Interventions for treating intrahepatic cholestasis in people with sickle cell disease

Red blood cell exchange in an emergency in sickle cell disease

Red blood cell exchange (RBCEx) has become a standard therapy to remove abnormal red blood cells (RBCs) in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD). In the last few decades, numerous RBCEx procedures have been performed chronically during regular programs, while numerous procedures have also been performed in an emergency for several indications, this therapeutic option being very efficient in vital and emergency situations. In both groups of indications, large amounts of sickle RBCs have to be removed, which requires great precision and the setting of specific hematological targets. The aim of this review is to discuss the aims, clinical and biological targets, and the requirements and precautions when performing RBCEx in an emergency. Moreover, we analyze how improvement of the techniques as well as the clinical and biological targets has led to optimization of the procedures in emergency settings. We also consider the outstanding issues that require additional investigation.

Interventions for treating intrahepatic cholestasis in people with sickle cell disease

BACKGROUND

Sickle cell disease is the most common hemoglobinopathy occurring worldwide and sickle cell intrahepatic cholestasis is a complication long recognized in this population. Cholestatic liver diseases are characterized by impaired formation or excretion (or both) of bile from the liver. There is a need to assess the clinical benefits and harms of the interventions used to treat intrahepatic cholestasis in people with sickle cell disease. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of the interventions for treating intrahepatic cholestasis in people with sickle cell disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearching of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched the LILACS database (1982 to 21 January 2020), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov (21 January 2020). Date of last search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 25 November 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for published or unpublished randomised controlled trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Each author intended to independently extract data, assess the risk of bias of the trials by standard Cochrane methodologies and assess the quality of the evidence using the GRADE criteria; however, no trials were included in the review.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any randomised controlled trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated Cochrane Review did not identify any randomised controlled trials assessing interventions for treating intrahepatic cholestasis in people with sickle cell disease. Randomised controlled trials are needed to establish the optimum treatment for this condition.

Management of Sickle Cell Intrahepatic Cholestasis: An Argument in Favor of Automated Exchange Transfusion

Sickle cell disease patients are commonly treated at transfusion medicine services, and understanding of the hepatic manifestations of the disease is key for optimal management, specifically, in individuals presenting with sickle cell intrahepatic cholestasis (SCIC). SCIC represents a rare, severe hepatic crisis wherein sinusoidal red cell sickling leads to massive hepatocyte dysfunction and cholestatic laboratory findings. Acute SCIC is defined by abdominal pain with progressive hepatic injury associated with hyperbilirubinemia, renal failure, encephalopathy, and coagulopathy. Patients are generally managed with red blood cell exchange transfusion (RBCEx), when available, as this is a potentially fatal condition. Simple transfusion may be utilized in resource-poor environment or when patients refuse RBCEx. As less than 50 adult cases have been described in the literature, many of them with limited follow-up, randomized clinical trials comparing RBCEx with other treatments are currently unfeasible. Likewise, a chronic form exists, but is less well characterized, and is associated with persistent bilirubinemia and a variable course in terms of progressive hepatic disease. We undertake a brief review of the literature and discuss two cases of SCIC managed with RBCEx at our institution.

Recommendations for the use of red blood cell exchange in sickle cell disease

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a genetic disorder characterised by a single mutation of the beta globin gene, causing the production of an abnormal haemoglobin called sickle haemoglobin (HbS). In its deoxygenated form, HbS polymerises, causing major rheological disorders, which presents clinically as periodic vaso-occlusive crises, chronic haemolysis and chronic vascular dysfunction. Patients often resort to a background treatment, and transfusion remains the cornerstone in the management of the disease, significantly reducing morbidity and mortality. The aim of red blood cell exchange (RBCX) is to improve tissue oxygenation by increasing haemoglobin levels while lowering HbS levels. RBCX can be performed by manual or automated exchange, and each technique has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. This article will outline the transfusion indications for the main complications of SCD, as well as the most appropriate strategy to use.

Red blood cell transfusion to treat or prevent complications in sickle cell disease: an overview of Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

Globally, sickle cell disease (SCD) is one of the commonest severe monogenic disorders, due to the inheritance of two abnormal haemoglobin (beta globin) genes. SCD can cause severe pain, significant end-organ damage, pulmonary complications, and premature death. Red blood cell (RBC) transfusions are used to treat complications of SCD, e.g. acute chest syndrome (ACS) (this often involves a single transfusion episode), or they can be part of a regular long-term transfusion programme to prevent SCD complications.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the evidence in Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness and safety of RBC transfusions versus no transfusion, or restrictive (to increase the total haemoglobin) versus liberal (to decrease the haemoglobin S level below a specified percentage) transfusion, for treating or preventing complications experienced by people with SCD.

METHODS

We included Cochrane Reviews of randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, that addressed various SCD complications and had RBC transfusion as an intervention or comparator. We assessed the methodological quality of included reviews according to the AMSTAR quality assessment.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 Cochrane Reviews, 10 of which had no included studies with an RBC transfusion intervention (five reported RCTs with other interventions; and five contained no studies). Five of the 15 reviews included participants randomised to RBC transfusion, but in one of these reviews only 10 participants were randomised with no usable data. Four reviews (nine trials with 1502 participants) reported data comparing short- or long-term RBC transfusions versus standard care, disease-modifying agents, a restrictive versus a liberal transfusion strategy and long-term RBC transfusions versus transfusions to treat complications. All reviews were of high quality according to AMSTAR quality assessment, however, the quality of the included trials was highly variable across outcomes. Trials were downgraded according to GRADE methodology for risk of bias, indirectness (most trials were conducted in children with HbSS), and imprecision (outcomes had wide confidence intervals).In all four reviews and all comparisons there was little or no difference in the risk of death (very low-quality evidence). There were either no deaths or death was a rare event.Short-term RBC transfusion versus standard care (one review: two trials, 434 participants, GRADE very low- to low-quality evidence)In people undergoing low- to medium-risk surgery, RBC transfusions may decrease the risk of acute chest syndrome (ACS) in people with African haplotypes compared to standard care (low-quality evidence), but there was little or no difference in people with the Arabic haplotype (very-low quality evidence). There was also little or no difference in the risk of other SCD-related or transfusion-related complications (very-low quality evidence).Long-term RBC transfusion versus standard care (two reviews: three trials, 405 participants, very low- to moderate-quality evidence)In children and adolescents at high risk of stroke (abnormal transcranial doppler (TCD) velocities or silent cerebral infarct (SCI)), long-term RBC transfusions probably decrease the risk of stroke (moderate-quality evidence) and may decrease the risk of ACS and painful crisis compared to standard care (low-quality evidence). Long-term RBC transfusions may also decrease the risk of SCI in children with abnormal TCD velocities (low-quality evidence), but there may be little or no difference in the risk of SCI in children with normal TCD velocities and previous SCI (low-quality evidence).In children and adolescents already receiving long-term RBC transfusions for preventing stroke, in comparison to standard care, continuing long-term RBC transfusions may reduce the risk of SCI (low-quality evidence) but we do not know whether there is a difference in the risk of stroke (very-low quality evidence). In children with normal TCD velocities and SCI there was little or no difference in the risk of alloimmunisation or transfusion reactions, but RBC transfusions may increase the risk of iron overload (low-quality evidence).Long-term RBC transfusion versus RBC transfusion to treat complications (one review: one trial, 72 participants, very low- to low-quality evidence)In pregnant women, long-term RBC transfusions may decrease the risk of painful crisis compared to transfusion for complications (low-quality evidence); but there may be little or no difference in the risk of other SCD-related complications or transfusion reactions (very-low quality evidence).RBC transfusion versus disease-modifying agents (hydroxyurea) (two reviews: two trials; 254 participants, very low- to low-quality evidence)For primary prevention of stroke in children, with abnormal TCD and no severe vasculopathy on magnetic resonance imaging/magnetic resonance angiography (MRI/MRA), who have received at least one year of RBC transfusions, we do not know whether there is a difference between RBC transfusion and disease-modifying agents in the risk of stroke; SCI; ACS; or painful crisis (very-low quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in the risk of iron overload (low-quality evidence).Similarly, for secondary prevention of stroke in children and adolescents, we do not know whether there is a difference between these interventions in the risk of stroke; SCI; or ACS (very-low quality evidence); but hydroxyurea with phlebotomy may increase the risk of painful crisis and global SCD serious adverse events compared to RBC transfusion (low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in the risk of iron overload (low-quality evidence).Restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion strategy (one review: one trial; 230 participants, very low-quality evidence)In people undergoing cholecystectomy, there was little or no difference between strategies in the risk of SCD-related or transfusion-related complications (very-low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This overview provides support from two high-quality Cochrane Reviews for the use of RBC transfusions in preventing stroke in children and adolescents at high risk of stroke (abnormal TCDs or SCI) and evidence that it may decrease the risk of SCI in children with abnormal TCD velocities. In addition RBC transfusions may reduce the risk of ACS and painful crisis in this population.This overview highlights the lack of high-quality evidence in adults with SCD and the number of reviews that have no evidence for the use of RBC transfusions across a spectrum of SCD complications. Also of concern is the variable and often incomplete reporting of patient-relevant outcomes in the included trials such as SCD-related serious adverse events and quality of life.

Interventions for treating intrahepatic cholestasis in people with sickle cell disease

BACKGROUND

Sickle cell disease is the most common hemoglobinopathy occurring worldwide and sickle cell intrahepatic cholestasis is a complication long recognized in this population. Cholestatic liver diseases are characterized by impaired formation or excretion (or both) of bile from the liver. There is a need to assess the clinical benefits and harms of the interventions used to treat intrahepatic cholestasis in people with sickle cell disease. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of the interventions for treating intrahepatic cholestasis in people with sickle cell disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearching of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched the LILACS database (1982 to 23 May 2017), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal (23 May 2017) and ClinicalTrials.gov.Date of last search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 12 April 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for published or unpublished randomised controlled trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Each author intended to independently extract data and assess the risk of bias of the trials by standard Cochrane methodologies; however, no trials were included in the review.

MAIN RESULTS

There were no randomised controlled trials identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated Cochrane Review did not identify any randomised controlled trials assessing interventions for treating intrahepatic cholestasis in people with sickle cell disease. Randomised controlled trials are needed to establish the optimum treatment for this condition.

Rare but Lethal Hepatopathy-Sickle Cell Intrahepatic Cholestasis and Management Strategies

Patient: Male, 31

Final Diagnosis: Sickle cell intrahepatic cholestasis

Symptoms: Abdominal pain • fever • jaundice

Medication: —

Clinical Procedure: Exchange transfusion

Specialty: Hematology