-
Hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn: systematic literature review of the antenatal landscape.BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Jan 2023Prevention of pregnancy-related alloimmunization and the management of hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn (HDFN) has significantly improved over the past...
BACKGROUND
Prevention of pregnancy-related alloimmunization and the management of hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn (HDFN) has significantly improved over the past decades. Considering improvements in HDFN care, the objectives of this systematic literature review were to assess the prenatal treatment landscape and outcomes of Rh(D)- and K-mediated HDFN in mothers and fetuses, to identify the burden of disease, to identify evidence gaps in the literature, and to provide recommendations for future research.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search on MEDLINE, EMBASE and clinicaltrials.gov. Observational studies, trials, modelling studies, systematic reviews of cohort studies, and case reports and series of women and/or their fetus with HDFN caused by Rhesus (Rh)D or Kell alloimmunization. Extracted data included prevalence; treatment patterns; clinical outcomes; treatment efficacy; and mortality.
RESULTS
We identified 2,541 articles. After excluding 2,482 articles and adding 1 article from screening systematic reviews, 60 articles were selected. Most abstracted data were from case reports and case series. Prevalence was 0.047% and 0.006% for Rh(D)- and K-mediated HDFN, respectively. Most commonly reported antenatal treatment was intrauterine transfusion (IUT; median frequency [interquartile range]: 13.0% [7.2-66.0]). Average gestational age at first IUT ranged between 25 and 27 weeks. weeks. This timing is early and carries risks, which were observed in outcomes associated with IUTs. The rate of hydrops fetalis among pregnancies with Rh(D)-mediated HDFN treated with IUT was 14.8% (range, 0-50%) and 39.2% in K-mediated HDFN. Overall mean ± SD fetal mortality rate that was found to be 19.8%±29.4% across 19 studies. Mean gestational age at birth ranged between 34 and 36 weeks.
CONCLUSION
These findings corroborate the rareness of HDFN and frequently needed intrauterine transfusion with inherent risks, and most births occur at a late preterm gestational age. We identified several evidence gaps providing opportunities for future studies.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Erythroblastosis, Fetal; Hydrops Fetalis; Hemolysis; Blood Transfusion, Intrauterine; Fetus
PubMed: 36611144
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-022-05329-z -
Journal of Veterinary Emergency and... Mar 2021To systematically review available evidence to develop guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of transfusion-associated reactions in dogs and cats.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review available evidence to develop guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of transfusion-associated reactions in dogs and cats.
DESIGN
Standardized and systemic evaluation of the literature (identified through Medline via PubMed and Google Scholar searches) was carried out for identified transfusion reaction types in dogs and cats. The available evidence was evaluated using PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) questions generated for each reaction type. The evidence was categorized by level of evidence (LOE) and quality (Good, Fair, or Poor). Guidelines, diagnostic, and treatment algorithms were generated based on the evaluation of the evidence. Consensus on the final guidelines was achieved through Delphi-style surveys. Draft recommendations were disseminated through veterinary specialty listservs for review and comments, which were evaluated and integrated prior to final publication.
RESULTS
Medline via PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched. There were 14 Population Intervention Comparison Outcome questions identified and corresponding worksheets were developed focusing on the diagnosis and treatment of transfusion-associated reactions in dogs and cats. Fourteen guidelines and four algorithms were developed with a high degree of consensus.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic evidence evaluation process yielded recommended diagnostic and treatment algorithms for use in practice. However, significant knowledge gaps were identified, demonstrating the need for additional research in veterinary transfusion medicine.
Topics: Animals; Cat Diseases; Cats; Dog Diseases; Dogs; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Transfusion Medicine; Transfusion Reaction; Veterinary Medicine
PubMed: 33751797
DOI: 10.1111/vec.13043 -
Blood Advances Jun 2019The terminology applied to autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) seems inconsistent. We aimed to evaluate the consistency of definitions used for diagnosis and treatment.... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
The terminology applied to autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) seems inconsistent. We aimed to evaluate the consistency of definitions used for diagnosis and treatment. In this systematic review of literature from January 2006 to December 2015, we assessed heterogeneity in the definition of AIHA and its subtypes, refractory disease, disease phase, severity, criteria for treatment response, and response durability. A Medline search for anemia, hemolytic, autoimmune was supplemented with keyword searches. Main exclusions were conference abstracts, animal and non-English studies, and studies with <10 cases. Of 1371 articles retrieved, 1209 were excluded based on titles and abstracts. Two authors independently reviewed 10% and 16% of abstracts and full papers, respectively. After full-paper review, 84 studies were included. AIHA was most frequently (32 [52%] of 61) defined as hemolytic anemia with positive direct antiglobulin test (DAT) and exclusion of alternatives, but 10 of 32 also recognized DAT-negative AIHA. A lower threshold for diagnosis of DAT-negative AIHA was observed in literature on chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Definitions of anemia, hemolysis, and exclusion criteria showed substantial variation. Definitions of primary/secondary cold agglutinin disease/syndrome were not consistent. Forty-three studies provided criteria for treatment response, and other than studies from 1 center, these were almost entirely unique. Other criteria were rarely defined. Only 7, 0, 3, 2, 2, and 3 studies offered definitions of warm AIHA, paroxysmal cold hemoglobinuria, mixed AIHA, AIHA severity, disease phase, and refractory AIHA, respectively. Marked heterogeneity in the time period sampled indicates the need to standardize AIHA terminology.
Topics: Anemia, Hemolytic, Autoimmune; Coombs Test; Erythrocytes; Hemoglobinuria, Paroxysmal; Hemolysis; Humans; Immunoglobulin G; Publications; Severity of Illness Index; Terminology as Topic
PubMed: 31235526
DOI: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2019000036 -
Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine Dec 2021Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is used as mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock (CS). It restores peripheral perfusion, at the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is used as mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock (CS). It restores peripheral perfusion, at the expense of increased left ventricle (LV) afterload. In this setting, Impella can be used as direct unloading strategy. Aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate efficacy and safety of LV unloading with Impella during ECMO in CS. A systematic search on Medline, Scopus and Cochrane Library was performed using as combination of keywords: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Impella, percutaneous micro axial pump, ECPELLA, cardiogenic shock. We aimed to include studies, which compared the use of ECMO with and without Impella (ECPELLA vs. ECMO). Primary endpoint was short-term all-cause mortality; secondary endpoints included major bleeding, haemolysis, need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) and cerebrovascular accident (CVA). Five studies met the inclusion criteria, with a total population of 972 patients. The ECPELLA cohort showed improved survival compared to the control group (RR (Risk Ratio): 0.86; 95% CI (Confidence Interval): 0.76, 0.96; = 0.009). When including in the analysis only studies with homogeneous comparator groups, LV unloading with Impella remained associated with significant reduction in mortality (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.75, 0.97; = 0.01). Haemolysis (RR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.35, 2.15; < 0.00001) and RRT (RR: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.07, 3.21; = 0.03) occurred at a higher rate in the ECPELLA group. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of major bleeding (RR: 1.37; 95% CI: 0.88, 2.13; = 0.16) and CVA (RR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.61, 1.38; = 0.66). In conclusion, LV unloading with Impella during ECMO was associated with improved survival, despite increased haemolysis and need for RRT, without additional risk of major bleeding and CVA.
Topics: Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; Heart Ventricles; Heart-Assist Devices; Humans; Shock, Cardiogenic; Stroke
PubMed: 34957789
DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm2204154 -
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery Oct 2023The use of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is almost inevitable in cardiac surgery. However, it can cause complications, including hemolysis. Until now, there have not been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The use of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is almost inevitable in cardiac surgery. However, it can cause complications, including hemolysis. Until now, there have not been any standards for reducing hemolysis from CPB. Therefore, this systematic review was conducted to determine the factors that increase or reduce hemolysis in the use of CPB.
METHODS
Keywords Earches (cardiac surgery AND cardiopulmonary bypass AND hemolysis) were done on PubMed databases and Cochrane CENTRAL from 1990-2021 for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that studied interventions on CPB, in cardiac surgery patients, and measured hemolysis as one of the outcomes. Studies involving patients with preoperative hematological disorders, prosthetic valves, preoperative use of intra-aortic balloon pumps and extracorporeal circulation, emergency and minimally invasive surgery are excluded RESULTS: The search yielded 64 studies that met the inclusion criteria, which involved a total of 3,434 patients. The most common surgery was coronary revascularization (75%). Out of 64 studies, 33 divided into 7 analyses. Remaining 31 studies were synthesized qualitatively. Significant decreases were found in centrifugal vs roller pumps for PFHb (p = 0.0006) and Hp (p < 0.0001) outcomes, separated vs combined suctioned blood (p = 0.003), CPB alternatives vs conventional CPB (p < 0.0001), and mini extracorporeal circulation (MiniECC) vs conventional CPB for LDH (p = 0.0008). Significant increases were found in pulsatility (p = 0.03) and vacuum-assisted venous drainage (VAVD) vs gravity-assisted venous drainage (GAVD) (p = 0.002).
CONCLUSION
The review shows that hemolysis could be caused by several factors and efforts have been made to reduce it, combining significant efforts could be beneficial. However, this review has limitations, such as heterogeneity due to no standards available for conducting CPB. Therefore, further research with standardized guidelines for CPB is needed to yield more comparable studies. Meta-analyses with more specific parameters should be done to minimize heterogeneity.
Topics: Humans; Cardiopulmonary Bypass; Hemolysis; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Extracorporeal Circulation; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 37833747
DOI: 10.1186/s13019-023-02406-y -
Advances in Therapy Jun 2023Hemolysis in paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) is complement-mediated due to the lack of complement inhibitors in the hemopoietic cell membranes, making...
INTRODUCTION
Hemolysis in paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) is complement-mediated due to the lack of complement inhibitors in the hemopoietic cell membranes, making complement inhibition the best approach to manage PNH. Three complement inhibitors are approved by the European Medicines Agency as targeted therapy for PNH: eculizumab and ravulizumab, two humanized monoclonal antibodies targeting the same complement 5 (C5) epitope, approved in 2007 and 2019, respectively, and the more recently approved cyclic peptide, the complement 3 (C3) inhibitor pegcetacoplan. Although national and international PNH treatment guidelines exist, they do not take into consideration the latest clinical trial evidence. Given the lack of evidence-based data for some clinical situations encountered in real life, we identified specific populations of patients who may benefit from switching to proximal C3 from terminal C5 inhibition.
METHODS
The expert recommendations presented here were created using a Delphi-like process by a group of expert PNH specialists across Central Europe. Based on an initial advisory board meeting discussion, recommendations were prepared and reviewed as part of a Delphi survey to test agreement.
RESULTS
Using a systematic approach, literature databases were searched for relevant studies, and 50 articles were reviewed by the experts and included as supporting evidence.
CONCLUSION
Implementation of these recommendations uniformly across healthcare institutions will promote the best use of complement inhibition in managing PNH, and has the potential to positively impact patient outcomes in Central Europe and worldwide.
Topics: Humans; Hemoglobinuria, Paroxysmal; Expert Testimony; Complement Inactivating Agents; Complement C3; Complement C5; Europe
PubMed: 37072660
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-023-02510-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2021Acute bilirubin encephalopathy (ABE) and the other serious complications of severe hyperbilirubinemia in the neonate occur far more frequently in low- and middle-income... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Acute bilirubin encephalopathy (ABE) and the other serious complications of severe hyperbilirubinemia in the neonate occur far more frequently in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). This is due to several factors that place babies in LMIC at greater risk for hyperbilirubinemia, including increased prevalence of hematologic disorders leading to hemolysis, increased sepsis, less prenatal or postnatal care, and a lack of resources to treat jaundiced babies. Hospitals and clinics face frequent shortages of functioning phototherapy machines and inconsistent access to electricity to run the machines. Sunlight has the potential to treat hyperbilirubinemia: it contains the wavelengths of light that are produced by phototherapy machines. However, it contains harmful ultraviolet light and infrared radiation, and prolonged exposure has the potential to lead to sunburn, skin damage, and hyperthermia or hypothermia.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of sunlight administered alone or with filtering or amplifying devices for the prevention and treatment of clinical jaundice or laboratory-diagnosed hyperbilirubinemia in term and late preterm neonates.
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search CENTRAL (2019, Issue 5), MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL on 2 May 2019. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster RCTs. We updated the searches on 1 June 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs, quasi-RCTs, and cluster RCTs. We excluded crossover RCTs. Included studies must have evaluated sunlight (with or without filters or amplification) for the prevention and treatment of hyperbilirubinemia or jaundice in term or late preterm neonates. Neonates must have been enrolled in the study by one-week postnatal age.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Our primary outcomes were: use of conventional phototherapy, treatment failure requiring exchange transfusion, ABE, chronic bilirubin encephalopathy, and death.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three RCTs (1103 infants). All three studies had small sample sizes, were unblinded, and were at high risk of bias. We planned to undertake four comparisons, but only found studies reporting on two. Sunlight with or without filters or amplification compared to no treatment for the prevention and treatment of hyperbilirubinemia in term and late preterm neonates One study of twice-daily sunlight exposure (30 to 60 minutes) compared to no treatment reported the incidence of jaundice may be reduced (risk ratio [RR] 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 0.82; risk difference [RD] -0.14, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.06; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome [NNTB] 7, 95% CI 5 to 17; 1 study, 482 infants; very low-certainty evidence) and the number of days that an infant was jaundiced may be reduced (mean difference [MD] -2.20 days, 95% CI -2.60 to -1.80; 1 study, 482 infants; very low-certainty evidence). There were no data on safety or potential harmful effects of the intervention. The study did not assess use of conventional phototherapy, treatment failure requiring exchange transfusion, ABE, and long-term consequences of hyperbilirubinemia. The study showed that sunlight therapy may reduce rehospitalization rates within seven days of discharge for treatment for hyperbilirubinemia, but the evidence was very uncertain (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.11; RD -0.04, -0.08 to 0.01; 1 study, 482 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Sunlight with or without filters or amplification compared to other sources of phototherapy for the treatment of hyperbilirubinemia in infants with confirmed hyperbilirubinemia Two studies (621 infants) compared the effect of filtered-sunlight exposure to other sources of phototherapy in infants with confirmed hyperbilirubinemia. Filtered-sunlight phototherapy (FSPT) and conventional or intensive electric phototherapy led to a similar number of days of effective treatment (broadly defined as a minimal increase of total serum bilirubin in infants less than 72 hours old and a decrease in total serum bilirubin in infants more than 72 hours old on any day that at least four to five hours of sunlight therapy was available). There may be little or no difference in treatment failure requiring exchange transfusion (typical RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.73; typical RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; 2 studies, 621 infants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported ABE, and no infants developed this outcome (RR not estimable; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 1 study, 174 infants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported death as a reason for study withdrawal; no infants were withdrawn due to death (RR not estimable; typical RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; 1 study, 447 infants; low-certainty evidence). Neither study assessed long-term outcomes. Possible harms: both studies showed a probable increased risk for hyperthermia (body temperature greater than 37.5 °C) with FSPT (typical RR 4.39, 95% CI 2.98 to 6.47; typical RD 0.30, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.36; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome [NNTH] 3, 95% CI 2 to 4; 2 studies, 621 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was probably no difference in hypothermia (body temperature less than 35.5 °C) (typical RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.03; typical RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04; 2 studies, 621 infants; moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Sunlight may be an effective adjunct to conventional phototherapy in LMIC settings, may allow for rotational use of limited phototherapy machines, and may be preferable to families as it can allow for increased bonding. Filtration of sunlight to block harmful ultraviolet light and frequent temperature checks for babies under sunlight may be warranted for safety. Sunlight may be effective in preventing hyperbilirubinemia in some cases, but these studies have not demonstrated that sunlight alone is effective for the treatment of hyperbilirubinemia given its sporadic availability and the low or very low certainty of the evidence in these studies.
Topics: Bias; Exchange Transfusion, Whole Blood; Heliotherapy; Humans; Hyperbilirubinemia, Neonatal; Hyperthermia; Hypothermia; Incidence; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Jaundice, Neonatal; Patient Readmission; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 34228352
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013277.pub2 -
Clinica Chimica Acta; International... Nov 2020Hemolysis is one of the main pathophysiological characteristics of sickle cell disease (SCD) and might cause or could be the result of oxidative stress. Antioxidants are... (Review)
Review
Hemolysis is one of the main pathophysiological characteristics of sickle cell disease (SCD) and might cause or could be the result of oxidative stress. Antioxidants are studied in SCD due to their potential to ensure redox balance and minimize deleterious effects on erythrocyte membranes. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of antioxidant nutrient supplementation on reducing hemolysis in SCD patients through randomized clinical trials. We conducted our study according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions investigating whether antioxidants could improve the hemolytic status of SCD patients. This study included 587 articles published until April 2020. We reduced this pool to 12 articles by excluding duplicates, reviews, comments, and studies with non-human subjects. Omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin A, and zinc were the antioxidants that reportedly improved the indirect hemolysis parameters such as hemoglobin, hematocrit, mean corpuscular volume, or red blood cells. High-dose vitamin C and E supplementation worsened hemolysis, causing increased reticulocytes, lactate dehydrogenase, indirect bilirubin, and haptoglobin. More intervention studies especially high-quality controlled randomized clinical trials are needed to investigate the effects of antioxidant nutrients in reducing hemolysis in SCD.
Topics: Anemia, Sickle Cell; Antioxidants; Erythrocytes; Hemolysis; Humans; Nutrients
PubMed: 32673671
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2020.07.020 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2022Description of the condition Malaria, an infectious disease transmitted by the bite of female mosquitoes from several Anopheles species, occurs in 87 countries with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Description of the condition Malaria, an infectious disease transmitted by the bite of female mosquitoes from several Anopheles species, occurs in 87 countries with ongoing transmission (WHO 2020). The World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that, in 2019, approximately 229 million cases of malaria occurred worldwide, with 94% occurring in the WHO's African region (WHO 2020). Of these malaria cases, an estimated 409,000 deaths occurred globally, with 67% occurring in children under five years of age (WHO 2020). Malaria also negatively impacts the health of women during pregnancy, childbirth, and the postnatal period (WHO 2020). Sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine (SP), an antifolate antimalarial, has been widely used across sub-Saharan Africa as the first-line treatment for uncomplicated malaria since it was first introduced in Malawi in 1993 (Filler 2006). Due to increasing resistance to SP, in 2000 the WHO recommended that one of several artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) be used instead of SP for the treatment of uncomplicated malaria caused by Plasmodium falciparum (Global Partnership to Roll Back Malaria 2001). However, despite these recommendations, SP continues to be advised for intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp) and intermittent preventive treatment in infants (IPTi), whether the person has malaria or not (WHO 2013). Description of the intervention Folate (vitamin B9) includes both naturally occurring folates and folic acid, the fully oxidized monoglutamic form of the vitamin, used in dietary supplements and fortified food. Folate deficiency (e.g. red blood cell (RBC) folate concentrations of less than 305 nanomoles per litre (nmol/L); serum or plasma concentrations of less than 7 nmol/L) is common in many parts of the world and often presents as megaloblastic anaemia, resulting from inadequate intake, increased requirements, reduced absorption, or abnormal metabolism of folate (Bailey 2015; WHO 2015a). Pregnant women have greater folate requirements; inadequate folate intake (evidenced by RBC folate concentrations of less than 400 nanograms per millilitre (ng/mL), or 906 nmol/L) prior to and during the first month of pregnancy increases the risk of neural tube defects, preterm delivery, low birthweight, and fetal growth restriction (Bourassa 2019). The WHO recommends that all women who are trying to conceive consume 400 micrograms (µg) of folic acid daily from the time they begin trying to conceive through to 12 weeks of gestation (WHO 2017). In 2015, the WHO added the dosage of 0.4 mg of folic acid to the essential drug list (WHO 2015c). Alongside daily oral iron (30 mg to 60 mg elemental iron), folic acid supplementation is recommended for pregnant women to prevent neural tube defects, maternal anaemia, puerperal sepsis, low birthweight, and preterm birth in settings where anaemia in pregnant women is a severe public health problem (i.e. where at least 40% of pregnant women have a blood haemoglobin (Hb) concentration of less than 110 g/L). How the intervention might work Potential interactions between folate status and malaria infection The malaria parasite requires folate for survival and growth; this has led to the hypothesis that folate status may influence malaria risk and severity. In rhesus monkeys, folate deficiency has been found to be protective against Plasmodium cynomolgi malaria infection, compared to folate-replete animals (Metz 2007). Alternatively, malaria may induce or exacerbate folate deficiency due to increased folate utilization from haemolysis and fever. Further, folate status measured via RBC folate is not an appropriate biomarker of folate status in malaria-infected individuals since RBC folate values in these individuals are indicative of both the person's stores and the parasite's folate synthesis. A study in Nigeria found that children with malaria infection had significantly higher RBC folate concentrations compared to children without malaria infection, but plasma folate levels were similar (Bradley-Moore 1985). Why it is important to do this review The malaria parasite needs folate for survival and growth in humans. For individuals, adequate folate levels are critical for health and well-being, and for the prevention of anaemia and neural tube defects. Many countries rely on folic acid supplementation to ensure adequate folate status in at-risk populations. Different formulations for folic acid supplements are available in many international settings, with dosages ranging from 400 µg to 5 mg. Evaluating folic acid dosage levels used in supplementation efforts may increase public health understanding of its potential impacts on malaria risk and severity and on treatment failures. Examining folic acid interactions with antifolate antimalarial medications and with malaria disease progression may help countries in malaria-endemic areas determine what are the most appropriate lower dose folic acid formulations for at-risk populations. The WHO has highlighted the limited evidence available and has indicated the need for further research on biomarkers of folate status, particularly interactions between RBC folate concentrations and tuberculosis, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and antifolate antimalarial drugs (WHO 2015b). An earlier Cochrane Review assessed the effects and safety of iron supplementation, with or without folic acid, in children living in hyperendemic or holoendemic malaria areas; it demonstrated that iron supplementation did not increase the risk of malaria, as indicated by fever and the presence of parasites in the blood (Neuberger 2016). Further, this review stated that folic acid may interfere with the efficacy of SP; however, the efficacy and safety of folic acid supplementation on these outcomes has not been established. This review will provide evidence on the effectiveness of daily folic acid supplementation in healthy and malaria-infected individuals living in malaria-endemic areas. Additionally, it will contribute to achieving both the WHO Global Technical Strategy for Malaria 2016-2030 (WHO 2015d), and United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 3 (to ensure healthy lives and to promote well-being for all of all ages) (United Nations 2021), and evaluating whether the potential effects of folic acid supplementation, at different doses (e.g. 0.4 mg, 1 mg, 5 mg daily), interferes with the effect of drugs used for prevention or treatment of malaria.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effects of folic acid supplementation, at various doses, on malaria susceptibility (risk of infection) and severity among people living in areas with various degrees of malaria endemicity. We will examine the interaction between folic acid supplements and antifolate antimalarial drugs. Specifically, we will aim to answer the following. Among uninfected people living in malaria endemic areas, who are taking or not taking antifolate antimalarials for malaria prophylaxis, does taking a folic acid-containing supplement increase susceptibility to or severity of malaria infection? Among people with malaria infection who are being treated with antifolate antimalarials, does folic acid supplementation increase the risk of treatment failure?
METHODS
Criteria for considering studies for this review Types of studies Inclusion criteria Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) Quasi-RCTs with randomization at the individual or cluster level conducted in malaria-endemic areas (areas with ongoing, local malaria transmission, including areas approaching elimination, as listed in the World Malaria Report 2020) (WHO 2020) Exclusion criteria Ecological studies Observational studies In vivo/in vitro studies Economic studies Systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses (relevant systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses will be excluded but flagged for grey literature screening) Types of participants Inclusion criteria Individuals of any age or gender, living in a malaria endemic area, who are taking antifolate antimalarial medications (including but not limited to sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine (SP), pyrimethamine-dapsone, pyrimethamine, chloroquine and proguanil, cotrimoxazole) for the prevention or treatment of malaria (studies will be included if more than 70% of the participants live in malaria-endemic regions) Studies assessing participants with or without anaemia and with or without malaria parasitaemia at baseline will be included Exclusion criteria Individuals not taking antifolate antimalarial medications for prevention or treatment of malaria Individuals living in non-malaria endemic areas Types of interventions Inclusion criteria Folic acid supplementation Form: in tablet, capsule, dispersible tablet at any dose, during administration, or periodically Timing: during, before, or after (within a period of four to six weeks) administration of antifolate antimalarials Iron-folic acid supplementation Folic acid supplementation in combination with co-interventions that are identical between the intervention and control groups. Co-interventions include: anthelminthic treatment; multivitamin or multiple micronutrient supplementation; 5-methyltetrahydrofolate supplementation. Exclusion criteria Folate through folate-fortified water Folic acid administered through large-scale fortification of rice, wheat, or maize Comparators Placebo No treatment No folic acid/different doses of folic acid Iron Types of outcome measures Primary outcomes Uncomplicated malaria (defined as a history of fever with parasitological confirmation; acceptable parasitological confirmation will include rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), malaria smears, or nucleic acid detection (i.e. polymerase chain reaction (PCR), loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), etc.)) (WHO 2010). This outcome is relevant for patients without malaria, given antifolate antimalarials for malaria prophylaxis. Severe malaria (defined as any case with cerebral malaria or acute P. falciparum malaria, with signs of severity or evidence of vital organ dysfunction, or both) (WHO 2010). This outcome is relevant for patients without malaria, given antifolate antimalarials for malaria prophylaxis. Parasite clearance (any Plasmodium species), defined as the time it takes for a patient who tests positive at enrolment and is treated to become smear-negative or PCR negative. This outcome is relevant for patients with malaria, treated with antifolate antimalarials. Treatment failure (defined as the inability to clear malaria parasitaemia or prevent recrudescence after administration of antimalarial medicine, regardless of whether clinical symptoms are resolved) (WHO 2019). This outcome is relevant for patients with malaria, treated with antifolate antimalarials. Secondary outcomes Duration of parasitaemia Parasite density Haemoglobin (Hb) concentrations (g/L) Anaemia: severe anaemia (defined as Hb less than 70 g/L in pregnant women and children aged six to 59 months; and Hb less than 80 g/L in other populations); moderate anaemia (defined as Hb less than 100 g/L in pregnant women and children aged six to 59 months; and less than 110 g/L in others) Death from any cause Among pregnant women: stillbirth (at less than 28 weeks gestation); low birthweight (less than 2500 g); active placental malaria (defined as Plasmodium detected in placental blood by smear or PCR, or by Plasmodium detected on impression smear or placental histology). Search methods for identification of studies A search will be conducted to identify completed and ongoing studies, without date or language restrictions. Electronic searches A search strategy will be designed to include the appropriate subject headings and text word terms related to each intervention of interest and study design of interest (see Appendix 1). Searches will be broken down by these two criteria (intervention of interest and study design of interest) to allow for ease of prioritization, if necessary. The study design filters recommended by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), and those designed by Cochrane for identifying clinical trials for MEDLINE and Embase, will be used (SIGN 2020). There will be no date or language restrictions. Non-English articles identified for inclusion will be translated into English. If translations are not possible, advice will be requested from the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group and the record will be stored in the "Awaiting assessment" section of the review until a translation is available. The following electronic databases will be searched for primary studies. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). Embase. MEDLINE. Scopus. Web of Science (both the Social Science Citation Index and the Science Citation Index). We will conduct manual searches of ClinicalTrials.gov, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) Evaluation and Research Database (ERD), in order to identify relevant ongoing or planned trials, abstracts, and full-text reports of evaluations, studies, and surveys related to programmes on folic acid supplementation in malaria-endemic areas. Additionally, manual searches of grey literature to identify RCTs that have not yet been published but are potentially eligible for inclusion will be conducted in the following sources. Global Index Medicus (GIM). African Index Medicus (AIM). Index Medicus for the Eastern Mediterranean Region (IMEMR). Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS). Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). Western Pacific Region Index Medicus (WPRO). Index Medicus for the South-East Asian Region (IMSEAR). The Spanish Bibliographic Index in Health Sciences (IBECS) (ibecs.isciii.es/). Indian Journal of Medical Research (IJMR) (journals.lww.com/ijmr/pages/default.aspx). Native Health Database (nativehealthdatabase.net/). Scielo (www.scielo.br/). Searching other resources Handsearches of the five journals with the highest number of included studies in the last 12 months will be conducted to capture any relevant articles that may not have been indexed in the databases at the time of the search. We will contact the authors of included studies and will check reference lists of included papers for the identification of additional records. For assistance in identifying ongoing or unpublished studies, we will contact the Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity (DNPAO) and the Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria (DPDM) of the CDC, the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP), Nutrition International (NI), Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), and Hellen Keller International (HKI). Data collection and analysis Selection of studies Two review authors will independently screen the titles and abstracts of articles retrieved by each search to assess eligibility, as determined by the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies deemed eligible for inclusion by both review authors in the abstract screening phase will advance to the full-text screening phase, and full-text copies of all eligible papers will be retrieved. If full articles cannot be obtained, we will attempt to contact the authors to obtain further details of the studies. If such information is not obtained, we will classify the study as "awaiting assessment" until further information is published or made available to us. The same two review authors will independently assess the eligibility of full-text articles for inclusion in the systematic review. If any discrepancies occur between the studies selected by the two review authors, a third review author will provide arbitration. Each trial will be scrutinized to identify multiple publications from the same data set, and the justification for excluded trials will be documented. A PRISMA flow diagram of the study selection process will be presented to provide information on the number of records identified in the literature searches, the number of studies included and excluded, and the reasons for exclusion (Moher 2009). The list of excluded studies, along with their reasons for exclusion at the full-text screening phase, will also be created. Data extraction and management Two review authors will independently extract data for the final list of included studies using a standardized data specification form. Discrepancies observed between the data extracted by the two authors will be resolved by involving a third review author and reaching a consensus. Information will be extracted on study design components, baseline participant characteristics, intervention characteristics, and outcomes. For individually randomized trials, we will record the number of participants experiencing the event and the number analyzed in each treatment group or the effect estimate reported (e.g. risk ratio (RR)) for dichotomous outcome measures. For count data, we will record the number of events and the number of person-months of follow-up in each group. If the number of person-months is not reported, the product of the duration of follow-up and the number of children evaluated will be used to estimate this figure. We will calculate the rate ratio and standard error (SE) for each study. Zero events will be replaced by 0.5. We will extract both adjusted and unadjusted covariate incidence rate ratios if they are reported in the original studies. For continuous data, we will extract means (arithmetic or geometric) and a measure of variance (standard deviation (SD), SE, or confidence interval (CI)), percentage or mean change from baseline, and the numbers analyzed in each group. SDs will be computed from SEs or 95% CIs, assuming a normal distribution of the values. Haemoglobin values in g/dL will be calculated by multiplying haematocrit or packed cell volume values by 0.34, and studies reporting haemoglobin values in g/dL will be converted to g/L. In cluster-randomized trials, we will record the unit of randomization (e.g. household, compound, sector, or village), the number of clusters in the trial, and the average cluster size. The statistical methods used to analyze the trials will be documented, along with details describing whether these methods adjusted for clustering or other covariates. We plan to extract estimates of the intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC) for each outcome. Where results are adjusted for clustering, we will extract the treatment effect estimate and the SD or CI. If the results are not adjusted for clustering, we will extract the data reported. Assessment of risk of bias in included studies Two review authors (KSC, LFY) will independently assess the risk of bias for each included trial using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias 2' tool (RoB 2) for randomized studies (Sterne 2019). Judgements about the risk of bias of included studies will be made according to the recommendations outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2021). Disagreements will be resolved by discussion, or by involving a third review author. The interest of our review will be to assess the effect of assignment to the interventions at baseline. We will evaluate each primary outcome using the RoB2 tool. The five domains of the Cochrane RoB2 tool include the following. Bias arising from the randomization process. Bias due to deviations from intended interventions. Bias due to missing outcome data. Bias in measurement of the outcome. Bias in selection of the reported result. Each domain of the RoB2 tool comprises the following. A series of 'signalling' questions. A judgement about the risk of bias for the domain, facilitated by an algorithm that maps responses to the signalling questions to a proposed judgement. Free-text boxes to justify responses to the signalling questions and 'Risk of bias' judgements. An option to predict (and explain) the likely direction of bias. Responses to signalling questions elicit information relevant to an assessment of the risk of bias. These response options are as follows. Yes (may indicate either low or high risk of bias, depending on the most natural way to ask the question). Probably yes. Probably no. No. No information (may indicate no evidence of that problem or an absence of information leading to concerns about there being a problem). Based on the answer to the signalling question, a 'Risk of bias' judgement is assigned to each domain. These judgements include one of the following. High risk of bias Low risk of bias Some concerns To generate the risk of bias judgement for each domain in the randomized studies, we will use the Excel template, available at www.riskofbias.info/welcome/rob-2-0-tool/current-version-of-rob-2. This file will be stored on a scientific data website, available to readers. Risk of bias in cluster randomized controlled trials For the cluster randomized trials, we will be using the RoB2 tool to analyze the five standard domains listed above along with Domain 1b (bias arising from the timing of identification or recruitment of participants) and its related signalling questions. To generate the risk of bias judgement for each domain in the cluster RCTs, we will use the Excel template available at https://sites.google.com/site/riskofbiastool/welcome/rob-2-0-tool/rob-2-for-cluster-randomized-trials. This file will be stored on a scientific data website, available to readers. Risk of bias in cross-over randomized controlled trials For cross-over randomized trials, we will be using the RoB2 tool to analyze the five standard domains listed above along with Domain 2 (bias due to deviations from intended interventions), and Domain 3 (bias due to missing outcome data), and their respective signalling questions. To generate the risk of bias judgement for each domain in the cross-over RCTs, we will use the Excel template, available at https://sites.google.com/site/riskofbiastool/welcome/rob-2-0-tool/rob-2-for-crossover-trials, for each risk of bias judgement of cross-over randomized studies. This file will be stored on a scientific data website, available to readers. Overall risk of bias The overall 'Risk of bias' judgement for each specific trial being assessed will be based on each domain-level judgement. The overall judgements include the following. Low risk of bias (the trial is judged to be at low risk of bias for all domains). Some concerns (the trial is judged to raise some concerns in at least one domain but is not judged to be at high risk of bias for any domain). High risk of bias (the trial is judged to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain, or is judged to have some concerns for multiple domains in a way that substantially lowers confidence in the result). The 'risk of bias' assessments will inform our GRADE evaluations of the certainty of evidence for our primary outcomes presented in the 'Summary of findings' tables and will also be used to inform the sensitivity analyses; (see Sensitivity analysis). If there is insufficient information in study reports to enable an assessment of the risk of bias, studies will be classified as "awaiting assessment" until further information is published or made available to us. Measures of treatment effect Dichotomous data For dichotomous data, we will present proportions and, for two-group comparisons, results as average RR or odds ratio (OR) with 95% CIs. Ordered categorical data Continuous data We will report results for continuous outcomes as the mean difference (MD) with 95% CIs, if outcomes are measured in the same way between trials. Where some studies have reported endpoint data and others have reported change-from-baseline data (with errors), we will combine these in the meta-analysis, if the outcomes were reported using the same scale. We will use the standardized mean difference (SMD), with 95% CIs, to combine trials that measured the same outcome but used different methods. If we do not find three or more studies for a pooled analysis, we will summarize the results in a narrative form. Unit of analysis issues Cluster-randomized trials We plan to combine results from both cluster-randomized and individually randomized studies, providing there is little heterogeneity between the studies. If the authors of cluster-randomized trials conducted their analyses at a different level from that of allocation, and they have not appropriately accounted for the cluster design in their analyses, we will calculate the trials' effective sample sizes to account for the effect of clustering in data. When one or more cluster-RCT reports RRs adjusted for clustering, we will compute cluster-adjusted SEs for the other trials. When none of the cluster-RCTs provide cluster-adjusted RRs, we will adjust the sample size for clustering. We will divide, by the estimated design effects (DE), the number of events and number evaluated for dichotomous outcomes and the number evaluated for continuous outcomes, where DE = 1 + ((average cluster size 1) * ICC). The derivation of the estimated ICCs and DEs will be reported. We will utilize the intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC), derived from the trial (if available), or from another source (e.g., using the ICCs derived from other, similar trials) and then calculate the design effect with the formula provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2021). If this approach is used, we will report it and undertake sensitivity analysis to investigate the effect of variations in ICC. Studies with more than two treatment groups If we identify studies with more than two intervention groups (multi-arm studies), where possible we will combine groups to create a single pair-wise comparison or use the methods set out in the Cochrane Handbook to avoid double counting study participants (Higgins 2021). For the subgroup analyses, when the control group was shared by two or more study arms, we will divide the control group (events and total population) over the number of relevant subgroups to avoid double counting the participants. Trials with several study arms can be included more than once for different comparisons. Cross-over trials From cross-over trials, we will consider the first period of measurement only and will analyze the results together with parallel-group studies. Multiple outcome events In several outcomes, a participant might experience more than one outcome event during the trial period. For all outcomes, we will extract the number of participants with at least one event. Dealing with missing data We will contact the trial authors if the available data are unclear, missing, or reported in a format that is different from the format needed. We aim to perform a 'per protocol' or 'as observed' analysis; otherwise, we will perform a complete case analysis. This means that for treatment failure, we will base the analyses on the participants who received treatment and the number of participants for which there was an inability to clear malarial parasitaemia or prevent recrudescence after administration of an antimalarial medicine reported in the studies. Assessment of heterogeneity Heterogeneity in the results of the trials will be assessed by visually examining the forest plot to detect non-overlapping CIs, using the Chi2 test of heterogeneity (where a P value of less than 0.1 indicates statistical significance) and the I2 statistic of inconsistency (with a value of greater than 50% denoting moderate levels of heterogeneity). When statistical heterogeneity is present, we will investigate the reasons for it, using subgroup analysis. Assessment of reporting biases We will construct a funnel plot to assess the effect of small studies for the main outcome (when including more than 10 trials). Data synthesis The primary analysis will include all eligible studies that provide data regardless of the overall risk of bias as assessed by the RoB2 tool. Analyses will be conducted using Review Manager 5.4 (Review Manager 2020). Cluster-RCTs will be included in the main analysis after adjustment for clustering (see the previous section on cluster-RCTs). The meta-analysis will be performed using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model or the generic inverse variance method (when adjustment for clustering is performed by adjusting SEs), as appropriate. Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity The overall risk of bias will not be used as the basis in conducting our subgroup analyses. However, where data are available, we plan to conduct the following subgroup analyses, independent of heterogeneity. Dose of folic acid supplementation: higher doses (4 mg or more, daily) versus lower doses (less than 4 mg, daily). Moderate-severe anaemia at baseline (mean haemoglobin of participants in a trial at baseline below 100 g/L for pregnant women and children aged six to 59 months, and below 110 g/L for other populations) versus normal at baseline (mean haemoglobin above 100 g/L for pregnant women and children aged six to 59 months, and above 110 g/L for other populations). Antimalarial drug resistance to parasite: known resistance versus no resistance versus unknown/mixed/unreported parasite resistance. Folate status at baseline: Deficient (e.g. RBC folate concentration of less than 305 nmol/L, or serum folate concentration of less than 7nmol/L) and Insufficient (e.g. RBC folate concentration from 305 to less than 906 nmol/L, or serum folate concentration from 7 to less than 25 nmol/L) versus Sufficient (e.g. RBC folate concentration above 906 nmol/L, or serum folate concentration above 25 nmol/L). Presence of anaemia at baseline: yes versus no. Mandatory fortification status: yes, versus no (voluntary or none). We will only use the primary outcomes in any subgroup analyses, and we will limit subgroup analyses to those outcomes for which three or more trials contributed data. Comparisons between subgroups will be performed using Review Manager 5.4 (Review Manager 2020). Sensitivity analysis We will perform a sensitivity analysis, using the risk of bias as a variable to explore the robustness of the findings in our primary outcomes. We will verify the behaviour of our estimators by adding and removing studies with a high risk of bias overall from the analysis. That is, studies with a low risk of bias versus studies with a high risk of bias. Summary of findings and assessment of the certainty of the evidence For the assessment across studies, we will use the GRADE approach, as outlined in (Schünemann 2021). We will use the five GRADE considerations (study limitations based on RoB2 judgements, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the certainty of the body of evidence as it relates to the studies which contribute data to the meta-analyses for the primary outcomes. The GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool (GRADEpro) will be used to import data from Review Manager 5.4 (Review Manager 2020) to create 'Summary of Findings' tables. The primary outcomes for the main comparison will be listed with estimates of relative effects, along with the number of participants and studies contributing data for those outcomes. These tables will provide outcome-specific information concerning the overall certainty of evidence from studies included in the comparison, the magnitude of the effect of the interventions examined, and the sum of available data on the outcomes we considered. We will include only primary outcomes in the summary of findings tables. For each individual outcome, two review authors (KSC, LFY) will independently assess the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach (Balshem 2011). For assessments of the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome that includes pooled data from included trials, we will downgrade the evidence from 'high certainty' by one level for serious (or by two for very serious) study limitations (risk of bias, indirectness of evidence, serious inconsistency, imprecision of effect estimates, or potential publication bias).
Topics: Child; Infant; Pregnancy; Infant, Newborn; Female; Humans; Child, Preschool; Antimalarials; Sulfadoxine; Pyrimethamine; Folic Acid Antagonists; Birth Weight; Parasitemia; Vitamins; Folic Acid; Anemia; Neural Tube Defects; Dietary Supplements; Iron; Recurrence
PubMed: 36321557
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217 -
Transfusion Sep 2022Severe hemolysis rarely occurs in patients receiving intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) therapy. A systematic review was performed to assess the incidence of IVIG-related... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Severe hemolysis rarely occurs in patients receiving intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) therapy. A systematic review was performed to assess the incidence of IVIG-related hemolysis and the impact of patient and product risk factors.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS
A systematic literature search for terms related to "IVIG products", "hemolysis," and "adverse events" was conducted in Embase for articles published between January 1, 2015, and May 31, 2021. Studies with no clinical datasets, no IVIG treatment, or where IVIG was used to treat hemolytic conditions were excluded. Of the 430 articles retrieved, 383 were excluded based on titles/abstracts and 14 were excluded after in-depth review.
RESULTS
In total, 33 articles were analyzed and separated into observational studies (n = 16), clinical trials (n = 8), and case reports (n = 9). The incidence proportion for IVIG-related hemolysis ranged from 0% to 19% in observational studies and 0%-21% in clinical trials. A higher incidence of IVIG-related hemolysis was consistently reported in patients with blood groups A and AB. Hemolysis occurred more frequently in patients treated with IVIG for some conditions such as Kawasaki disease; however, this may be confounded by the high dose of IVIG therapy. IVIG-related hemolysis incidence was lower in studies using IVIG products citing manufacturing processes to reduce isoagglutinin levels than products that did not.
CONCLUSION
This analysis identified patient and product risk factors including blood group, IVIG dose, and IVIG manufacturing processes associated with elevated IVIG-related hemolysis incidence.
Topics: ABO Blood-Group System; Hemolysis; Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Incidence; Risk Factors
PubMed: 35916266
DOI: 10.1111/trf.17028