-
1.
Practice review: Evidence-based and effective management of anaemia in palliative care patients
Neoh K, Page A, Chin-Yee N, Doree C, Bennett MI
Palliative medicine. 2022;:2692163221081967
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Anaemia is a common sequela of advanced disease and is associated with significant symptom burden. No specific guidance exists for the investigation and management of anaemia in palliative care patients. AIM: We aim to offer a pragmatic overview of the approaches to investigate and manage anaemia in advanced disease, based on guidelines and evidence in disease specific patient groups, including cancer, heart failure and chronic kidney disease. DESIGN Scoping review methodology was used to determine the strength of evidence supporting the investigation and management of anaemia in patients with advanced disease. DATA SOURCES A search for guidelines was performed in 2020. National or international guidelines were examined if they described the investigation or management of anaemia in adult patients with health conditions seen by palliative care services written within the last 5 years in the English language. Searches of MEDLINE, the Cochrane library and WHO guidance were made in 2019 to identify key publications that provided additional primary data. RESULTS Evidence supports patient-centred investigation of anaemia, results of which should guide targeted intervention. Blanket use of blood transfusion should be avoided, with evidence supporting a more restrictive approach to transfusion. Routine use of oral iron and erythropoetin stimulating agents (ESAs) are not recommended. Insufficient evidence exists to determine the effectiveness of IV iron in this patient group. CONCLUSION We advocate early consideration and investigation of anaemia, guided by symptom burden and patient preferences. Correction of reversible causes should be the mainstay of treatment, with a restrictive approach to blood transfusion. Research is required to evaluate the efficacy of IV iron in these patients.
PICO Summary
Population
Palliative care patients (6 guidelines).
Intervention
Scoping review methodology was used to determine the strength of evidence supporting the investigation and management of anaemia.
Comparison
Outcome
Evidence supported patient-centred investigation of anaemia. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of intravenous iron in this patient group.
-
2.
Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Iron Therapy for Treating Anaemia in Critically ill Adults: A Rapid Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis
Geneen LJ, Kimber C, Doree C, Stanworth S, Shah A
Transfusion medicine reviews. 2021
-
-
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
Our objective was to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) iron therapy for treating anaemia in critically ill adults (>16 years) admitted to intensive care or high dependency units. We excluded quasi-RCTs and other not truly randomised trials. We searched 7 electronic databases (including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase) using a pre-defined search strategy from inception to June 14, 2021. One reviewer screened, extracted, and analysed data, with verification by a second reviewer of all decisions. We used Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) 1 and GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We reported 3 comparisons across 1198 patients, in 8 RCTs: (1) IV iron vs control (7 RCTs, 748 participants); our primary outcome (hemoglobin (Hb) concentration at 10 to 30 days) was reported in 7 of the 8 included trials. There was evidence of an effect (very-low certainty) in favour of IV iron over control in the main comparison only (6 RCTs, n = 528, mean difference (MD) 0.52g/dL [95%CI 0.23, 0.81], P = .0005). For the remaining outcomes there was no evidence of an effect in either direction (low certainty of evidence for Hb concentration at <10 days; very-low certainty of evidence for hospital duration, ICU duration, hospital readmission, infection, mortality; HRQoL outcomes were not GRADED). (2) IV iron + subcutaneous erythropoietin (EPO) vs control (2 RCTs, 104 participants); reported outcomes showed no evidence of effect in either direction, based on very-low certainty evidence (Hb concentration at 10-30 days, and <10 days, infection, mortality). (3) Hepcidin-guided treatment with IV iron or iron+ EPO vs standard care (1 RCT, 399 participants) reported evidence of an effect in favour of the intervention for 90-day mortality (low certainty of evidence), but no other group differences for the reported outcomes (low certainty evidence for Hb concentration at 10-30 days, hospital duration; HRQoL was not GRADED). The evidence across all comparisons was downgraded for high and unclear ROB for lack of blinding, incomplete outcome data, baseline imbalance, and imprecision around the estimate (wide CIs and small sample size). In conclusion, the current evidence continues to support further investigation into the role for iron therapy in increasing Hb in critically ill patients. Recent, small, trials have begun to focus on patient-centred outcomes but a large, well conducted, and adequately powered trial is needed to inform clinical practice.
PICO Summary
Population
Critically ill adults admitted to intensive care or high dependency units (8 studies, n= 1,198).
Intervention
Intravenous (IV) iron therapy; IV iron and subcutaneous erythropoietin (EPO); Hepcidin and targeted IV iron treatment (with and without EPO).
Comparison
Placebo/no iron therapy, or EPO therapy; Standard care.
Outcome
Seven trials (n= 748) comparing IV vs. control, found evidence of an effect in favour of IV iron in the main comparison only (6 RCTs, n = 528, mean difference (MD) 0.52g/dL). There was no evidence of an effect in either direction for hospital duration, intensive care unit duration, hospital readmission, infection, and mortality. For the two trials (n= 104) comparing IV iron and subcutaneous erythropoietin (EPO) vs. control, the reported outcomes showed no evidence of effect in either direction (Hb concentration at 10-30 days, and <10 days, infection, mortality). One trial (n= 399) comparing hepcidin-guided treatment with IV iron or iron and EPO vs. standard care reported evidence of an effect in favour of the intervention for 90-day mortality, but no other group differences for Hb concentration at 10-30 days, hospital duration, and HRQoL.
-
3.
Safety and efficacy of iron therapy on reducing red blood cell transfusion requirements and treating anaemia in critically ill adults: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
Shah A, Fisher SA, Wong H, Roy NB, McKechnie S, Doree C, Litton E, Stanworth SJ
Journal of Critical Care. 2018;49:162-171.
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the safety (risk of infection) and efficacy (transfusion requirements, changes in haemoglobin (Hb)) of iron therapy in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS We systematically searched seven databases for all relevant studies until January 2018 and included randomized (RCT) studies comparing iron, by any route, with placebo/no iron. RESULTS 805 participants from 6 RCTs were included. Iron therapy, by any route, did not decrease the risk of requirement for a red blood cell (RBC) transfusion (Risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.04, p=0.15) or mean number of RBCs transfused per participant (mean difference (MD) -0.30, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.07, p=0.15). Iron therapy did increase mean Hb concentration (MD 0.31g/dL, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.59, p=0.03). There was no difference in infection (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.19, p=0.44). Trial Sequential Analysis suggests that the required participant numbers to detect or reject a clinically important effect of iron therapy on transfusion requirements or infection in ICU patients has not yet been reached. CONCLUSION Iron therapy results in a modest increase in Hb. The current evidence is inadequate to exclude an important effect on transfusion requirements or infection.
-
4.
What is the effect of perioperative intravenous iron therapy in patients undergoing non-elective surgery? A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
Shah A, Palmer AJR, Fisher SA, Rahman SM, Brunskill S, Doree C, Reid J, Sugavanam A, Stanworth SJ
Perioperative Medicine (London, England). 2018;7:30.
Abstract
Background: Guidelines to treat anaemia with intravenous (IV) iron have focused on elective surgical patients with little attention paid to those undergoing non-elective/emergency surgery. Whilst these patients may experience poor outcomes because of their presenting illness, observational data suggests that untreated anaemia may also be a contributing factor to poor outcomes. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the safety and efficacy of IV iron in patients undergoing non-elective surgery. Methods: We followed a pre-defined review protocol and included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in patients undergoing non-elective surgery who received IV iron. Primary outcomes were all-cause infection and mean difference in haemoglobin (Hb) at follow-up. Secondary outcomes included transfusion requirements, hospital length of stay (LOS), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), mortality and adverse events. Results: Three RCTs (605 participants) were included in this systematic review of which two, in both hip fracture (HF) patients, provided data for meta-analysis. Both of these RCTs were at low risk of bias. We found no evidence of a difference in the risk of infection (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.80, I (2) = 9%) or in the Hb concentration at 'short-term' (≤ 7 days) follow-up (mean difference - 0.32 g/L, 95% CI - 3.28 to 2.64, I (2) = 37%). IV iron did not reduce the risk of requiring a blood transfusion (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.11, p = 0.46, I (2) = 0%), and we observed no difference in mortality, LOS or adverse events. One RCT reported on HRQoL and found no difference between treatment arms. Conclusion: We found no conclusive evidence of an effect of IV iron on clinically important outcomes in patients undergoing non-elective surgery. Further adequately powered trials to evaluate its benefit in emergency surgical specialties with a high burden of anaemia are warranted. Trial registration: This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018096288).
-
5.
Desmopressin use for minimising perioperative blood transfusion
Desborough MJ, Oakland K, Brierley C, Bennett S, Doree C, Trivella M, Hopewell S, Stanworth SJ, Estcourt LJ
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017;((7)):CD001884.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Blood transfusion is administered during many types of surgery, but its efficacy and safety are increasingly questioned. Evaluation of the efficacy of agents, such as desmopressin (DDAVP; 1-deamino-8-D-arginine-vasopressin), that may reduce perioperative blood loss is needed. OBJECTIVES To examine the evidence for the efficacy of DDAVP in reducing perioperative blood loss and the need for red cell transfusion in people who do not have inherited bleeding disorders. SEARCH METHODS We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2017, issue 3) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1980), and ongoing trial databases (all searches to 3 April 2017). SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials comparing DDAVP to placebo or an active comparator (e.g. tranexamic acid, aprotinin) before, during, or immediately after surgery or after invasive procedures in adults or children. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS We identified 65 completed trials (3874 participants) and four ongoing trials. Of the 65 completed trials, 39 focused on adult cardiac surgery, three on paediatric cardiac surgery, 12 on orthopaedic surgery, two on plastic surgery, and two on vascular surgery; seven studies were conducted in surgery for other conditions. These trials were conducted between 1986 and 2016, and 11 were funded by pharmaceutical companies or by a party with a commercial interest in the outcome of the trial.The GRADE quality of evidence was very low to moderate across all outcomes. No trial reported quality of life. DDAVP versus placebo or no treatmentTrial results showed considerable heterogeneity between surgical settings for total volume of red cells transfused (low-quality evidence) and for total blood loss (very low-quality evidence) due to large differences in baseline blood loss. Consequently, these outcomes were not pooled and were reported in subgroups.Compared with placebo, DDAVP may slightly decrease the total volume of red cells transfused in adult cardiac surgery (mean difference (MD) -0.52 units, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.96 to -0.08 units; 14 trials, 957 participants), but may lead to little or no difference in orthopaedic surgery (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.64 units; 6 trials, 303 participants), vascular surgery (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.73 units; 2 trials, 135 participants), or hepatic surgery (MD -0.47, 95% CI -1.27 to 0.33 units; 1 trial, 59 participants).DDAVP probably leads to little or no difference in the total number of participants transfused with blood (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.06; 25 trials; 1806 participants) (moderate-quality evidence).Whether DDAVP decreases total blood loss in adult cardiac surgery (MD -135.24 mL, 95% CI -210.80 mL to -59.68 mL; 22 trials, 1358 participants), orthopaedic surgery (MD -285.76 mL, 95% CI -514.99 mL to -56.53 mL; 5 trials, 241 participants), or vascular surgery (MD -582.00 mL, 95% CI -1264.07 mL to 100.07 mL; 1 trial, 44 participants) is uncertain because the quality of evidence is very low.DDAVP probably leads to little or no difference in all-cause mortality (Peto odds ratio (pOR) 1.09, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.34; 22 trials, 1631 participants) or in thrombotic events (pOR 1.36, 95% CI, 0.85 to 2.16; 29 trials, 1984 participants) (both low-quality evidence). DDAVP versus placebo or no treatment for people with platelet dysfunctionCompared with placebo, DDAVP may lead to a reduction in the total volume of red cells transfused (MD -0.65 units, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.13 units; 6 trials, 388 participants) (low-quality evidence) and in total blood loss (MD -253.93 mL, 95% CI -408.01 mL to -99.85 mL; 7 trials, 422 participants) (low-quality evidence).DDAVP probably leads to little or no difference in the total number of participants receiving a red cell tra
-
6.
Iron supplementation to treat anaemia in adult critical care patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Shah A, Roy NB, McKechnie S, Doree C, Fisher SA, Stanworth SJ
Critical Care (London, England). 2016;20((1)):306.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Anaemia affects 60-80 % of patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusions remain the mainstay of treatment for anaemia but are associated with risks and are costly. Our objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of iron supplementation by any route, in anaemic patients in adult ICUs. METHODS Electronic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE) were searched through March 2016 for randomized controlled trials (RCT)s comparing iron by any route with placebo/no iron. Primary outcomes were red blood cell transfusions and mean haemoglobin concentration. Secondary outcomes included mortality, infection, ICU and hospital length of stay, mean difference (MD) in iron biomarkers, health-related quality of life and adverse events. RESULTS Five RCTs recruiting 665 patients met the inclusion criteria; intravenous iron was tested in four of the RCTs. There was no difference in allogeneic RBC transfusion requirements (relative risk 0.87, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.07, p = 0.18, five trials) or mean number of RBC units transfused (MD -0.45, 95 % CI -1.34 to 0.43, p = 0.32, two trials) in patients receiving or not receiving iron. Similarly, there was no difference between groups in haemoglobin at short-term (up to 10 days) (MD -0.25, 95 % CI -0.79 to 0.28, p = 0.35, three trials) or mid-term follow up (last measured time point in hospital or end of trial) (MD 0.21, 95 % CI -0.13 to 0.55, p = 0.23, three trials). There was no difference in secondary outcomes of mortality, in-hospital infection, or length of stay. Risk of bias was generally low although three trials had high risk of attrition bias; only one trial had low risk of bias across all domains. CONCLUSION Iron supplementation does not reduce RBC transfusion requirements in critically ill adults, but there is considerable heterogeneity between trials in study design, nature of interventions, and outcomes. Well-designed trials are needed to investigate the optimal iron dosing regimens and strategies to identify which patients are most likely to benefit from iron, together with patient-focused outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews CRD42015016627 . Registered 2 March 2015.
-
7.
Desmopressin for treatment of platelet dysfunction and reversal of antiplatelet agents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Desborough MJ, Oakland KA, Landoni G, Crivellari M, Doree C, Estcourt LJ, Stanworth SJ
Journal of Thrombosis & Haemostasis.. 2016;15((2):):263-272
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Platelet dysfunction, including that caused by antiplatelet agents, increases the risk of perioperative bleeding. The optimal management of patients with platelet dysfunction undergoing surgery is unclear. OBJECTIVES To assess whether desmopressin reduces perioperative allogeneic red cell transfusion and bleeding for patients with platelet dysfunction. PATIENTS/METHODS We searched for randomised controlled trials in The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, the Transfusion Evidence Library and ISI Web of Science to 7(th) July 2016. Data were pooled using mean difference (MD), relative risks or Peto odds ratios (pOR) using a random-effects model. RESULTS Ten trials with 596 participants were identified, all in the setting of cardiac surgery. Platelet dysfunction was due to antiplatelet agents in six trials and cardiopulmonary bypass in four trials. Patients treated with desmopressin were transfused with fewer red cells (MD -0.65 units, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.13 units); lost less blood (MD -253.93 ml, 95% CI -408.01 to -99.85 ml); and had a lower risk of re-operation due to bleeding (pOR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.84). The GRADE quality of evidence was very low to moderate suggesting considerable uncertainty over the results CONCLUSIONS Desmopressin may be a useful agent to reduce bleeding and transfusion requirements for people with platelet dysfunction or with a history of recent anti-platelet drug administration undergoing cardiac surgery. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.Copyright This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. ES 1538-7836 IL 1538-7836
PICO Summary
Population
Adults undergoing any type of elective or emergency surgery and taking antiplatelet agents, enrolled in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), (10 RCTs, n= 596).
Intervention
Desmopressin (n= 289).
Comparison
Placebo or standard care (n= 307).
Outcome
All the included trials were in the setting of cardiac surgery. Platelet dysfunction was due to antiplatelet agents in six trials and cardiopulmonary bypass in four trials. Patients treated with desmopressin were transfused with fewer red cells (MD -0.65 units, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.13 units); lost less blood (MD -253.93 ml, 95% CI -408.01 to -99.85 ml); and had a lower risk of re-operation due to bleeding (pOR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.84). The GRADE quality of evidence was very low to moderate suggesting considerable uncertainty over the results.
-
8.
Antifibrinolytics (lysine analogues) for the prevention of bleeding in people with haematological disorders
Estcourt LJ, Desborough M, Brunskill SJ, Doree C, Hopewell S, Murphy MF, Stanworth SJ
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2016;((3)):CD009733.
Abstract
BACKGROUND People with haematological disorders are frequently at risk of severe or life-threatening bleeding as a result of thrombocytopenia (reduced platelet count). This is despite the routine use of prophylactic platelet transfusions to prevent bleeding once the platelet count falls below a certain threshold. Platelet transfusions are not without risk and adverse events may be life-threatening. A possible adjunct to prophylactic platelet transfusions is the use of antifibrinolytics, specifically the lysine analogues tranexamic acid (TXA) and epsilon aminocaproic acid (EACA). This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2013. OBJECTIVES To determine the efficacy and safety of antifibrinolytics (lysine analogues) in preventing bleeding in people with haematological disorders. SEARCH METHODS We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950) and ongoing trial databases to 07 March 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA We included RCTs involving participants with haematological disorders, who would routinely require prophylactic platelet transfusions to prevent bleeding. We only included trials involving the use of the lysine analogues TXA and EACA. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened all electronically-derived citations and abstracts of papers, identified by the review search strategy, for relevancy. Two review authors independently assessed the full text of all potentially relevant trials for eligibility, completed the data extraction and assessed the studies for risk of bias using The Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool. We requested missing data from one author but the data were no longer available. The outcomes are reported narratively: we performed no meta-analyses because of the heterogeneity of the available data. MAIN RESULTS We identified three new studies in this update of the review. In total seven studies were eligible for inclusion, three were ongoing RCTs and four were completed studies. The four completed studies were included in the original review and the three ongoing studies were included in this update. We did not identify any RCTs that compared TXA with EACA.Of the four completed studies, one cross-over TXA study (eight participants) was excluded from the outcome analysis because it had very flawed study methodology. Data from the other three studies were all at unclear risk of bias due to lack of reporting of study methodology.Three studies (two TXA (12 to 56 participants), one EACA (18 participants) reported in four articles (published 1983 to 1995) were included in the narrative review. All three studies compared the drug with placebo. All three studies included adults with acute leukaemia receiving chemotherapy. One study (12 participants) only included participants with acute promyelocytic leukaemia. None of the studies included children. One of the three studies reported funding sources and this study was funded by a charity.We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics reduce the risk of bleeding (three studies; 86 participants; very low-quality evidence). Only one study reported the number of bleeding events per participant and there was no difference in the number of bleeding events seen during induction or consolidation chemotherapy between TXA and placebo (induction; 38 participants; mean difference (MD) 1.70 bleeding events, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.37 to 3.77: consolidation; 18 participants; MD -1.50 bleeding events, 95% CI -3.25 to 0.25; very low-quality evidence). The two other studies suggested bleeding was reduced in the antifibrinolytic study arm, but this was statistically significant in only one of these two studies.Two studies reported thromboembolism and no events occurred (68 participants, very low-quality evidence).All three studies reported a reduction in platelet transfusion usage (three studies, 86 participants;
-
9.
Antifibrinolytics (lysine analogues) for the prevention of bleeding in patients with haematological disorders
Wardrop D, Estcourt LJ, Brunskill SJ, Doree C, Trivella M, Stanworth S, Murphy MF
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2013;((7):):CD009733.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patients with haematological disorders are frequently at risk of severe or life-threatening bleeding as a result of thrombocytopenia. This is despite the routine use of prophylactic platelet transfusions (PlTx) to prevent bleeding once the platelet count falls below a certain threshold. PlTx are not without risk and adverse events may be life-threatening. A possible adjunct to prophylactic PlTxs is the use of antifibrinolytics, specifically the lysine analogues tranexamic acid (TXA) and epsilon aminocaproic acid (EACA). OBJECTIVES To determine the efficacy and safety of antifibrinolytics (lysine analogues) in preventing bleeding in patients with haematological disorders. SEARCH METHODS We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL Issue 12, 2012), MEDLINE (1948 to 10 January 2013), EMBASE (1980 to 10 January 2013), CINAHL (1982 to 10 January 2013), PubMed (e-publications only) and the Transfusion Evidence Library (1980 to January 2013). We also searched several international and ongoing trial databases to 10 January 2013 and citation-tracked relevant reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA RCTs involving patients with haematological disorders, who would routinely require prophylactic platelet transfusions to prevent bleeding. We only included trials involving the use of the lysine analogues TXA and EACA. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently screened all electronically derived citations and abstracts of papers, identified by the review search strategy, for relevancy. Two authors independently assessed the full text of all potentially relevant trials for eligibility, completed the data extraction and assessed the studies for risk of bias using The Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool. We requested missing data from one author but the data were no longer available. The outcomes are reported narratively: we performed no meta-analyses because of the heterogeneity of the available data. MAIN RESULTS Of 470 articles initially identified, 436 were excluded on the basis of the title and abstract. We reviewed 34 full-text articles from which four studies reported in five articles were eligible for inclusion. We did not identify any RCTs which compared TXA with EACA. We did not identify any ongoing RCTs.One cross-over TXA study (eight patients) was excluded from the outcome analysis because data from this study were at a high risk of bias. Data from the other three studies were all at unclear risk of bias due to lack of reporting of study methodology.Three studies (two TXA (12 to 56 patients), one EACA (18 patients)) reported in four articles (published 1983 to 1995) were included in the narrative review. All three studies compared the drug with placebo.All studies reported bleeding, but it was reported in different ways. All three studies suggested antifibrinolytics reduced the risk of bleeding. The first study showed a difference in average bleeding score of 42 in placebo (P) versus three (TXA). The second study only showed a difference in bleeding episodes during consolidation chemotherapy, with a mean of 2.6 episodes/patient (standard deviation (SD) 2.2) (P) versus a mean of 1.1 episodes/patient (SD 1.4) (TXA). The third study reported bleeding on 50% of days at risk (P) versus bleeding on 31% of days at risk (EACA).Two studies (68 patients) reported thromboembolism and no events occurred.All three studies reported a reduction in PlTx usage. The first study reported a difference of 222 platelet units (P) versus 69 platelet units (TXA). The second study only showed a difference in total platelet usage during consolidation chemotherapy, with a mean of 9.3 units (SD 3.3) (P) versus 3.7 (SD 4.1) (TXA).The third study reported one PlTx every 10.5 days at risk (P) versus one PlTx every 13.3 days at risk (EACA).Two studies reported red cell transfusion requirements and one study found a reduction in red cell transfusion usage.One study reported death due to bleeding as an outcome measure and none occurred.Only one study repo
-
10.
Recombinant factor VIIa for the prevention and treatment of bleeding in patients without haemophilia
Simpson E, Lin Y, Stanworth S, Birchall J, Doree C, Hyde C
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2012;((3):):CD005011.
-
-
-
Full text
Abstract
Background: Recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) is licensed for use in patients with haemophilia and inhibitory allo-antibodies and for prophylaxis and treatment of patients with congenital factor VII deficiency. It is also used for off-license indications to prevent bleeding in operations where blood loss is likely to be high, and/or to stop bleeding that is proving difficult to control by other means. This is the third version of the 2007 Cochrane review on the use of recombinant factor VIIa for the prevention and treatment of bleeding in patients without haemophilia, and has been updated to incorporate recent trial data. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of rFVIIa when used therapeutically to control active bleeding or prophylactically to prevent (excessive) bleeding in patients without haemophilia. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and other medical databases up to 23 March 2011. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rFVIIa with placebo, or one dose of rFVIIa with another, in any patient population (except haemophilia). Outcomes weremortality, blood loss or control of bleeding, red cell transfusion requirements, number of patients transfused and thromboembolic adverse events. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently assessed potentially relevant studies for inclusion, extracted data and examined risk of bias. We considered prophylactic and therapeutic rFVIIa studies separately. Main results: Twenty-nine RCTs were included: 28 were placebo-controlled, double-blind RCTs and one compared different doses of rFVIIa. In the ’Risk of bias’ assessment, most studies were found to have some threats to validity although therapeutic RCTs were found to be less prone to bias than prophylactic RCTs. Sixteen trials involving 1361 participants examined the prophylactic use of rFVIIa; 729 received rFVIIa. There was no evidence of mortality benefit (risk ratio (RR) 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 1.97). There was decreased blood loss (mean difference (MD) -297 mL; 95% CI -416 to -178) and decreased red cell transfusion requirements (MD -261 mL; 95% CI -367 to -154) with rFVIIa treatment; however, these values were likely overestimated due to the inability to incorporate data from trials (four RCTs in the outcome of blood loss and three RCTs in the outcome of transfusion requirements) showing no difference of rFVIIa treatment compared to placebo. There was a trend in favour of rFVIIa in the number of participants transfused (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.01). However, there was a trend against rFVIIa with respect to thromboembolic adverse events (RR 1.35; 95% CI 0.82 to 2.25). Thirteen trials involving 2929 participants examined the therapeutic use of rFVIIa; 1878 received rFVIIa. There were no outcomes where any observed advantage or disadvantage of rFVIIa over placebo could not have been observed by chance alone. There was a trend in favour of rFVIIa for reducing mortality (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06). However, there was a trend against rFVIIa for increased thromboembolic adverse events (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.47). When all trials were pooled together to examine the risk of thromboembolic events, a significant increase in total arterial events was observed (RR 1.45; 95% CI 1.02 to 2.05). Authors’ conclusions: The effectiveness of rFVIIa as amore general haemostatic drug, either prophylactically or therapeutically, remains unproven. The results indicate increased risk of arterial events in patients receiving rFVIIa. The use of rFVIIa outside its current licensed indications should be restricted to clinical trials.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients without haemophilia, at risk of blood loss due to surgery, or who had received treatment to manage bleeding (29 randomised controlled trials, n= 4,290).
Intervention
Recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa).
Comparison
Placebo. Different dose schedules of rFVIIa.
Outcome
Sixteen trials involving 1,361 participants examined the prophylactic use of rFVIIa; 729 received rFVIIa. There was no evidence of mortality benefit (risk ratio (RR) 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 1.97). There was decreased blood loss (mean difference (MD) -297 mL; 95% CI -416 to -178) and decreased red cell transfusion requirements (MD -261 mL; 95% CI -367 to -154) with rFVIIa treatment. There was a trend in favour of rFVIIa in the number of participants transfused (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.01). However, there was a trend against rFVIIa with respect to thromboembolic adverse events (RR 1.35; 95% CI 0.82 to 2.25). Thirteen trials involving 2,929 participants examined the therapeutic use of rFVIIa; 1,878 received rFVIIa. There were no outcomes where any observed advantage or disadvantage of rFVIIa over placebo could not have been observed by chance alone. There was a trend in favour of rFVIIa for reducing mortality (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06). However, there was a trend against rFVIIa for increased thromboembolic adverse events (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.47). When all trials were pooled together to examine the risk of thromboembolic events, a significant increase in total arterial events was observed (RR 1.45; 95% CI 1.02 to 2.05).