Desferrioxamine mesylate for managing transfusional iron overload in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia

[Trauma center management]

Every year, more than 20,000 patients with polytrauma are treated in Germany. The term polytrauma refers to simultaneous injury to several body regions that are individually or collectively life-threatening for the patient. However, this assessment is made based on appropriate scoring systems. Adequate treatment of these patients requires not only medical care at the highest level, but also coordination of organizational/logistical processes. The link between preclinical and clinical care is treatment in the shock room, which should be led by a defined, experienced "trauma leader". Treatment algorithms are based on the current S3 guideline Polytrauma/Serious Injury Treatment of the AWMF and the White Paper on Serious Injury Care. Here, recommendations are defined regarding personnel, spatial, logistical and material requirements. Every shock room team should be trained regularly and have theoretical and practical knowledge on the application of shock room algorithms. This can improve the quality of treatment and thus the probability of survival of critically ill patients. In the shock room itself, the focus is on standardized and priority-oriented assessment and stabilization of the patient. Due to the varying quality of care for severely injured patients in Germany, the TraumaNetwork DGU® initiative was implemented by the German Society of Trauma Surgery to improve the treatment of polytrauma patients by defining standards and improving processes and organization in the care of severely injured patients. In Germany, there are currently 615 participating hospitals that are organized in 52 local trauma networks, some of which are cross state borders.

Deferasirox for managing iron overload in people with thalassaemia

BACKGROUND

Thalassaemia is a hereditary anaemia due to ineffective erythropoiesis. In particular, people with thalassaemia major develop secondary iron overload resulting from regular red blood cell transfusions. Iron chelation therapy is needed to prevent long-term complications.Both deferoxamine and deferiprone are effective; however, a review of the effectiveness and safety of the newer oral chelator deferasirox in people with thalassaemia is needed.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral deferasirox in people with thalassaemia and iron overload.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 12 August 2016.We also searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Biosis Previews, Web of Science Core Collection and three trial registries: ClinicalTrials.gov; the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; and the Internet Portal of the German Clinical Trials Register: 06 and 07 August 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled studies comparing deferasirox with no therapy or placebo or with another iron-chelating treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen studies involving 1807 randomised participants (range 23 to 586 participants) were included. Twelve two-arm studies compared deferasirox to placebo (two studies) or deferoxamine (seven studies) or deferiprone (one study) or the combination of deferasirox and deferoxamine to deferoxamine alone (one study). One study compared the combination of deferasirox and deferiprone to deferiprone in combination with deferoxamine. Three three-arm studies compared deferasirox to deferoxamine and deferiprone (two studies) or the combination of deferasirox and deferiprone to deferiprone and deferasirox monotherapy respectively (one study). One four-arm study compared two different doses of deferasirox to matching placebo groups.The two studies (a pharmacokinetic and a dose-escalation study) comparing deferasirox to placebo (n = 47) in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia showed that deferasirox leads to net iron excretion. In these studies, safety was acceptable and further investigation in phase II and phase III studies was warranted.Nine studies (1251 participants) provided data for deferasirox versus standard treatment with deferoxamine. Data suggest that a similar efficacy can be achieved depending on the ratio of doses of deferoxamine and deferasirox being compared. In the phase III study, similar or superior efficacy for the intermediate markers ferritin and liver iron concentration (LIC) could only be achieved in the highly iron-overloaded subgroup at a mean ratio of 1 mg of deferasirox to 1.8 mg of deferoxamine corresponding to a mean dose of 28.2 mg per day and 51.6 mg per day respectively. The pooled effects across the different dosing ratios are: serum ferritin, mean difference (MD) 454.42 ng/mL (95% confidence interval (CI) 337.13 to 571.71) (moderate quality evidence); LIC evaluated by biopsy or SQUID, MD 2.37 mg Fe/g dry weight (95% CI 1.68 to 3.07) (moderate quality evidence) and responder analysis, LIC 1 to < 7 mg Fe/g dry weight, risk ratio (RR) 0.80 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.92) (moderate quality evidence). The substantial heterogeneity observed could be explained by the different dosing ratios. Data on mortality (low quality evidence) and on safety at the presumably required doses for effective chelation therapy are limited. Patient satisfaction was better with deferasirox among those who had previously received deferoxamine treatment, RR 2.20 (95% CI 1.89 to 2.57) (moderate quality evidence). The rate of discontinuations was similar for both drugs (low quality evidence).For the remaining comparisons in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia, the quality of the evidence for outcomes assessed was low to very low, mainly due to the very small number of participants included. Four studies (205 participants) compared deferasirox to deferiprone; one of which (41 participants) revealed a higher number of participants experiencing arthralgia in the deferiprone group, but due to the large number of different types of adverse events reported and compared this result is uncertain. One study (96 participants) compared deferasirox combined with deferiprone to deferiprone with deferoxamine. Participants treated with the combination of the oral iron chelators had a higher adherence compared to those treated with deferiprone and deferoxamine, but no participants discontinued the study. In the comparisons of deferasirox versus combined deferasirox and deferiprone and that of deferiprone versus combined deferasirox and deferiprone (one study, 40 participants), and deferasirox and deferoxamine versus deferoxamine alone (one study, 94 participants), only a few patient-relevant outcomes were reported and no significant differences were observed.One study (166 participants) included people with non-transfusion dependent thalassaemia and compared two different doses of deferasirox to placebo. Deferasirox treatment reduced serum ferritin, MD -306.74 ng/mL (95% CI -398.23 to -215.24) (moderate quality evidence) and LIC, MD -3.27 mg Fe/g dry weight (95% CI -4.44 to -2.09) (moderate quality evidence), while the number of participants experiencing adverse events and rate of discontinuations (low quality evidence) was similar in both groups. No participant died, but data on mortality were limited due to a follow-up period of only one year (moderate quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Deferasirox offers an important treatment option for people with thalassaemia and secondary iron overload. Based on the available data, deferasirox does not seem to be superior to deferoxamine at the usually recommended ratio of 1 mg of deferasirox to 2 mg of deferoxamine. However, similar efficacy seems to be achievable depending on the dose and ratio of deferasirox compared to deferoxamine. Whether this will result in similar efficacy and will translate to similar benefits in the long term, as has been shown for deferoxamine, needs to be confirmed. Data from randomised controlled trials on rare toxicities and long-term safety are still limited. However, after a detailed discussion of the potential benefits and risks, deferasirox could be offered as the first-line option to individuals who show a strong preference for deferasirox, and may be a reasonable treatment option for people showing an intolerance or poor adherence to deferoxamine.

Expression of murine 5-aminolevulinate synthase variants causes protoporphyrin IX accumulation and light-induced mammalian cell death

5-Aminolevulinate synthase (ALAS; EC 2.3.1.37) catalyzes the first committed step of heme biosynthesis in animals. The erythroid-specific ALAS isozyme (ALAS2) is negatively regulated by heme at the level of mitochondrial import and, in its mature form, certain mutations of the murine ALAS2 active site loop result in increased production of protoporphyrin IX (PPIX), the precursor for heme. Importantly, generation of PPIX is a crucial component in the widely used photodynamic therapies (PDT) of cancer and other dysplasias. ALAS2 variants that cause high levels of PPIX accumulation provide a new means of targeted, and potentially enhanced, photosensitization. In order to assess the prospective utility of ALAS2 variants in PPIX production for PDT, K562 human erythroleukemia cells and HeLa human cervical carcinoma cells were transfected with expression plasmids for ALAS2 variants with greater enzymatic activity than the wild-type enzyme. The levels of accumulated PPIX in ALAS2-expressing cells were analyzed using flow cytometry with fluorescence detection. Further, cells expressing ALAS2 variants were subjected to white light treatments (21–22 kLux) for 10 minutes after which cell viability was determined. Transfection of HeLa cells with expression plasmids for murine ALAS2 variants, specifically for those with mutated mitochondrial presequences and a mutation in the active site loop, caused significant cellular accumulation of PPIX, particularly in the membrane. Light treatments revealed that ALAS2 expression results in an increase in cell death in comparison to aminolevulinic acid (ALA) treatment producing a similar amount of PPIX. The delivery of stable and highly active ALAS2 variants has the potential to expand and improve upon current PDT regimes.

Desferrioxamine mesylate for managing transfusional iron overload in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia

BACKGROUND

Thalassaemia major is a genetic disease characterised by a reduced ability to produce haemoglobin. Management of the resulting anaemia is through red blood cell transfusions.Repeated transfusions result in an excessive accumulation of iron in the body (iron overload), removal of which is achieved through iron chelation therapy. Desferrioxamine mesylate (desferrioxamine) is one of the most widely used iron chelators. Substantial data have shown the beneficial effects of desferrioxamine, although adherence to desferrioxamine therapy is a challenge. Alternative oral iron chelators, deferiprone and deferasirox, are now commonly used. Important questions exist about whether desferrioxamine, as monotherapy or in combination with an oral iron chelator, is the best treatment for iron chelation therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness (dose and method of administration) of desferrioxamine in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia.To summarise data from trials on the clinical efficacy and safety of desferrioxamine for thalassaemia and to compare these with deferiprone and deferasirox.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register. We also searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), LILACS and other international medical databases, plus ongoing trials registers and the Transfusion Evidence Library (www.transfusionevidencelibrary.com). All searches were updated to 5 March 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing desferrioxamine with placebo, with another iron chelator, or comparing two schedules or doses of desferrioxamine, in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Six authors working independently were involved in trial quality assessment and data extraction. For one trial, investigators supplied additional data upon request.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 22 trials involving 2187 participants (range 11 to 586 people) were included. These trials included eight comparisons between desferrioxamine alone and deferiprone alone; five comparisons between desferrioxamine combined with deferiprone and deferiprone alone; eight comparisons between desferrioxamine alone and desferrioxamine combined with deferiprone; two comparisons of desferrioxamine with deferasirox; and two comparisons of different routes of desferrioxamine administration (bolus versus continuous infusion). Overall, few trials measured the same or long-term outcomes. Seven trials reported cardiac function or liver fibrosis as measures of end organ damage; none of these included a comparison with deferasirox.Five trials reported a total of seven deaths; three in patients who received desferrioxamine alone, two in patients who received desferrioxamine and deferiprone. A further death occurred in a patient who received deferiprone in another who received deferasirox alone. One trial reported five further deaths in patients who withdrew from randomised treatment (deferiprone with or without desferrioxamine) and switched to desferrioxamine alone.One trial planned five years of follow up but was stopped early due to the beneficial effects of a reduction in serum ferritin levels in those receiving combined desferrioxamine and deferiprone treatment compared with deferiprone alone. The results of this and three other trials suggest an advantage of combined therapy with desferrioxamine and deferiprone over monotherapy to reduce iron stores as measured by serum ferritin. There is, however, no evidence for the improved efficacy of combined desferrioxamine and deferiprone therapy against monotherapy from direct or indirect measures of liver iron.Earlier trials measuring the cardiac iron load indirectly by measurement of the magnetic resonance imaging T2* signal had suggested deferiprone may reduce cardiac iron more quickly than desferrioxamine. However, meta-analysis of two trials showed a significantly lower left ventricular ejection fraction in patients who received desferrioxamine alone compared with those who received combination therapy using desferrioxamine with deferiprone.Adverse events were recorded by 18 trials. These occurred with all treatments, but were significantly less likely with desferrioxamine than deferiprone in one trial, relative risk 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.84) and significantly less likely with desferrioxamine alone than desferrioxamine combined with deferiprone in two other trials, relative risk 0.33 (95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.84). In particular, four studies reported permanent treatment withdrawal due to adverse events from deferiprone; only one of these reported permanent withdrawals associated with desferrioxamine. Adverse events also occurred at a higher frequency in patients who received deferasirox than desferrioxamine in one trial. Eight trials reported local adverse reactions at the site of desferrioxamine infusion including pain and swelling. Adverse events associated with deferiprone included joint pain, gastrointestinal disturbance, increases in liver enzymes and neutropenia; adverse events associated with deferasirox comprised increases in liver enzymes and renal impairment. Regular monitoring of white cell counts has been recommended for deferiprone and monitoring of liver and renal function for deferasirox.In summary, desferrioxamine and the oral iron chelators deferiprone and deferasirox produce significant reductions in iron stores in transfusion-dependent, iron-overloaded people. There is no evidence from randomised clinical trials to suggest that any one of these has a greater reduction of clinically significant end organ damage, although in two trials, combination therapy with desferrioxamine and deferiprone showed a greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction than desferrioxamine used alone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Desferrioxamine is the recommended first-line therapy for iron overload in people with thalassaemia major and deferiprone or deferasirox are indicated for treating iron overload when desferrioxamine is contraindicated or inadequate. Oral deferasirox has been licensed for use in children aged over six years who receive frequent blood transfusions and in children aged two to five years who receive infrequent blood transfusions. In the absence of randomised controlled trials with long-term follow up, there is no compelling evidence to change this conclusion.Worsening iron deposition in the myocardium in patients receiving desferrioxamine alone would suggest a change of therapy by intensification of desferrioxamine treatment or the use of desferrioxamine and deferiprone combination therapy.Adverse events are increased in patients treated with deferiprone compared with desferrioxamine and in patients treated with combined deferiprone and desferrioxamine compared with desferrioxamine alone. People treated with all chelators must be kept under close medical supervision and treatment with deferiprone or deferasirox requires regular monitoring of neutrophil counts or renal function respectively. There is an urgent need for adequately-powered, high-quality trials comparing the overall clinical efficacy and long-term outcomes of deferiprone, deferasirox and desferrioxamine.

Deferasirox for managing iron overload in people with thalassaemia

BACKGROUND

Thalassemia is a hereditary anaemia due to ineffective erythropoiesis. In particular, people with thalassaemia major develop secondary iron overload resulting from regular red blood cell transfusion. Iron chelation therapy is needed to prevent long-term complications.Both deferoxamine and deferiprone have been found to be efficacious. However, a systematic review of the effectiveness and safety of the new oral chelator deferasirox in people with thalassaemia is needed.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral deferasirox in people with thalassaemia and secondary iron overload.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register. We also searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBMR, Biosis Previews, Web of Science, Derwent Drug File, XTOXLINE and three trial registries: www.controlled-trials.com; www.clinicaltrials.gov; www.who.int./ictrp/en/. Date of the most recent searches of these databases: 24 June 2010.Date of the most recent search of the Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 03 November 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing deferasirox with no therapy or placebo or with another iron chelating treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Four studies met the inclusion criteria.Two studies compared deferasirox to placebo or standard therapy of deferoxamine (n = 47). The placebo-controlled studies, a pharmacokinetic and a dose escalation study, showed that deferasirox leads to net iron excretion in transfusion-dependent thalassaemia patients. In these studies, safety was acceptable and further investigation in phase II and phase III trials was warranted.Two studies, one phase II study (n = 71) and one phase III study (n = 586) compared deferasirox to standard treatment with deferoxamine. Data suggest that a similar efficacy can be achieved depending on the ratio of doses of deferoxamine and deferasirox being compared; in the phase III trial, similar or superior efficacy for surrogate parameters of ferritin and liver iron concentration could only be achieved in the highly iron-overloaded subgroup at a mean ratio of 1 mg of deferasirox to 1.8 mg of deferoxamine corresponding to a mean dose of 28.2 mg/d and 51.6 mg/d respectively. Data on safety at the presumably required doses for effective chelation therapy are limited. Patient satisfaction was significantly better with deferasirox, while rate of discontinuations was similar for both drugs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Deferasirox offers an important alternative line of treatment for people with thalassaemia and secondary iron overload. Based on the available data, deferasirox does not seem to be superior to deferoxamine at the usually recommended ratio of 1 mg of deferasirox to 2 mg of deferoxamine. However, similar efficacy seems to be achievable depending on the dose and ratio of deferasirox compared to deferoxamine. Whether this will result in similar efficacy in the long run and will translate to similar benefits as has been shown for deferoxamine, needs to be confirmed. Data on safety, particularly on rare toxicities and long-term safety, are still limited.Therefore, we think that deferasirox should be offered as an alternative to all patients with thalassaemia who either show intolerance to deferoxamine or poor compliance with deferoxamine. In our opinion, data are still too limited to support the general recommendation of deferasirox as first-line treatment instead of deferoxamine. If a strong preference for deferasirox is expressed, it could be offered as first-line option to individual patients after a detailed discussion of the potential benefits and risks.

Deferasirox for managing iron overload in people with myelodysplastic syndrome

BACKGROUND

The myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) comprises a diverse group of haematopoietic stem cell disorders. Due to symptomatic anaemia most patients require supportive therapy including repeated red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. In combination with increased iron absorption, this contributes to the accumulation of iron resulting in secondary iron overload and the risk of organ dysfunction and reduced life expectancy. Since the human body has no natural means of getting rid of excess iron, iron chelation therapy is usually recommended. However, whether the new oral chelator deferasirox leads to relevant benefit is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral deferasirox in people with myelodysplastic syndrome and iron overload.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Biosis Previews, Web of Science, Derwent Drug File, XTOXLINE and three trial registries: Current Controlled Trials: www.controlled-trials.com, ClinicalTrials.gov: www.clinicaltrials.gov, ICTRP: www.who.int./ictrp/en/. Most recent searches of these databases: June 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing deferasirox with no therapy/placebo or with another iron chelating treatment schedule.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

No studies eligible for inclusion in this review were identified.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies were included in this review. However, we identified one ongoing study comparing deferasirox with deferoxamine.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We planned to report evidence from randomised clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of deferasirox compared to either placebo/no treatment or other chelating regimens such as deferoxamine in people with myelodysplastic syndrome. However, no completed randomised trials addressing this question could be identified.One ongoing randomised study comparing deferasirox with placebo was identified and preliminary data will hopefully be available soon. These results will be important to inform physicians and patients on the advantages and disadvantages of this treatment option.

Deferasirox, deferiprone and desferrioxamine treatment in thalassemia major patients: cardiac iron and function comparison determined by quantitative magnetic resonance imaging

BACKGROUND

Oral deferiprone was suggested to be more effective than subcutaneous desferrioxamine for removing heart iron. Oral once-daily chelator deferasirox has recently been made commercially available but its long-term efficacy on cardiac iron and function has not yet been established. Our study aimed to compare the effectiveness of deferasirox, deferiprone and desferrioxamine on myocardial and liver iron concentrations and bi-ventricular function in thalassemia major patients by means of quantitative magnetic resonance imaging.

DESIGN AND METHODS

From the first 550 thalassemia subjects enrolled in the Myocardial Iron Overload in Thalassemia network, we retrospectively selected thalassemia major patients who had been receiving one chelator alone for longer than one year. We identified three groups of patients: 24 treated with deferasirox, 42 treated with deferiprone and 89 treated with desferrioxamine. Myocardial iron concentrations were measured by T2* multislice multiecho technique. Biventricular function parameters were quantitatively evaluated by cine images. Liver iron concentrations were measured by T2* multiecho technique.

RESULTS

The global heart T2* value was significantly higher in the deferiprone (34 ± 11 ms) than in the deferasirox (21 ± 12 ms) and the desferrioxamine groups (27 ± 11 ms) (P = 0.0001). We found higher left ventricular ejection fractions in the deferiprone and the desferrioxamine versus the deferasirox group (P = 0.010). Liver iron concentration, measured as T2* signal, was significantly lower in the desferrioxamine versus the deferiprone and the deferasirox group (P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

The cohort of patients treated with oral deferiprone showed less myocardial iron burden and better global systolic ventricular function compared to the patients treated with oral deferasirox or subcutaneous desferrioxamine.

Deferasirox for managing transfusional iron overload in people with sickle cell disease

BACKGROUND

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a group of genetic haemoglobin disorders. Increasingly, some people with SCD develop secondary iron overload due to occasional red blood cell transfusions or are on long-term transfusion programmes for e.g. secondary stroke prevention. Iron chelation therapy can prevent long-term complications.Deferoxamine and deferiprone have been found to be efficacious. However, questions exist about the effectiveness and safety of the new oral chelator deferasirox.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral deferasirox in people with SCD and secondary iron overload.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cystic Fibrosis & Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register (06 April 2010).We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBMR, Biosis Previews, Web of Science, Derwent Drug File, XTOXLINE and three trial registries: www.controlled-trials.com; www.clinicaltrials.gov; www.who.int./ictrp/en/. Most recent searches: 22 June 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing deferasirox with no therapy or placebo or with another iron chelating treatment schedule.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We contacted the study author for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

One study (203 people) was included comparing the efficacy and safety of deferasirox and deferoxamine after 12 months. Data were not available on mortality or end-organ damage. Using a pre-specified dosing algorithm serum ferritin reduction was similar in both groups, mean difference (MD) 375.00 microg/l in favour of deferoxamine; (95% confidence interval (CI) -106.08 to 856.08). Liver iron concentration measured by superconduction quantum interference device showed no difference for the overall group of patients adjusted for transfusion category, MD -0.20 mg Fe/g dry weight (95% CI -3.15 to 2.75).Mild stable increases in creatine were observed more often in people treated with deferasirox, risk ratio 1.64 (95% CI 0.98 to 2.74). Abdominal pain and diarrhoea occurred significantly more often in people treated with deferasirox. Rare adverse events (less than 5% increase) were not reported; long-term adverse events could not be measured in the included study (follow-up 52 weeks). Patient satisfaction with, and convenience of treatment were significantly better with deferasirox.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Deferasirox appears to be as effective as deferoxamine. However, only limited evidence is available assessing the efficacy regarding patient-important outcomes. The short-term safety of deferasirox seems to be acceptable, however, follow-up was too short to exclude long-term side effects and thus treatment with deferasirox cannot be judged completely safe. Future studies should assess long-term outcomes for safety and efficacy, and also evaluate rarer adverse effects.

Improving the evidence base for transfusion medicine: the work of the UK systematic review initiative

Clarifying the existing evidence base is crucial to improve the effectiveness of transfusion practice. The UK Systematic Review Initiative has been pursuing this objective primarily through writing systematic reviews on important topics in transfusion medicine. Here, we describe our progress for the past 5 years. We are the only research group that identifies transfusion medicine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and to date, we have contributed 3002 RCT citations. The article considers future challenges including the need for wider involvement from the transfusion medicine community in the process of maintaining and updating systematic reviews and the identification and prioritization of topics for further clinical research including clinical trials. Collaboration between international and local research groups is important if these challenges are to be met.

Current trends in the management of beta thalassemia

The management of Beta Thalassemia, the commonest form of hemolytic anemia in children, has changed significantly in the last few years. With the availability of better transfusion regimen, iron chelation therapy, proper management of complications and good supportive care, it is now possible for a thalassemic child to have a near normal life span with a good quality of life.

Oral deferiprone for iron chelation in people with thalassaemia

BACKGROUND

Thalassaemia major is a genetic disease characterised by a reduced ability to produce haemoglobin. Management of the resulting anaemia is through transfusions of red blood cells. Repeated transfusions result in excessive accumulation of iron in the body (iron overload), removal of which is achieved through iron chelation therapy. A commonly used iron chelator, deferiprone, has been found to be pharmacologically efficacious. However, important questions exist about the efficacy and safety of deferiprone compared to another iron chelator, desferrioxamine.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise data from trials on the clinical efficacy and safety of deferiprone and to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of deferiprone for thalassaemia with desferrioxamine.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biological Abstracts, ZETOC, Current Controlled Trials and bibliographies of relevant publications. We contacted the manufacturers of deferiprone and desferrioxamine. Most recent searches: June 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing deferiprone with another iron chelator; or comparing two schedules of deferiprone, in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Missing data were requested from the original investigators.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten trials involving 398 people (range 10 to 144 people) were included. Nine trials compared deferiprone with desferrioxamine or a combination of deferiprone and desferrioxamine and one compared different schedules of deferiprone. There was little consistency between outcomes and little information to fully assess the methodological quality of most of the included trials. No trial reported long-term outcomes (mortality and end organ damage). There was no consistent effect on reduction of iron overload between all treatment comparisons, with the exception of urinary iron excretion in comparisons of deferiprone with desferrioxamine. An increase in iron excretion levels favoured deferiprone in one trial and desferrioxamine in three trials, even though measurement of urinary iron excretion underestimates total iron excretion by desferrioxamine.Adverse events were recorded in trials comparing deferiprone with desferrioxamine. There was evidence of adverse events in all treatment groups. Adverse events in one trial were significantly more likely with deferiprone than desferrioxamine, relative risk 2.24 (95% confidence interval 1.19 to 4.23).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no reason to change current treatment recommendations, namely deferiprone is indicated for treating iron overload in people with thalassaemia major when desferrioxamine is contraindicated or inadequate. However, there is an urgent need for adequately-powered, high quality trials comparing the overall clinical efficacy and long-term outcome of deferiprone with desferrioxamine.