-
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 -
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... 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 -
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 -
The Journal of International Medical... Dec 2022To examine the efficacy of deferasirox (DFX) by comparison with deferoxamine (DFO) in managing iron overload in patients with sickle cell anaemia (SCA). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To examine the efficacy of deferasirox (DFX) by comparison with deferoxamine (DFO) in managing iron overload in patients with sickle cell anaemia (SCA).
METHODS
Online databases were systematically searched for studies published from January 2007 to July 2022 that had investigated the efficacy of DFX compared with DFO in managing iron overload in patients with SCA.
RESULTS
Of the 316 articles identified, three randomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of liver tissue iron concentration (LIC) showed that iron overload was not significantly higher in the DFX group compared with DFO group (WMD, -1.61 mg Fe/g dw (95% CI -4.42 to 1.21). However, iron overload as measured by serum ferritin was significantly lower in DFO compared with DFX group (WMD, 278.13 µg/l (95% CI 36.69 to 519.57). Although meta-analysis was not performed on myocardial iron concentration due to incomplete data, the original report found no significant difference between DFX and DFO.
CONCLUSION
While limited by the number of studies included in this meta-analysis, overall, the results tend to show that DFX was as effective as DFO in managing iron overload in patients with SCA.
Topics: Humans; Deferasirox; Deferoxamine; Iron Chelating Agents; Benzoates; Triazoles; Iron Overload; Iron; Anemia, Sickle Cell
PubMed: 36562113
DOI: 10.1177/03000605221143290 -
Efficacy of desferrioxamine mesylate in intracerebral hematoma: a systemic review and meta-analysis.Neurological Sciences : Official... Dec 2022Previous meta-analysis had concluded that desferrioxamine mesylate (DFO) could effectively treat intracerebral hematoma (ICH) in animal models. We hope to confirm that... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Previous meta-analysis had concluded that desferrioxamine mesylate (DFO) could effectively treat intracerebral hematoma (ICH) in animal models. We hope to confirm that DFO could treat ICH patients effectively through the systemic review and meta-analysis of clinical researches.
METHOD
Data extraction included hematoma volume (HV), reduction of National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores, and relative perihematomal edema (RPHE). The standard mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were calculated by fixed effects model. I-square (I) statistic was used to test the heterogeneity. All p values were two-side with a significant level at 0.05.
RESULTS
Five randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis, which included 239 patients. At 7 days after onset, there was significant difference of RPHE development (- 1.87 (- 2.22, - 1.51) (I = 0, p = 0.639)) and significant difference of HV absorption (- 0.71 (- 1.06, 0.36) (I = 17.5%, p = 0.271)) between DFO and control groups. There was significant difference of reduction of NHISS scores (0.25 (0.05, 0.46) (I = 0, p = 0.992)) between DFO and control groups at 30 days after onset.
CONCLUSION
DFO reduced HV and perihematomal edema in ICH patients at 7 days after onset and improve neurological function at 30 days after onset efficiently and safely. DFO might be a new route of improving treatment of ICH.
Topics: Animals; Brain Edema; Cerebral Hemorrhage; Deferoxamine; Hematoma; Mesylates
PubMed: 36006553
DOI: 10.1007/s10072-022-06324-0 -
Stem Cell Reviews and Reports Mar 2022Extracellular vesicles from mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC-EVs) have shown promise in wound healing. Their use in diabetic wounds specifically, however, remains... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Extracellular vesicles from mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC-EVs) have shown promise in wound healing. Their use in diabetic wounds specifically, however, remains pre-clinical and their efficacy remains uncertain less clear. A systematic review of preclinical studies is needed to determine the efficacy of MSC-EVs in the treatment of diabetic wounds to accelerate the clinical translation of this cell-based therapy.
METHODS
PubMed and Embase were searched (to June 23, 2020). All English-language, full-text, controlled interventional studies comparing MSC-EVs to placebo or a "no treatment" arm in animal models of diabetic wounds were included. Study outcomes, including wound closure (primary outcome), scar width, blood vessel number and density, and re-epithelialisation were pooled using a random effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using the SYRCLE tool for pre-clinical animal studies.
RESULTS
A total of 313 unique records were identified from our search, with 10 full text articles satisfying inclusion criteria (n = 136 animals). The administration of MSC-EVs improved closure of diabetic wounds compared to controls with a large observed effect (Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) 5.48, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 3.55-8.13). Healing was further enhanced using MSC-EVs enriched in non-coding RNAs or microRNAs compared to controls (SMD 9.89, 95%CI 7.32-12.46). Other outcomes, such as blood vessel density and number, scar width, and re-epithelialisation were improved with the administration of MSC-EVs, with a large effect. ROB across studies was unclear.
CONCLUSION
MSC-EVs, particularly following enrichment for specific RNAs, are a promising treatment for diabetic wounds in pre-clinical studies and translation to the clinical domain appears warranted.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO #CRD42020199327 [248]. Forest plot demonstrating increased wound closure rates of diabetic wounds receiving genetically modified MSC-EVs that were enriched for specific RNAs. DFO = deferoxamine. Control groups were inactive (no treatment or saline) except for 3 studies which used hydrogels without MSC-EVs as control (Li M 2016; Shi 2017; Tao 2016).
Topics: Animals; Cicatrix; Diabetes Mellitus; Extracellular Vesicles; Mesenchymal Stem Cells; Wound Healing
PubMed: 33893619
DOI: 10.1007/s12015-021-10164-4 -
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 -
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 -
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