-
Therapeutic Advances in Rare Disease 2022The rare inherited autosomal recessive disease Friedreich ataxia (FA) causes progressive neurodegenerative changes and disability in patients. A systematic literature... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The rare inherited autosomal recessive disease Friedreich ataxia (FA) causes progressive neurodegenerative changes and disability in patients. A systematic literature review (SLR) was carried out to understand and summarize the published efficacy and safety of therapeutic interventions in this disease.
METHODS
Database searches were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane by two independent reviewers. In addition, trial registries and conference proceedings were hand-searched.
RESULTS
Thirty-two publications were deemed eligible according to PICOS criteria. Twenty-four publications detail randomized controlled trials. The most frequently identified therapeutic intervention was idebenone ( = 11), followed by recombinant erythropoietin ( = 6), omaveloxolone ( = 3), and amantadine hydrochloride ( = 2). Other therapeutic interventions were investigated in one publication: A0001, CoQ10, creatine, deferiprone, interferon-γ-1b, the L-carnitine levorotatory form of 5-hydroxytryptophan, luvadaxistat, resveratrol, RT001, and vatiquinone (EPI-743). These studies included patients from 8 to 73 years old, and disease duration varied from 4.7 to 19 years. Disease severity as per the mean GAA1 and GAA2 allele repeat length ranged from 350 to 930 and 620 to 987 nucleotides, respectively. Most frequently reported efficacy outcomes were the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS, = 10), the Friedreich Ataxia Rating Scale (modified FARS and FARS-neuro, = 12), the Scale for Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA, = 7), and the Activities of Daily Living scale (ADL, = 8). Each of these assesses the severity of disability in FA patients. In many studies, patients with FA deteriorated according to these severity scales regardless of treatment, or inconclusive results were found. Generally, these therapeutic interventions were well-tolerated and safe. Serious adverse events were atrial fibrillation ( = 1), craniocerebral injury ( = 1), and ventricular tachycardia ( = 1).
CONCLUSION
Identified literature showed a considerable unmet need for therapeutic interventions that halt or slow the deteriorating nature of FA. Novel efficacious drugs should be investigated that aim to improve symptoms or slow disease progression.
PubMed: 37180421
DOI: 10.1177/26330040221139872 -
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 -
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 -
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes Feb 2024Understanding consequences of poor chelation compliance is crucial given the enormous burden of post-transfusional iron overload complications. We systematically... (Review)
Review
Understanding consequences of poor chelation compliance is crucial given the enormous burden of post-transfusional iron overload complications. We systematically reviewed iron-chelation therapy (ICT) compliance, and the relationship between compliance with health outcome and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in thalassaemia patients. Several reviewers performed systematic search strategy of literature through PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCOhost. The preferred reporting items of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Of 4917 studies, 20 publications were included. The ICT compliance rate ranges from 20.93 to 75.3%. It also varied per agent, ranging from 48.84 to 85.1% for desferioxamine, 87.2-92.2% for deferiprone and 90-100% for deferasirox. Majority of studies (N = 10/11, 90.91%) demonstrated significantly negative correlation between compliance and serum ferritin, while numerous studies revealed poor ICT compliance linked with increased risk of liver disease (N = 4/7, 57.14%) and cardiac disease (N = 6/8, 75%), endocrinologic morbidity (N = 4/5, 90%), and lower HRQoL (N = 4/6, 66.67%). Inadequate compliance to ICT therapy is common. Higher compliance is correlated with lower serum ferritin, lower risk of complications, and higher HRQoL. These findings should be interpreted with caution given the few numbers of evidence.
Topics: Humans; Iron Chelating Agents; Deferasirox; Deferiprone; Deferoxamine; Quality of Life; Pyridones; Benzoates; Triazoles; Thalassemia; Chelation Therapy; Ferritins; Outcome Assessment, Health Care
PubMed: 38302961
DOI: 10.1186/s12955-023-02221-y -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2013Thalassaemia major is a genetic disease characterised by a reduced ability to produce haemoglobin. Management of the resulting anaemia is through red blood cell... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Thalassaemia major is a genetic disease characterised by a reduced ability to produce haemoglobin. Management of the resulting anaemia is through red blood cell transfusions.Repeated transfusions result in an excessive accumulation of iron in the body (iron overload), removal of which is achieved through iron chelation therapy. A commonly used iron chelator, deferiprone, has been found to be pharmacologically efficacious. However, important questions exist about the efficacy and safety of deferiprone compared to another iron chelator, desferrioxamine.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise data from trials on the clinical efficacy and safety of deferiprone and to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of deferiprone with desferrioxamine for thalassaemia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies trials Register and MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), LILACS and other international medical databases, plus registers of ongoing trials and the Transfusion Evidence Library (www.transfusionevidencelibrary.com). We also contacted the manufacturers of deferiprone and desferrioxamine.All searches were updated to 05 March 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing deferiprone with another iron chelator; or comparing two schedules or doses of deferiprone, in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trials for risk of bias and extracted data. Missing data were requested from the original investigators.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 17 trials involving 1061 participants (range 13 to 213 participants per trial) were included. Of these, 16 trials compared either deferiprone alone with desferrioxamine alone, or a combined therapy of deferiprone and desferrioxamine with either deferiprone alone or desferrioxamine alone; one compared different schedules of deferiprone. There was little consistency between outcomes and limited information to fully assess the risk of bias of most of the included trials.Four trials reported mortality; each reported the death of one individual receiving deferiprone with or without desferrioxamine. One trial reported five further deaths in patients who withdrew from randomised treatment (deferiprone with or without desferrioxamine) and switched to desferrioxamine alone. Seven trials reported cardiac function or liver fibrosis as measures of end organ damage.Earlier trials measuring the cardiac iron load indirectly by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) T2* signal had suggested deferiprone may reduce cardiac iron more quickly than desferrioxamine. However, a meta-analysis of two trials suggested that left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly reduced in patients who received desferrioxamine alone compared with combination therapy. One trial, which planned five years of follow up, was stopped early due to the beneficial effects of combined treatment compared with deferiprone alone in terms of serum ferritin levels reduction.The results of this and three other trials suggest an advantage of combined therapy over monotherapy to reduce iron stores as measured by serum ferritin. There is, however, no conclusive or consistent evidence for the improved efficacy of combined deferiprone and desferrioxamine therapy over monotherapy from direct or indirect measures of liver iron. Both deferiprone and desferrioxamine produce a significant reduction in iron stores in transfusion-dependent, iron-overloaded people. There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials to suggest that either has a greater reduction of clinically significant end organ damage.Evidence of adverse events were observed in all treatment groups. Occurrence of any adverse event was significantly more likely with deferiprone than desferrioxamine in one trial, RR 2.24 (95% CI 1.19 to 4.23). Meta-analysis of a further two trials showed a significant increased risk of adverse events associated with combined deferiprone and desferrioxamine compared with desferrioxamine alone, RR 3.04 (95% CI 1.18 to 7.83). The most commonly reported adverse event was joint pain, which occurred significantly more frequently in patients receiving deferiprone than desferrioxamine, RR 2.64 (95% CI 1.21 to 5.77). Other common adverse events included gastrointestinal disturbances as well as neutropenia or leucopenia, or both.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In the absence of data from randomised controlled trials, there is no evidence to suggest the need for a change in current treatment recommendations; namely that deferiprone is indicated for treating iron overload in people with thalassaemia major when desferrioxamine is contraindicated or inadequate. Intensified desferrioxamine treatment (by either subcutaneous or intravenous route) or use of other oral iron chelators, or both, remains the established treatment to reverse cardiac dysfunction due to iron overload. Indeed, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently only gave support for deferiprone to be used as a last resort for treating iron overload in thalassaemia, myelodysplasia and sickle cell disease. However, there is evidence that adverse events are increased in patients treated with deferiprone compared with desferrioxamine and in patients treated with combined deferiprone and desferrioxamine compared with desferrioxamine alone. There is an urgent need for adequately-powered, high-quality trials comparing the overall clinical efficacy and long-term outcome of deferiprone with desferrioxamine.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Chelation Therapy; Deferiprone; Deferoxamine; Humans; Iron Chelating Agents; Iron Overload; Pyridones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thalassemia; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 23966105
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004839.pub3 -
American Journal of Hematology Jul 2018Red blood cell transfusions have become standard of care for the prevention of life-threatening anemia in patients with β-thalassemia and sickle cell disease (SCD)....
Red blood cell transfusions have become standard of care for the prevention of life-threatening anemia in patients with β-thalassemia and sickle cell disease (SCD). However, frequent transfusions can lead to accumulation of iron that can result in liver cirrhosis, diabetes mellitus, arthritis, arrhythmias, cardiomyopathy, heart failure, and hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. Iron chelation therapy has been shown to reduce serum ferritin levels and liver iron content, but limitations of trial design have prevented any demonstration of improved survival. The objective of this systematic review was to investigate the impact of iron chelation therapy on overall and event-free survival in patients with β-thalassemia and SCD. Eighteen articles discussing survival in β-thalassemia and 3 in SCD were identified. Overall iron chelation therapy resulted in better overall survival, especially if it is instituted early and compliance is maintained. Comparative studies did not show any significant differences between available iron chelation agents, although there is evidence that deferiprone is better tolerated than deferoxamine and that compliance is more readily maintained with the newer oral drugs, deferiprone and deferasirox. Iron chelation therapy, particularly the second-generation oral agents, appears to be associated with improved overall and event-free survival in transfusion-dependent patients with β-thalassemia and patients with SCD.
Topics: Anemia, Sickle Cell; Blood Transfusion; Deferiprone; Deferoxamine; Humans; Iron Chelating Agents; Medication Adherence; Survival Analysis; beta-Thalassemia
PubMed: 29635754
DOI: 10.1002/ajh.25103 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2005Thalassaemia major is a genetic disease characterised by a reduced ability to produce haemoglobin. Management of the resulting anaemia is through transfusions of red... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Thalassaemia major is a genetic disease characterised by a reduced ability to produce haemoglobin. Management of the resulting anaemia is through transfusions of red blood cells. Repeated transfusions results in excessive accumulation of iron in the body (iron overload), removal of which is achieved through iron chelation therapy. Desferrioxamine is the most widely used iron chelator. Substantial data have shown the beneficial effects of desferrioxamine. However, important questions exist about whether desferrioxamine is the best schedule for iron chelation therapy.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness (dose and method of administration) of desferrioxamine in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ZETOC, Current Controlled Trials and bibliographies of relevant publications. We also contacted the manufacturers of desferrioxamine and other iron chelators. Date of last searches: April 2004.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing desferrioxamine with placebo; with another iron chelator; or comparing two schedules of desferrioxamine, in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Four authors working independently, were involved in trial quality assessment and data extraction. Missing data were requested from the original investigators.
MAIN RESULTS
Eight trials involving 334 people (range 20 to 144 people) were included. One trial compared desferrioxamine with placebo, five compared desferrioxamine with another iron chelator (deferiprone) and two compared different schedules of desferrioxamine. Overall, few trials measured the same outcomes.Compared to placebo, desferrioxamine significantly reduced iron overload. The number of deaths at 12 years follow up and evidence of reduced end-organ damage was less for desferrioxamine than placebo. When desferrioxamine was compared to deferiprone or a different desferrioxamine schedule there were no statistically significant differences in measures of iron overload. Compliance was recorded by two trials. Compliance was less for desferrioxamine than deferiprone in one trial and of no difference in comparison with desferrioxamine and deferiprone combined with a second trial. Adverse events were recorded in trials comparing desferrioxamine with other iron chelators. There was evidence of adverse events in all treatment groups. In one trial, adverse events were significantly less likely with desferrioxamine than deferiprone, relative risk 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.84). Assessment of the methodological quality of included trials was not possible, given the general absence of these data in the trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no reason to change current treatment recommendations. However, considerable uncertainty continues to exist about the optimal schedule for desferrioxamine in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia.
Topics: Chelation Therapy; Deferiprone; Deferoxamine; Humans; Iron Chelating Agents; Iron Overload; Pyridones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thalassemia; Transfusion Reaction
PubMed: 16235363
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004450.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2013Thalassaemia major is a genetic disease characterised by a reduced ability to produce haemoglobin. Management of the resulting anaemia is through red blood cell... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Thalassaemia major is a genetic disease characterised by a reduced ability to produce haemoglobin. Management of the resulting anaemia is through red blood cell transfusions.Repeated transfusions result in an excessive accumulation of iron in the body (iron overload), removal of which is achieved through iron chelation therapy. Desferrioxamine mesylate (desferrioxamine) is one of the most widely used iron chelators. Substantial data have shown the beneficial effects of desferrioxamine, although adherence to desferrioxamine therapy is a challenge. Alternative oral iron chelators, deferiprone and deferasirox, are now commonly used. Important questions exist about whether desferrioxamine, as monotherapy or in combination with an oral iron chelator, is the best treatment for iron chelation therapy.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness (dose and method of administration) of desferrioxamine in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia.To summarise data from trials on the clinical efficacy and safety of desferrioxamine for thalassaemia and to compare these with deferiprone and deferasirox.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register. We also searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), LILACS and other international medical databases, plus ongoing trials registers and the Transfusion Evidence Library (www.transfusionevidencelibrary.com). All searches were updated to 5 March 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing desferrioxamine with placebo, with another iron chelator, or comparing two schedules or doses of desferrioxamine, in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Six authors working independently were involved in trial quality assessment and data extraction. For one trial, investigators supplied additional data upon request.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 22 trials involving 2187 participants (range 11 to 586 people) were included. These trials included eight comparisons between desferrioxamine alone and deferiprone alone; five comparisons between desferrioxamine combined with deferiprone and deferiprone alone; eight comparisons between desferrioxamine alone and desferrioxamine combined with deferiprone; two comparisons of desferrioxamine with deferasirox; and two comparisons of different routes of desferrioxamine administration (bolus versus continuous infusion). Overall, few trials measured the same or long-term outcomes. Seven trials reported cardiac function or liver fibrosis as measures of end organ damage; none of these included a comparison with deferasirox.Five trials reported a total of seven deaths; three in patients who received desferrioxamine alone, two in patients who received desferrioxamine and deferiprone. A further death occurred in a patient who received deferiprone in another who received deferasirox alone. One trial reported five further deaths in patients who withdrew from randomised treatment (deferiprone with or without desferrioxamine) and switched to desferrioxamine alone.One trial planned five years of follow up but was stopped early due to the beneficial effects of a reduction in serum ferritin levels in those receiving combined desferrioxamine and deferiprone treatment compared with deferiprone alone. The results of this and three other trials suggest an advantage of combined therapy with desferrioxamine and deferiprone over monotherapy to reduce iron stores as measured by serum ferritin. There is, however, no evidence for the improved efficacy of combined desferrioxamine and deferiprone therapy against monotherapy from direct or indirect measures of liver iron.Earlier trials measuring the cardiac iron load indirectly by measurement of the magnetic resonance imaging T2* signal had suggested deferiprone may reduce cardiac iron more quickly than desferrioxamine. However, meta-analysis of two trials showed a significantly lower left ventricular ejection fraction in patients who received desferrioxamine alone compared with those who received combination therapy using desferrioxamine with deferiprone.Adverse events were recorded by 18 trials. These occurred with all treatments, but were significantly less likely with desferrioxamine than deferiprone in one trial, relative risk 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.84) and significantly less likely with desferrioxamine alone than desferrioxamine combined with deferiprone in two other trials, relative risk 0.33 (95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.84). In particular, four studies reported permanent treatment withdrawal due to adverse events from deferiprone; only one of these reported permanent withdrawals associated with desferrioxamine. Adverse events also occurred at a higher frequency in patients who received deferasirox than desferrioxamine in one trial. Eight trials reported local adverse reactions at the site of desferrioxamine infusion including pain and swelling. Adverse events associated with deferiprone included joint pain, gastrointestinal disturbance, increases in liver enzymes and neutropenia; adverse events associated with deferasirox comprised increases in liver enzymes and renal impairment. Regular monitoring of white cell counts has been recommended for deferiprone and monitoring of liver and renal function for deferasirox.In summary, desferrioxamine and the oral iron chelators deferiprone and deferasirox produce significant reductions in iron stores in transfusion-dependent, iron-overloaded people. There is no evidence from randomised clinical trials to suggest that any one of these has a greater reduction of clinically significant end organ damage, although in two trials, combination therapy with desferrioxamine and deferiprone showed a greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction than desferrioxamine used alone.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Desferrioxamine is the recommended first-line therapy for iron overload in people with thalassaemia major and deferiprone or deferasirox are indicated for treating iron overload when desferrioxamine is contraindicated or inadequate. Oral deferasirox has been licensed for use in children aged over six years who receive frequent blood transfusions and in children aged two to five years who receive infrequent blood transfusions. In the absence of randomised controlled trials with long-term follow up, there is no compelling evidence to change this conclusion.Worsening iron deposition in the myocardium in patients receiving desferrioxamine alone would suggest a change of therapy by intensification of desferrioxamine treatment or the use of desferrioxamine and deferiprone combination therapy.Adverse events are increased in patients treated with deferiprone compared with desferrioxamine and in patients treated with combined deferiprone and desferrioxamine compared with desferrioxamine alone. People treated with all chelators must be kept under close medical supervision and treatment with deferiprone or deferasirox requires regular monitoring of neutrophil counts or renal function respectively. There is an urgent need for adequately-powered, high-quality trials comparing the overall clinical efficacy and long-term outcomes of deferiprone, deferasirox and desferrioxamine.
Topics: Benzoates; Chelation Therapy; Deferasirox; Deferiprone; Deferoxamine; Humans; Iron Chelating Agents; Iron Overload; Pyridones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Siderophores; Thalassemia; Transfusion Reaction; Triazoles
PubMed: 23963793
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004450.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2010Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a group of genetic haemoglobin disorders. Increasingly, some people with SCD develop secondary iron overload due to occasional red blood... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a group of genetic haemoglobin disorders. Increasingly, some people with SCD develop secondary iron overload due to occasional red blood cell transfusions or are on long-term transfusion programmes for e.g. secondary stroke prevention. Iron chelation therapy can prevent long-term complications.Deferoxamine and deferiprone have been found to be efficacious. However, questions exist about the effectiveness and safety of the new oral chelator deferasirox.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral deferasirox in people with SCD and secondary iron overload.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cystic Fibrosis & Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register (06 April 2010).We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBMR, Biosis Previews, Web of Science, Derwent Drug File, XTOXLINE and three trial registries: www.controlled-trials.com; www.clinicaltrials.gov; www.who.int./ictrp/en/. Most recent searches: 22 June 2009.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing deferasirox with no therapy or placebo or with another iron chelating treatment schedule.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We contacted the study author for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS
One study (203 people) was included comparing the efficacy and safety of deferasirox and deferoxamine after 12 months. Data were not available on mortality or end-organ damage. Using a pre-specified dosing algorithm serum ferritin reduction was similar in both groups, mean difference (MD) 375.00 microg/l in favour of deferoxamine; (95% confidence interval (CI) -106.08 to 856.08). Liver iron concentration measured by superconduction quantum interference device showed no difference for the overall group of patients adjusted for transfusion category, MD -0.20 mg Fe/g dry weight (95% CI -3.15 to 2.75).Mild stable increases in creatine were observed more often in people treated with deferasirox, risk ratio 1.64 (95% CI 0.98 to 2.74). Abdominal pain and diarrhoea occurred significantly more often in people treated with deferasirox. Rare adverse events (less than 5% increase) were not reported; long-term adverse events could not be measured in the included study (follow-up 52 weeks). Patient satisfaction with, and convenience of treatment were significantly better with deferasirox.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Deferasirox appears to be as effective as deferoxamine. However, only limited evidence is available assessing the efficacy regarding patient-important outcomes. The short-term safety of deferasirox seems to be acceptable, however, follow-up was too short to exclude long-term side effects and thus treatment with deferasirox cannot be judged completely safe. Future studies should assess long-term outcomes for safety and efficacy, and also evaluate rarer adverse effects.
Topics: Anemia, Sickle Cell; Benzoates; Chelation Therapy; Deferasirox; Deferoxamine; Erythrocyte Transfusion; Ferritins; Humans; Iron Chelating Agents; Iron Overload; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Triazoles
PubMed: 20687088
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007477.pub2 -
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