-
Medicine Jul 2020Thalassemia is a hereditary disease, which caused economic burden in developing countries. This study evaluated the cost utility of new formulation of deferasirox... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
OBJECTIVES
Thalassemia is a hereditary disease, which caused economic burden in developing countries. This study evaluated the cost utility of new formulation of deferasirox (Jadenu) vs deferoxamine (Desferal) among B-Thalassemia-major patients from payer perspective in Iran.
METHODS
An economic-evaluation through Markov model was performed. A systematic review was conducted in order to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of comparators. Because of chelating therapy is weight-dependent, patients were assumed to be 2 years-old at initiation in first and 18 years-old in second scenario, and model was estimated lifetime costs and utilities. Costs were calculated to the Iran healthcare system through payer perspective and measured effectiveness using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). One-way sensitivity analysis and budget impact analysis was also employed.
RESULTS
The 381 studies were retrieved from systematic searching through databases. After eliminating duplicate and irrelevant studies, 2 studies selected for evaluating the effectiveness. Jadenu was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 1470.6 and 2544.7 US$ vs Desferal in first and second scenario respectively. The estimated ICER for Jadenu compared to generic deferoxamine was 2837.0 and 6924.1 US$ for first and second scenario respectively. For all scenarios Jadenu is presumed as cost-effective option based on calculated ICER which was lower than 1 gross domestic product per capita in Iran. Sensitivity analysis showed that different parameters except discount rate and indirect cost did not have impact on results. Based on budget impact analysis the estimated cost for patients using Desferal (based on the market share of brand) was 44,021,478 US$ in 3 years vs 42,452,606 US$ in replacing 33% of brand market share with Jadenu. This replacement corresponded to the cost saving of almost 1,568,872 US$ for the payers in 3 years. The calculated cost of using generic deferoxamine in all patients was 68,948,392 US$. The increase in the cost of using Jadenu for 10% of all patients in this scenario would be 934,427 US$ (1.36%) US$ at the first year.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on this analysis, film-coated deferasirox appeared to be cost-effective treatment in comparison with Desferal for managing child and adult chronic iron overload in B-thalassemia major patients of Iran.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Deferasirox; Deferoxamine; Humans; Iran; Iron Chelating Agents; Tablets; beta-Thalassemia
PubMed: 32664096
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000020949 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2019Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a group of inherited disorders of haemoglobin (Hb) structure in a person who has inherited two mutant globin genes (one from each parent),... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a group of inherited disorders of haemoglobin (Hb) structure in a person who has inherited two mutant globin genes (one from each parent), at least one of which is always the sickle mutation. It is estimated that between 5% and 7% of the world's population are carriers of the mutant Hb gene, and SCD is the most commonly inherited blood disorder. SCD is characterized by distorted sickle-shaped red blood cells. Manifestations of the disease are attributed to either haemolysis (premature red cell destruction) or vaso-occlusion (obstruction of blood flow, the most common manifestation). Shortened lifespans are attributable to serious comorbidities associated with the disease, including renal failure, acute cholecystitis, pulmonary hypertension, aplastic crisis, pulmonary embolus, stroke, acute chest syndrome, and sepsis. Vaso-occlusion can lead to an acute, painful crisis (sickle cell crisis, vaso-occlusive crisis (VOC) or vaso-occlusive episode). Pain is most often reported in the joints, extremities, back or chest, but it can occur anywhere and can last for several days or weeks. The bone and muscle pain experienced during a sickle cell crisis is both acute and recurrent. Key pharmacological treatments for VOC include opioid analgesics, non-opioid analgesics, and combinations of drugs. Non-pharmacological approaches, such as relaxation, hypnosis, heat, ice and acupuncture, have been used in conjunction to rehydrating the patient and reduce the sickling process.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of pharmacological interventions to treat acute painful sickle cell vaso-occlusive crises in adults, in any setting.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid and LILACS, from inception to September 2019. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized, controlled, double-blind trials of pharmacological interventions, of any dose and by any route, compared to placebo or any active comparator, for the treatment (not prevention) of painful sickle cell VOC in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. Our primary outcomes were participant-reported pain relief of 50%, or 30%, or greater; Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) very much improved, or much or very much improved. Our secondary outcomes included adverse events, serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events. We assessed GRADE and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine studies with data for 638 VOC events and 594 participants aged 17 to 42 years with SCD presenting to a hospital emergency department in a painful VOC. Three studies investigated a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) compared to placebo. One study compared an opioid with a placebo, two studies compared an opioid with an active comparator, two studies compared an anticoagulant with a placebo, and one study compared a combination of three drugs with a combination of four drugs. Risk of bias across the nine studies varied. Studies were primarily at an unclear risk of selection, performance, and detection bias. Studies were primarily at a high risk of bias for size with fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm; two studies had 50 to 199 participants per treatment arm (unclear risk). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) compared with placebo No data were reported regarding participant-reported pain relief of 50% or 30% or greater. The efficacy was uncertain regarding PGIC very much improved, and PGIC much or very much improved (no difference; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-quality evidence). Very low-quality, uncertain results suggested similar rates of adverse events across both the NSAIDs group (16/45 adverse events, 1/56 serious adverse events, and 1/56 withdrawal due to adverse events) and the placebo group (19/45 adverse events, 2/56 serious adverse events, and 1/56 withdrawal due to adverse events). Opioids compared with placebo No data were reported regarding participant-reported pain relief of 50% or 30%, PGIC, or adverse events (any adverse event, serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events). Opioids compared with active comparator No data were reported regarding participant-reported pain relief of 50% or 30% or greater. The results were uncertain regarding PGIC very much improved (33% of the opioids group versus 19% of the placebo group). No data were reported regarding PGIC much or very much improved. Very low-quality, uncertain results suggested similar rates of adverse events across both the opioids group (9/66 adverse events, and 0/66 serious adverse events) and the placebo group (7/64 adverse events, 0/66 serious adverse events). No data were reported regarding withdrawal due to adverse events. Quality of the evidence We downgraded the quality of the evidence by three levels to very low-quality because there are too few data to have confidence in results (e.g. too few participants per treatment arm). Where no data were reported for an outcome, we had no evidence to support or refute (quality of the evidence is unknown).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review identified only nine studies, with insufficient data for all pharmacological interventions for analysis. The available evidence is very uncertain regarding the efficacy or harm from pharmacological interventions used to treat pain related to sickle cell VOC in adults. This area could benefit most from more high quality, certain evidence, as well as the establishment of suitable registries which record interventions and outcomes for this group of people.
Topics: Acute Pain; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Anemia, Sickle Cell; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Humans; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Peripheral Vascular Diseases; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31742673
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012187.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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018Regularly transfused people with sickle cell disease (SCD) and people with thalassaemia (who are transfusion-dependent or non-transfusion-dependent) are at risk of iron... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Regularly transfused people with sickle cell disease (SCD) and people with thalassaemia (who are transfusion-dependent or non-transfusion-dependent) 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 well-being, which may affect adherence.
OBJECTIVES
To identify and assess the effectiveness of interventions (psychological and psychosocial, educational, medication interventions, or multi-component interventions) to improve adherence to iron chelation therapy in people with SCD or thalassaemia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, Web of Science Science & Social Sciences Conference Proceedings Indexes and ongoing trial databases (01 February 2017). We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register (12 December 2017).
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-RCTs, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series studies with adherence as a primary outcome were also eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three authors independently assessed trial eligibility, risk of bias and extracted data. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 RCTs (1525 participants) published between 1997 and 2017. Most participants had β-thalassaemia major; 195 had SCD and 88 had β-thalassaemia intermedia. Mean age ranged from 11 to 41 years. One trial was of medication management and 15 RCTs were of medication interventions. Medications assessed were subcutaneous deferoxamine, and two oral-chelating agents, deferiprone and deferasirox.We rated the quality of evidence as low to very low across all outcomes identified in this review.Three trials measured quality of life (QoL) with validated instruments, but provided no analysable data and reported no difference in QoL.Deferiprone versus deferoxamineWe are uncertain whether deferiprone increases adherence to iron chelation therapy (four trials, very low-quality evidence). Results could not be combined due to considerable heterogeneity (participants' age and different medication regimens). Medication adherence was high (deferiprone (85% to 94.9%); deferoxamine (71.6% to 93%)).We are uncertain whether deferiprone increases the risk of agranulocytosis, risk ratio (RR) 7.88 (99% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 352.39); or has any effect on all-cause mortality, RR 0.44 (95% CI 0.12 to 1.63) (one trial; 88 participants; very low-quality evidence).Deferasirox versus deferoxamineWe are uncertain whether deferasirox increases adherence to iron chelation therapy, mean difference (MD) -1.40 (95% CI -3.66 to 0.86) (one trial; 197 participants; very-low quality evidence). Medication adherence was high (deferasirox (99%); deferoxamine (100%)). We are uncertain whether deferasirox decreases the risk of thalassaemia-related serious adverse events (SAEs), RR 0.95 (95% CI 0.41 to 2.17); or all-cause mortality, RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.06 to 15.06) (two trials; 240 participants; very low-quality evidence).We are uncertain whether deferasirox decreases the risk of SCD-related pain crises, RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.62); or other SCD-related SAEs, RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.51) (one trial; 195 participants; very low-quality evidence).Deferasirox film-coated tablet (FCT) versus deferasirox dispersible tablet (DT)Deferasirox FCT may make little or no difference to adherence, RR 1.10 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.22) (one trial; 173 participants; low-quality evidence). Medication adherence was high (FCT (92.9%); DT (85.3%)).We are uncertain if deferasirox FCT increases the incidence of SAEs, RR 1.22 (95% CI 0.62 to 2.37); or all-cause mortality, RR 2.97 (95% CI 0.12 to 71.81) (one trial; 173 participants; very low-quality evidence).Deferiprone and deferoxamine combined versus deferiprone alone We are uncertain if deferiprone and deferoxamine combined increases adherence to iron chelation therapy (very low-quality evidence). Medication adherence was high (deferiprone 92.7% (range 37% to 100%) to 93.6% (range 56% to 100%); deferoxamine 70.6% (range 25% to 100%).Combination therapy may make little or no difference to the risk of SAEs, RR 0.15 (95% CI 0.01 to 2.81) (one trial; 213 participants; low-quality evidence).We are uncertain if combination therapy decreases all-cause mortality, RR 0.77 (95% CI 0.18 to 3.35) (two trials; 237 participants; very low-quality evidence).Deferiprone and deferoxamine combined versus deferoxamine aloneDeferiprone and deferoxamine combined may have little or no effect on adherence to iron chelation therapy (four trials; 216 participants; low-quality evidence). Medication adherence was high (deferoxamine 91.4% to 96.1%; deferiprone: 82.4%)Deferiprone and deferoxamine combined, may have little or no difference in SAEs or mortality (low-quality evidence). No SAEs occurred in three trials and were not reported in one trial. No deaths occurred in two trials and were not reported in two trials.Deferiprone and deferoxamine combined versus deferiprone and deferasirox combinedDeferiprone and deferasirox combined may improve adherence to iron chelation therapy, RR 0.84 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.99) (one trial; 96 participants; low-quality evidence). Medication adherence was high (deferiprone and deferoxamine: 80%; deferiprone and deferasirox: 95%).We are uncertain if deferiprone and deferasirox decreases the incidence of SAEs, RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.06 to 15.53) (one trial; 96 participants; very low-quality evidence).There were no deaths in the trial (low-quality evidence).Medication management versus standard careWe are uncertain if medication management improves health-related QoL (one trial; 48 participants; very low-quality evidence). Adherence was only measured in one arm of the trial.
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.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: Adolescent; Adult; Anemia, Sickle Cell; Benzoates; Chelation Therapy; Child; Deferasirox; Deferiprone; Deferoxamine; Humans; Iron Chelating Agents; Iron Overload; Patient Compliance; Pyridones; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Triazoles; beta-Thalassemia
PubMed: 29737522
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012349.pub2 -
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... 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... 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... Feb 2012Thalassemia 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
Thalassemia is a hereditary anaemia due to ineffective erythropoiesis. In particular, people with thalassaemia major develop secondary iron overload resulting from regular red blood cell transfusion. Iron chelation therapy is needed to prevent long-term complications.Both deferoxamine and deferiprone have been found to be efficacious. However, a systematic review of the effectiveness and safety of the new oral chelator deferasirox in people with thalassaemia is needed.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral deferasirox in people with thalassaemia and secondary iron overload.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register. We also 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/. Date of the most recent searches of these databases: 24 June 2010.Date of the most recent search of the Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 03 November 2011.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials 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
Four studies met the inclusion criteria.Two studies compared deferasirox to placebo or standard therapy of deferoxamine (n = 47). The placebo-controlled studies, a pharmacokinetic and a dose escalation study, showed that deferasirox leads to net iron excretion in transfusion-dependent thalassaemia patients. In these studies, safety was acceptable and further investigation in phase II and phase III trials was warranted.Two studies, one phase II study (n = 71) and one phase III study (n = 586) compared deferasirox to 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 trial, similar or superior efficacy for surrogate parameters of ferritin and liver iron concentration 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/d and 51.6 mg/d respectively. Data on safety at the presumably required doses for effective chelation therapy are limited. Patient satisfaction was significantly better with deferasirox, while rate of discontinuations was similar for both drugs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Deferasirox offers an important alternative line of treatment 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 in the long run and will translate to similar benefits as has been shown for deferoxamine, needs to be confirmed. Data on safety, particularly on rare toxicities and long-term safety, are still limited.Therefore, we think that deferasirox should be offered as an alternative to all patients with thalassaemia who either show intolerance to deferoxamine or poor compliance with deferoxamine. In our opinion, data are still too limited to support the general recommendation of deferasirox as first-line treatment instead of deferoxamine. If a strong preference for deferasirox is expressed, it could be offered as first-line option to individual patients after a detailed discussion of the potential benefits and risks.
Topics: Benzoates; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Deferasirox; Deferoxamine; Erythrocyte Transfusion; Humans; Iron Chelating Agents; Iron Overload; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thalassemia; Triazoles
PubMed: 22336831
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007476.pub2 -
Blood Cells, Molecules & Diseases Oct 2011The effectiveness of deferoxamine (DFO), deferiprone (DFP), or deferasirox (DFX) in thalassemia major was assessed. Outcomes were reported as means±SD, mean differences... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The effectiveness of deferoxamine (DFO), deferiprone (DFP), or deferasirox (DFX) in thalassemia major was assessed. Outcomes were reported as means±SD, mean differences with 95% CI, or standardized mean differences. Statistical heterogeneity was tested using χ2 (Q) and I2. Sources of bias and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system (GRADE) were considered. Overall, 1520 patients were included. Only 7.4% of trials were free of bias. Overall measurements suggest low trial quality (GRADE). The meta-analysis suggests lower final liver iron concentrations during associated versus monotherapy treatment (p<0.0001), increases in serum ferritin levels during DFX 5, 10, and 20 mg/kg versus DFO-treated groups (p<0.00001, p<0.00001, and p=0.002, respectively), but no statistically significant difference during DFX 30 mg/kg versus DFO (p=0.70), no statistically significant variations in heart T2* signal during associated or sequential versus mono-therapy treatment (p=0.46 and p=0.14, respectively), increases in urinary iron excretion during associated or sequential versus monotherapy treatment (p=0.008 and p=0.02, respectively), and improved ejection fraction during associated or sequential versus monotherapy treatment (p=0.01 and p<0.00001, respectively). These findings do not support any specific chelation treatment. The literature shows risks of bias, and additional larger and longer trials are needed.
Topics: Benzoates; Chelation Therapy; Deferasirox; Deferiprone; Deferoxamine; Drug Therapy, Combination; Ferritins; Humans; Iron; Iron Chelating Agents; Liver; MEDLINE; Myocardium; Pyridones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Siderophores; Treatment Outcome; Triazoles; Ventricular Function; beta-Thalassemia
PubMed: 21843958
DOI: 10.1016/j.bcmd.2011.07.002