Abstract

BACKGROUND The pathophysiology of cancer-related anemia is multifactorial, including that of chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). The guidelines are not consistent in their approach to the use of intravenous (IV) iron in patients with cancer as part of the clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS All randomized controlled trials that compared IV iron with either no iron or iron taken orally for the treatment of CIA were included. We excluded trials if erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) were used. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients requiring a red blood cell (RBC) transfusion during the study period. The secondary outcomes included the hematopoietic response (an increase in the Hb level by more than 1 g/dL or an increase above 11 g/dL), the iron parameters and adverse events. For the dichotomous data, risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (Cis) were estimated and pooled. For the continuous data, the mean differences were calculated. A fixed effect model was used, except in the event of significant heterogeneity between the trials (p < 0.10; I(2) > 40%), in which we used a random effects model. RESULTS A total of 8 trials published between January 1990 and July 2021 that randomized 1015 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these, 553 patients were randomized to IV iron and were compared with 271 patients randomized to oral iron and 191 to no iron. IV iron decreased the percentage of patients requiring a blood transfusion compared with oral iron (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.55-0.95) with a number needed to treat of 20 (95% CI 11-100). IV iron increased the hematopoietic response (RR 1.23; 95% CI 1.01-1.5). There was no difference with respect to the risk of adverse events (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.88-1.07; 8 trials) or severe adverse events (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.76-1.57; 8 trials). CONCLUSIONS IV iron resulted in a decrease in the need for RBC transfusions, with no difference in adverse events in patients with CIA. IV iron for the treatment of CIA should be considered in clinical practice.

Abstract

The role of intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) prophylaxis in hypogammaglobulinemic patients with lymphoproliferative disorders (LPD) and plasma cell dyscrasias (PCD) has not been established. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials comparing prophylaxis with polyvalent IVIG versus control. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and major infections. Nine trials, assessing patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and multiple myeloma (MM), were included. No survival benefit could be demonstrated, RR 1.36 (95% CI 0.58-3.19, two trials), but there was a significant decrease in the occurrence of major infections, RR 0.45 (95% CI 0.27-0.75, three trials) and a significant reduction in clinically documented infections, RR 0.49 (95% CI 0.39-0.61, three trials). Adverse events, usually not requiring discontinuation of IVIG, occurred significantly more with IVIG. On the basis of the available data, IVIG cannot be recommended routinely for patients with CLL or MM with hypogammaglobulinemia and/or recurrent infections and should be considered on individual basis.

Abstract

PURPOSE Because the role of immunoglobulins (IVIG) prophylaxis in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) has not been established in terms of survival and infection prevention, we conducted a meta-analysis evaluating these issues. METHODS Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials comparing prophylaxis with polyvalent IVIG or cytomegalovirus (CMV)-IVIG and control or another preparation or dose. PUBMED, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and conference proceedings were searched. Two reviewers appraised the quality of trials and extracted data. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs were estimated and pooled. RESULTS Thirty trials including 4,223 patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation (BMT) were included. There was no difference in all-cause mortality when polyvalent IVIG or CMV-IVIG was compared to control (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.12; and RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.16, respectively). There was no difference in clinically documented infections when polyvalent IVIG was compared with control (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.10; five trials). CMV infections were not significantly reduced with either polyvalent IVIG or CMV-IVIG. Interstitial pneumonitis was reduced with polyvalent IVIG in older studies but not in the more recent ones, nor in studies assessing CMV-IVIG. Polyvalent IVIG increased the risk for veno-occlusive disease (RR, 2.73; (95% CI, 1.11 to 6.71). Graft-versus-host disease was not affected. CONCLUSION Because there is no advantage in terms of survival or infection prevention, IVIG does not have a role in HSCT.