; Thalassemia
PubMed: 36877640
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012349.pub3 -
PloS One 2015Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a subtype of stroke associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. No proven treatments are available for this condition.... (Review)
Review
Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a subtype of stroke associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. No proven treatments are available for this condition. Iron-mediated free radical injury is associated with secondary damage following ICH. Deferoxamine (DFX), a ferric-iron chelator, is a candidate drug for the treatment of ICH. We performed a systematic review of studies involving the administration of DFX following ICH. In total, 20 studies were identified that described the efficacy of DFX in animal models of ICH and assessed changes in the brain water content, neurobehavioral score, or both. DFX reduced the brain water content by 85.7% in animal models of ICH (-0.86, 95% CI: -.48- -0.23; P < 0.01; 23 comparisons), and improved the neurobehavioral score by -1.08 (95% CI: -1.23- -0.92; P < 0.01; 62 comparisons). DFX was most efficacious when administered 2-4 h after ICH at a dose of 10-50 mg/kg depending on species, and this beneficial effect remained for up to 24 h postinjury. The efficacy was higher with phenobarbital anesthesia, intramuscular injection, and lysed erythrocyte infusion, and in Fischer 344 rats or aged animals. Overall, although DFX was found to be effective in experimental ICH, additional confirmation is needed due to possible publication bias, poor study quality, and the limited number of studies conducting clinical trials.
Topics: Animals; Cerebral Hemorrhage; Deferoxamine; Disease Models, Animal; Mice; Rats; Siderophores; Swine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26000830
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127256 -
Mediterranean Journal of Hematology and... 2019Deferoxamine (DFO) or Deferiprone (DFP) or Deferasirox (DFX) monotherapy and DFO and DFP combination therapy (DFO+DFP) were four commonly implemented now chelation... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Deferoxamine (DFO) or Deferiprone (DFP) or Deferasirox (DFX) monotherapy and DFO and DFP combination therapy (DFO+DFP) were four commonly implemented now chelation regimens for the iron overloaded of β-thalassemia major. This systematic review aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of four chelation regimens and provide evidence for the rational use of chelation regimens for β-thalassemia major therapy in the clinic.
METHODS
A systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, China Biology Medicine, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Data, and WanFang Data was conducted in April 2018. In addition, a manual search was performed. Two researchers, working independently, selected the papers, extracted the data, and assessed the methodological quality of the included documents. Each included paper was evaluated using a checklist developed by Drummond .
RESULTS
The number of records was initially 968, and eight papers met the final eligibility criteria. All the included eight papers were cost-utility analyses, and their methodological quality was fair. In these eight papers, nineteen studies were present. Nine studies of DFX versus DFO had contradictory results. Out of the nineteen studies, three studies of DFX versus DFP established that using DFP was cost-effective. Three studies of DFP versus DFO proved that using DFP was cost-effective. One survey of DFO+DFP versus DFO found that using DFO was cost-effective. One study of DFO+DFP versus DFP found that using DFP was cost-effective. Moreover, there were two studies of DFO+DFP versus DFX, but we cannot be sure which one of two chelation regimens was cost-effective.
CONCLUSION
In brief, DFP is cost-effective, followed by DFO or DFX, when an iron chelator is to be used alone for β-thalassemia iron overload treatment. All studies that compared DFO+DFP with DFO (or DFP) monotherapy established that the DFO+DFP was not cost-effective. Existing studies about DFO+DFP versus DFX could not prove which one of two chelation regimens was cost-effective. However, due to the low number of DFO+DFP versus DFO (or DFP or DFX) monotherapy studies, more extensive, high-quality research is required for further analysis and confirmation of our findings. Moreover, the cost-effectiveness is not an absolute issue when in different countries (regions) the results are opposite for other countries (regions). As a result, the local/national context had a substantial influence on the results of the pharmacoeconomic evaluation.
PubMed: 31308912
DOI: 10.4084/MJHID.2019.036