1.
Comparison of multiple treatments in the management of transplant-related thrombotic microangiopathy: a network meta-analysis
Yang J, Xu X, Han S, Qi J, Li X, Pan T, Zhang R, Han Y
Annals of hematology. 2022
-
-
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation-associated thrombotic microangiopathy (TA-TMA) is a fatal post-transplant complication. It has a high mortality rate and worse prognosis, but treatment strategies remain controversial. We screened 6 out of 3453 studies on the treatment of TA-TMA. These investigations compared 5 treatment strategies with a network meta-analysis approach. The final outcome was the proportion of patients who responded to these therapies. There were significant differences in response rates for each treatment. Achieving analysis through direct and indirect evidence in the rank probabilities shows that rTM (recombinant human soluble thrombomodulin) is most likely to be rank 1 (64.98%), Eculizumab intervention rank 2 (48.66%), ISM (immunosuppression manipulation) rank 3 (32.24%), TPE (therapeutic plasma exchange) intervention rank 4 (69.56%), and supportive care intervention rank 5 (70.20%). Eculizumab and ISM have significantly higher efficacy than supportive care (odds ratio (OR): 18.04, 18.21 respectively); and TPE having lower efficacy than all other TA-TMA therapies exception to supportive care. In our study, rTM and Eculizumab may be the best choice when treating TA-TMA.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients receiving treatment for transplantation-associated thrombotic microangiopathy (TA-TMA), (6 studies, n= 71).
Intervention
Therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE).
Comparison
Recombinant human soluble thrombomodulin (rTM). Eculizumab. Immunosuppression manipulation (ISM). Supportive care.
Outcome
There were significant differences in response rates for each treatment. Achieving analysis through direct and indirect evidence in the rank probabilities showed that rTM was most likely to be rank 1 (64.98%), Eculizumab intervention rank 2 (48.66%), ISM rank 3 (32.24%), intervention rank 4 (69.56%), and supportive care intervention rank 5 (70.20%). Eculizumab and ISM had significantly higher efficacy than supportive care (odds ratio (OR): 18.04, 18.21 respectively); and TPE had lower efficacy than all other TA-TMA therapies exception to supportive care.
2.
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Thrombopoietin Receptor Agonists in Adults With Thrombocytopenia: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trial
Deng J, Hu H, Huang F, Huang C, Huang Q, Wang L, Wu A, Yang J, Qin D, Zou W, et al
Frontiers in pharmacology. 2021;12:704093
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
Thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) play a crucial role in stimulating thrombopoiesis. However, conventional meta-analyses have shown inconsistent results regarding the efficacy of thrombopoietin receptor agonists versus placebo. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis to assess the effects of five TPO-RAs via indirect comparison. For this network meta-analysis, we considered randomized trials that included any of the following interventions: avatrombopag, lusutrombopag, eltrombopag, romiplostim, recombinant human thrombopoietin (rhTPO). We searched the Medline, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for randomized controlled clinical trials from inception to January 31, 2021. We use randomized controlled clinical trials of TPO-RAs for treatment of immune thrombocytopenia in adults. The primary outcome was the number of patients achieving platelet response which was defined as the achievement of a platelet count of more than 30 or 50 cells × 10(9)/L in the absence of rescue therapy, and the secondary outcome was the therapy-related serious adverse events and incidence of bleeding episodes. To obtain the estimates of efficacy and safety outcomes, we performed a random-effects network meta-analysis. These estimates were presented as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. We use surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities to rank the comparative effects and safety of all drugs against the placebo. In total, 2,207 patients were analyzed in 20 clinical trials. All preparations improved the point estimates of platelet response when compared with the placebo. Avatrombopag and lusutrombopag had the best platelet response compared to the placebo, the former had a non-significant advantage compared to the latter [odds ratio (OR) = 1.91 (95% confidence interval: 0.52, 7.05)]. The treatments were better than eltrombopag, romiplostim, rituximab, and rhTPO + rituximab, with corresponding ORs of 3.10 (1.01, 9.51), 9.96 (2.29, 43.29), 33.09 (8.76, 125.02), and 21.31 (3.78, 119.98) for avatrombopag and 1.62 (0.63, 4.17), 5.21 (1.54, 17.62), 17.34 (5.15, 58.36), and 11.16 (2.16, 57.62) for lusutrombopag. Regarding bleeding, the placebo group had the highest probability of bleeding, whereas lusutrombopag had the lowest risk of bleeding when compared to the placebo. Adverse events were slightly higher in patients receiving rituximab than in those receiving placebo or other treatments. Overall, this meta-analysis showed that avatrombopag may yield the highest efficacy because it has the most favorable balance of benefits and acceptability.
PICO Summary
Population
Adults with thrombocytopenia (20 studies, n= 2,207).
Intervention
Thrombopoietin receptor agonists: avatrombopag, lusutrombopag, eltrombopag, romiplostim, recombinant human thrombopoietin.
Comparison
Placebo.
Outcome
All preparations improved the point estimates of platelet response when compared with the placebo. Avatrombopag and lusutrombopag had the best platelet response compared to the placebo, the former had a non-significant advantage compared to the latter [odds ratio (OR)= 1.91 (95% confidence interval: 0.52, 7.05)]. The treatments were better than eltrombopag, romiplostim, rituximab, and rhTPO + rituximab, with corresponding ORs of 3.10 (1.01, 9.51), 9.96 (2.29, 43.29), 33.09 (8.76, 125.02), and 21.31 (3.78, 119.98) for avatrombopag and 1.62 (0.63, 4.17), 5.21 (1.54, 17.62), 17.34 (5.15, 58.36), and 11.16 (2.16, 57.62) for lusutrombopag. Regarding bleeding, the placebo group had the highest probability of bleeding, whereas lusutrombopag had the lowest risk of bleeding when compared to the placebo. Adverse events were slightly higher in patients receiving rituximab than in those receiving placebo or other treatments.