Risk of Infection Associated With Administration of Intravenous Iron: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Intravenous iron is recommended by many clinical guidelines based largely on its effectiveness in reducing anemia. However, the association with important safety outcomes, such as infection, remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the risk of infection associated with intravenous iron compared with oral iron or no iron.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from 1966 to January 31, 2021. Ongoing trials were sought from ClinicalTrials.gov, CENTRAL, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Search Registry Platform.

STUDY SELECTION

Pairs of reviewers identified RCTs that compared intravenous iron with oral iron or no iron across all patient populations, excluding healthy volunteers. Nonrandomized studies published since January 1, 2007, were also included. A total of 312 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane recommendations, and the quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Two reviewers extracted data independently. A random-effects model was used to synthesize data from RCTs. A narrative synthesis was performed to characterize the reporting of infection.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was risk of infection. Secondary outcomes included mortality, hospital length of stay, and changes in hemoglobin and red blood cell transfusion requirements. Measures of association were reported as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences.

RESULTS

A total of 154 RCTs (32 920 participants) were included in the main analysis. Intravenous iron was associated with an increased risk of infection when compared with oral iron or no iron (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.31; I2 = 37%; moderate certainty of evidence). Intravenous iron also was associated with an increase in hemoglobin (mean difference, 0.57 g/dL; 95% CI, 0.50-0.64 g/dL; I2 = 94%) and a reduction in the risk of requiring a red blood cell transfusion (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76-0.89; I2 = 15%) when compared with oral iron or no iron. There was no evidence of an effect on mortality or hospital length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this large systematic review and meta-analysis, intravenous iron was associated with an increased risk of infection. Well-designed studies, using standardized definitions of infection, are required to understand the balance between this risk and the potential benefits.

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on supply and use of blood for transfusion

The COVID-19 pandemic has major implications for blood transfusion. There are uncertain patterns of demand, and transfusion institutions need to plan for reductions in donations and loss of crucial staff because of sickness and public health restrictions. We systematically searched for relevant studies addressing the transfusion chain-from donor, through collection and processing, to patients-to provide a synthesis of the published literature and guidance during times of potential or actual shortage. A reduction in donor numbers has largely been matched by reductions in demand for transfusion. Contingency planning includes prioritisation policies for patients in the event of predicted shortage. A range of strategies maintain ongoing equitable access to blood for transfusion during the pandemic, in addition to providing new therapies such as convalescent plasma. Sharing experience and developing expert consensus on the basis of evolving publications will help transfusion services and hospitals in countries at different stages in the pandemic.

Risk of infection associated with intravenous iron preparations: protocol for updating a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The benefits and risk of intravenous iron have been documented in previous systematic reviews and continue to be the subject of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). An ongoing issue that continues to be raised is the relationship between administering iron and developing infection. This is supported by biological plausibility from animal models. We propose an update of a previously published systematic review and meta-analysis with the primary focus being infection.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will include RCTs and non-randomised studies (NRS) in this review update. We will search the relevant electronic databases. Two reviewers will independently extract data. Risk of bias for RCTs and NRS will be assessed using the relevant tools recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration. Data extracted from RCTs and NRS will be analysed and reported separately. Pooled data from RCTs will be analysed using a random effects model. We will also conduct subgroup analyses to identify any patient populations that may be at increased risk of developing infection. We will provide a narrative synthesis on the definitions, sources and responsible pathogens for infection in the included studies. Overall quality of evidence on the safety outcomes of mortality and infection will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This systematic review will only investigate published studies and therefore ethical approval is not required. The results will be broadly distributed through conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO (CRD42018096023).

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

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).

Erratum to: 36th International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine: Brussels, Belgium. 15-18 March 2016

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13054-016-1208-6.].

Effect of restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies on outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease in a non-cardiac surgery setting: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare patient outcomes of restrictive versus liberal blood transfusion strategies in patients with cardiovascular disease not undergoing cardiac surgery.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Randomised controlled trials involving a threshold for red blood cell transfusion in hospital. We searched (to 2 November 2015) CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PubMed, LILACS, NHSBT Transfusion Evidence Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ISRCTN Register, and EU Clinical Trials Register. Authors were contacted for data whenever possible.

TRIAL SELECTION

Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing a restrictive with liberal transfusion threshold and that included patients with cardiovascular disease.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data extraction was completed in duplicate. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane methods. Relative risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were presented in all meta-analyses. Mantel-Haenszel random effects models were used to pool risk ratios.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

30 day mortality, and cardiovascular events.

RESULTS

41 trials were identified; of these, seven included data on patients with cardiovascular disease. Data from a further four trials enrolling patients with cardiovascular disease were obtained from the authors. In total, 11 trials enrolling patients with cardiovascular disease (n=3033) were included for meta-analysis (restrictive transfusion, n=1514 patients; liberal transfusion, n=1519). The pooled risk ratio for the association between transfusion thresholds and 30 day mortality was 1.15 (95% confidence interval 0.88 to 1.50, P=0.50), with little heterogeneity (I(2)=14%). The risk of acute coronary syndrome in patients managed with restrictive compared with liberal transfusion was increased (nine trials; risk ratio 1.78, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 2.70, P=0.01, I(2)=0%).

CONCLUSIONS

The results show that it may not be safe to use a restrictive transfusion threshold of less than 80 g/L in patients with ongoing acute coronary syndrome or chronic cardiovascular disease. Effects on mortality and other outcomes are uncertain. These data support the use of a more liberal transfusion threshold (>80 g/L) for patients with both acute and chronic cardiovascular disease until adequately powered high quality randomised trials have been undertaken in patients with cardiovascular disease.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42014014251.

Processed versus fresh frozen bone for impaction bone grafting in revision hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Impaction grafting is a technique to restore bone loss both in the femur and the acetabulum during revision hip arthroplasty surgery. Initially impaction grafting was undertaken using fresh frozen femoral head allografts that were milled to create morselized bone pieces that could be impacted to create a neo-cancellous bone bed prior to cementation of the new implant. Results of medium and long term outcome studies have shown variable results using this technique. Currently both processed and non-processed allograft bone are used and the purpose of this review was to analyse the evidence for both.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness of processed (freeze dried or irradiated) bone in comparison to fresh frozen (unprocessed) bone.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1985 to 2008), EMBASE (1985 to 2008), CINAHL(1985 to 2008) and the National Research Register. Additional sources were also searched. Handsearching of relevant journals and conference abstracts was also undertaken. Searches were complete to 31 August 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials that compared different types of bone for impaction grafting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three hundred and sixty references were identified from the searches. Following detailed eligibility screening, three hundred and fifty nine references did not meet the eligibility criteria. Further details are required about one trial in order to determine it's eligibility.

MAIN RESULTS

No trials were identified that met the criteria for inclusion in the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Good quality randomised controlled trials are required in this area so that a surgeon's choice of bone graft can be informed by evidence rather than personal preference.

Quality of life and use of red cell transfusion in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes. A systematic review

The main treatment for many patients with Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS) remains red cell transfusion to attenuate the symptoms of chronic anemia. Fatigue can reduce a patient's health related quality of life (HRQoL), but there is little understanding of the optimal use of transfusions to improve this. A systematic review was performed to identify and appraise publications reporting the use of HRQoL instruments in patients with MDS. A total of 17 separate studies were identified that used 14 HRQoL instruments, but only one MDS disease specific HRQoL instrument (QOL-E) was reported. Two well established HRQoL instruments were most often used in MDS research (variants of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30)). Several common problems were identified in the published literature including a lack of power calculations to detect clinically relevant changes, small sample sizes and significant attrition rates for completion of HRQoL assessments, all of which limit the strength of any conclusions. There is no consensus on the optimal transfusion regimen to improve HRQoL in transfusion-dependent MDS. Future research into HRQoL within MDS is a pressing requirement. Studies should focus on the domains that are of most clinical importance to the patient as well as traditional quantitative changes of hemoglobin concentration.

Stem cell donation--what advice can be given to the donor?

Haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is widely used to treat patients with a range of haematological and non-haematological disorders. Both bone marrow and peripheral blood stem cell collection are associated with morbidity and, very rarely, mortality. We investigated the information that exists to adequately inform donors about the relative merits of each procedure. We carried out a systematic review analysing data from six prospective randomised controlled trials of related donors and discuss here the merits and drawbacks of this approach. Registry data mostly describes patient outcome but stem cell donor registries collect and report information on unrelated donors which could easily be extended to related donors. Further well-designed, randomised studies are required.

Red cell transfusion for the management of upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage affects 50 to 150 per 100,000 adults per year and has a high mortality. Red blood cell transfusions are frequently given, but their impact on rebleeding rates and mortality is not known.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of red blood cell transfusion in adults with upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Group Trials Register to February 2008, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2008, issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to February 2008), EMBASE (1974 to February 2008), the Systematic Review Initiative database of randomised controlled trials, haematology and gastroenterology conference proceedings, and reference lists of articles. We also searched databases of ongoing clinical trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised studies comparing red blood cell transfusion and standard care with other intravenous fluid and standard care regimens in haemodynamically stable and haemodynamically unstable adults with upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials involving 126 patients were included in the review, with complete data available for 93 patients. The participants were heterogeneous and none of the three studies examined exactly the same interventions or measured the same outcomes. Only two trials reported mortality data and the summary relative risk for mortality of the intervention was 5.4 (95% CI 0.27 to 107.09). One trial reported increased coagulation times in the transfused group, and reported these patients to have increased rates of rebleeding. None of the studies reported adverse events directly related to red blood cell transfusion. Methodological deficiencies, including allocation concealment, generation of random sequences and blinding, simply compound the uncertainty surrounding analysis. None of the studies were appropriately powered and in the largest study less than half the participants were included in the final analysis.One randomised controlled trial of restrictive versus liberal red blood cell transfusion, which aims to recruit 860 patients, has yet to be completed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There were more deaths and more rebleeding in the transfusion arms of the combined studies, but the small numbers of participants and large volume of missing data limit the significance of the findings. The studies in this review do not provide useful data regarding outcomes following red blood cell transfusion for acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. They appear to exclude large survival benefit. Large, well-concealed randomised controlled trials of sufficient power are urgently needed.

Bone marrow harvest versus peripheral stem cell collection for haemopoietic stem cell donation in healthy donors

BACKGROUND

Haemopoietic stem cells can be collected from a donor either as a bone marrow harvest or by peripheral blood collection. Both techniques have risks for the donor.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to identify the adverse effects of haemopoietic stem cell donation and to compare the tolerability and safety of the two methods.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2008, issue 2), MEDLINE and EMBASE up to May 2008. We also searched reference lists of articles and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials enrolling haemopoietic stem cell donors and evaluating the different methods of donating haemopoietic stem cells were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened studies for inclusion. We extracted data and evaluated methodological quality. Quantitative analysis was not possible for most outcomes, but where used we preferred random-effects models due to the variability between the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials (807 donors) were eligible: all were substudies, or constituent parts of, larger randomised controlled trials of bone marrow and peripheral blood stem cell allogeneic transplantation. No included trial was designed solely to measure and assess the experience of stem cell donors. The donors in all studies were related to the stem cell recipient. Overall, both types of donors experienced pain subsequent to donation, and psychological morbidity. The trend was for bone marrow donors to experience more pain at the donation site, more overall adverse events, and more days of restricted activity. They were also more likely to require hospitalisation than peripheral blood stem cell donors. In contrast, peripheral blood stem cell donors experienced more pain prior to donation, which may be related to the pre-donation administration of granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF). The methodological quality of the studies was poor and indicated limitations due to the risk of selection and attrition bias. The proportion of donors from the parent trial not included in the donor substudies was also inadequately explained.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The different short-term morbidities associated with each type of haemopoietic stem cell donation were clear, with bone marrow donors experiencing more pain and more restriction post-donation than peripheral blood donors. However, the studies were limited by their methodological quality, failure to provide long-term follow up (for which larger numbers of donors would be required) and a failure to apply consistent measures of quality of life in a way which allows more meaningful evaluation across studies.

Stem cell treatment for acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Stem cell therapy offers a promising approach to the regeneration of damaged vascular and cardiac tissue after myocardial infarction (MI). This has resulted in multiple randomised controlled trials (RCTs) worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

To critically evaluate evidence from RCTs on the effectiveness of adult bone marrow-derived stem cells (BMSC) to treat acute MI.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE (1950 to August 2007), EMBASE (1974 to August 2007), The Cochrane Library (Issue 3 2007), and CINAHL (1982 to August 2007) were searched. In addition LILACS, KOREAMED, INMED, Current Controlled Trials Register, the UK National Research Register and other handsearching was undertaken to August 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs comparing autologous stem/progenitor cells with no autologous stem/progenitor cells in patients diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently screened all references, assessed trial quality and extracted data. Meta-analyses using a random-effects model were conducted and heterogeneity was explored using sub-group analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs (811 participants) were included. There were insufficient events on clinical outcomes like mortality to draw clear conclusions. Stem/progenitor cell treatment does not appear to be associated with an increase in adverse events but again the data do not allow clear conclusions. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was the outcome with most results and there was marked heterogeneity between trials. There was however a consistent pattern indicating that BMSC treatment generally improves short-term LVEF, with similar trends for left ventricular end systolic and end diastolic volumes (LVESV and LVEDV), infarct size or cardiac wall motion. There was a positive correlation between cell dose infused and the effect on LVEF measured by magnetic resonance imaging.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this systematic review suggest that there is little evidence to assess the clinical effects of this treatment. Larger trials using optimal dosing and more reliable, patient-centred outcomes are required. Several trials are ongoing but is unclear whether these will overcome the limitations of the current evidence base.

A systematic review and economic evaluation of epoetin alpha, epoetin beta and darbepoetin alpha in anaemia associated with cancer, especially that attributable to cancer treatment

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of epoetin alpha, epoetin beta and darbepoetin alpha (referred to collectively in this report as epo) in anaemia associated with cancer, especially that attributable to cancer treatment.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases were searched from 2000 (1996 in the case of darbepoetin alpha) to September 2004.

REVIEW METHODS

Using a recently published Cochrane review as the starting point, a systematic review of recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing epo with best standard was conducted. Inclusion, quality assessment and data abstraction were undertaken in duplicate. Where possible, meta-analysis was employed. The economic assessment consisted of a systematic review of past economic evaluations, an assessment of economic models submitted by the manufacturers of the three epo agents and development of a new individual sampling model (the Birmingham epo model).

RESULTS

In total 46 RCTs were included within this systematic review, 27 of which had been included in the Cochrane systematic review. All 46 trials compared epo plus supportive care for anaemia (including transfusions), with supportive care for anaemia (including transfusions), alone. Haematological response (defined as an improvement by 2 g/dl(-1)) had a relative risk of 3.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.0 to 3.8, 22 RCTs] with a response rate for epo of 53%. The trial duration was most commonly 16-20 weeks. There was little statistical heterogeneity in the estimate of haematological response, and there were no important differences between the subgroups examined. Haemoglobin (Hb) change showed a weighted mean difference of 1.63 g/dl(-1) (95% CI 1.46 to 1.80) in favour of epo. Treatment with erythropoietin in patients with cancer-induced anaemia reduces the number of patients who receive a red blood cell transfusion (RBCT) by an estimated 18%. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data were analysed using vote counting and qualitative assessment and a positive effect was observed in favour of an improved HRQoL for patients on epo. Published information on side-effects was of poor quality. New trials provided further evidence of side-effects with epo, particularly thrombic events, but it is still unclear whether these could be accounted for by chance alone. The results of the previous Cochrane review had suggested a survival advantage for epo (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.02), based on 19 RCTs. The update, based on 28 RCTs, suggests no difference (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.21). Subgroup analysis suggested some explanations for this heterogeneity, but it is difficult to draw firm conclusions without access to the substantial amounts of missing or unpublished data, or more detailed results from some of the trials with heterogeneous patient populations. The conclusions are, however, broadly in line with those of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) safety briefing, which recommended that patients with a haemoglobin above 12 g/dl(-1) should not be treated; the target rate of rise in Hb should not be too great, and further carefully conducted trials are required to determine which subgroups of patients may be harmed by the use of these products, in particular through the stimulation of tumour activity. Five published economic evaluations identified from the literature had inconsistent results, with estimates ranging from a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) under pound 10,000 through to epo being less effective and more costly than standard care. The more favourable evaluations assumed a survival advantage for epo. The three company models submitted each relied on assumed survival gains to achieve relatively low cost per QALY, from pound 13,000 to pound 28,000, but generated estimates from pound 84,000 to pound 159,000 per QALY when no survival gain was assumed. Each of these models relied on Hb levels alone driving utility, and each assumed gradual normalisation of Hb in the standard treatment arm after the end of treatment. The Birmingham epo model followed the company models in regard to the relationship between Hb levels and utility, and also assumed normalisation in the base case. With no survival gain, the incremental cost per QALY was pound 150,000, falling to pound 40,000 when the lower, more favourable, confidence interval for survival was used.

CONCLUSIONS

Epo is effective in improving haematological response and reducing RBCT requirements, and appears to have a positive effect on HRQoL. The incidence of side-effects and effects on survival remains highly uncertain. However, if there is no impact on survival, it seems highly unlikely that epo would be considered a cost-effective use of healthcare resources. The main target for further research should be improving estimates of impact on survival, initially through more detailed secondary research, such as the individual patient data meta-analysis started by the Cochrane group. Further trials may be required, and have been recommended by the FDA, although many trials are in progress, completed but unreported or awaiting mature follow-up. The Birmingham epo model developed as part of this project contains new features that improve its flexibility in exploring different scenarios; further refinement and validation would therefore be of assistance. Finally, further research to resolve uncertainty about other parameters, particularly quality of life, adverse events, and the rate of normalisation, would also be beneficial.

Cost-effectiveness of using prognostic information to select women with breast cancer for adjuvant systemic therapy

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the cost-effectiveness of using prognostic information to identify patients with breast cancer who should receive adjuvant therapy.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases from 1980 through to February 2002. A survey of clinical practice in UK cancer centres and units. Large retrospective dataset containing data on prognostic factors, treatments and outcomes for women with early breast cancer treated in Oxford.

REVIEW METHODS

Between six and nine databases were searched by an information expert. Evidence-based methods were used to review and select those studies and the quality of each included paper was assessed using standard assessment tools reported in the literature or piloted and developed for this study. A survey of clinical practice in UK cancer centres and units was carried out to ensure that conclusions drawn from the report could be implemented. These data, along with the information gathered in the systematic reviews, informed the methodological approach adopted for the health economic modelling. An illustrative framework was developed for incorporating patient-level prediction within a health economic decision model. This framework was applied to a large retrospective dataset containing data on prognostic factors, treatments and outcomes for women with early breast cancer treated in Oxford. The data were used to estimate directly a parametric regression-based risk equation, from which a prognostic index was developed, and prognosis-specific estimates of the baseline breast cancer hazard could be observed. Published estimates of treatment effects, health service treatment costs and utilities were used to construct a decision analytic framework around this risk equation, thus enabling simulation of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adjuvant therapy for all possible combinations of prognostic factors included in the model.

RESULTS

The lack of good-quality systematic reviews and well-conducted studies of prognostic factors in breast cancer is a striking finding. There are no registers of studies of prognostic factors or of reviews of prognostic studies. Many of the reviews used weak methods, primary studies are similar with poor methodology and reporting of results. In addition, there is much variation in patient populations, assay methods, analysis of results, definitions used and reporting of results. Most studies appear to be retrospective and some use inappropriate methods likely to inflate outcomes such as optimising cut points and failing to test the results in an independent population. Very few reviews used meta-analysis to conduct a pooled analysis and to provide an estimate of the average size of any association. Instead, most reviews relied on vote counting. Although many prognostic models for breast cancer have been published, remarkably few have been re-examined by independent groups in independent settings. The few validation studies have been carried out on ill-defined samples, sometimes of smaller size and short follow-up, and sometimes using different patient outcomes when validating a model. The evidence from the validation studies shows support for the prognostic value of the Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI). No new prognostic factors have been shown to add substantially to those identified in the 1980s. Improvement of this index depends on finding factors that are as important as, but independent of, lymph node, stage and pathological grade. The NPI remains a useful clinical tool, although additional factors may enhance its use. We accepted that hormone receptor status (ER) for hormonal therapy such as tamoxifen and prediction of response to trastuzumab by HER2 did not require systematic review, as the mechanism of action of these drugs requires intact receptors. There was no clear evidence that other factors were useful predictors of response and survival. The survey confirmed pathological nodal status, tumour grade, tumour size and ER status as the most clinically important factors for consideration when selecting women with early breast cancer for adjuvant systemic therapy in the UK. The protocols revealed that although UK cancer centres appear to be using the same prognostic and predictive factors when selecting women to receive adjuvant therapy, much variation in clinical practice exists. Some centres use protocols based upon the NPI whereas others do not use a single index score. Within NPI and non-NPI users, between-centre variability exists in guidelines for women for whom the benefits are uncertain. Consensus amongst units appears to be greatest when selecting women for adjuvant hormone therapy with the decision based primarily upon ER or progesterone receptor status rather than combinations of a number of factors. Guidelines as to who should receive adjuvant chemotherapy, however, were found to be much less uniform. Searches of the literature revealed only five published papers that had previously examined the cost-effectiveness of using prognostic information for clinical decision-making. These studies were of varying quality and highlight the fact that economic evaluation in this area appears still to be in its infancy. By combining methodologies used in determining prognosis with those used in health economic evaluation, it was possible to illustrate an approach for simulating the effectiveness (survival and quality-adjusted survival) and the cost-effectiveness associated with the decision to treat individual women or groups of women with different prognostic characteristics. The model showed that effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adjuvant systemic therapy have the potential to vary substantially depending upon prognosis. For some women therapy may prove very effective and cost-effective, whereas for others it may actually prove detrimental (i.e. the reductions in health-related quality of life outweigh any survival benefit).

CONCLUSIONS

Outputs from the framework constructed using the methods described here have the potential to be useful for clinicians, attempting to determine whether net benefits can be obtained from administering adjuvant therapy for any presenting woman; and also for policy makers, who must be able to determine the total costs and outcomes associated with different prognosis based treatment protocols as compared with more conventional treat all or treat none policies. A risk table format enabling clinicians to look up a patient's prognostic factors to determine the likely benefits (survival and quality-adjusted survival) from administering therapy may be helpful. For policy makers, it was demonstrated that the model's output could be used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different treatment protocols based upon prognostic information. The framework should also be valuable in evaluating the likely impact and cost-effectiveness of new potential prognostic factors and adjuvant therapies.

Erythropoietin or darbepoetin for patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Anaemia associated with cancer and cancer therapy is an important clinical factor in the treatment of malignant diseases. Therapeutic alternatives are recombinant human erythropoietin (Epo), darbepoetin (Darbepo) and red blood cell transfusions.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effects of Epo or Darbepo to either prevent or treat anaemia in cancer patients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE and other data bases. Searches were done for the periods 01/1985 to 12/2001 for the first review and 1/2002 to 04/2005 for the update. We also contacted experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials on managing anaemia in cancer patients that compared the use of Epo/Darbepo (plus transfusion if needed) with observation until red blood cell transfusion was required.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Several reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

This update of the systematic review included a total of 57 trials with 9,353 patients. Of these, 27 trials with 3,287 adults were also included in the first Cochrane Review. Thirty trials with 6,066 patients were added during the update process. Use of Epo/Darbepo significantly reduced the relative risk of red blood cell transfusions (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.68, 42 trials, n = 6,510). On average participants in the Epo/Darbepo group received one unit of blood less than the control group (WMD -1.05; 95% CI -1.32 to -0.78, 14 trials, n = 2,353). For participants with baseline haemoglobin below 12 g/dL haematological response was observed more often in participants receiving Epo/Darbepo (RR 3.43; 95% CI 3.07 to 3.84, 22 trials, n = 4,307). There was suggestive evidence that Epo/Darbepo may improve Quality of Life (QoL). The relative risk for thrombo embolic complications was increased in patients receiving Epo/Darbepo compared to controls (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.06; 35 trials, n = 6,769). Uncertainties remain whether and how Epo/Darbepo effects tumour response (fixed effect RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.23, 13 trials, n = 2,833; random effects: RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.26) or overall survival (unadjusted and adjusted data: HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.18; 42 trials, n = 8,167).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is consistent evidence that administration of Epo/Darbepo reduces the relative risk for blood transfusions and the number of units transfused in cancer patients. For patients with baseline haemoglobin below 12 g/dL (mild anaemia) there is strong evidence that Epo/Darbepo improves haematological response. There is suggestive evidence that Epo/Darbepo may improve QoL. However, there is strong evidence that Epo/Darbepo increases the relative risk for thrombo embolic complications. Whether and how Epo/Darbepo effects tumour response and overall survival remains uncertain.

Platelet transfusion prophylaxis for patients with haematological malignancies: where to now?

National guidelines for platelet transfusion in many countries recommend that the general platelet transfusion trigger for prophylaxis is 10x10(9)/l. This annotation reviews the evidence for this threshold level and discusses other current unresolved issues relevant to platelet transfusion practice such as the optimal dose and the clinical benefit of a strategy for the prophylactic use of platelet transfusions when the platelet count falls below a given threshold.

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 transfusions of red blood cells. Repeated transfusions results in excessive accumulation of iron in the body (iron overload), removal of which is achieved through iron chelation therapy. Desferrioxamine is the most widely used iron chelator. Substantial data have shown the beneficial effects of desferrioxamine. However, important questions exist about whether desferrioxamine is the best schedule for iron chelation therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness (dose and method of administration) of desferrioxamine in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ZETOC, Current Controlled Trials and bibliographies of relevant publications. We also contacted the manufacturers of desferrioxamine and other iron chelators. Date of last searches: April 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four authors working independently, were involved in trial quality assessment and data extraction. Missing data were requested from the original investigators.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight trials involving 334 people (range 20 to 144 people) were included. One trial compared desferrioxamine with placebo, five compared desferrioxamine with another iron chelator (deferiprone) and two compared different schedules of desferrioxamine. Overall, few trials measured the same outcomes.Compared to placebo, desferrioxamine significantly reduced iron overload. The number of deaths at 12 years follow up and evidence of reduced end-organ damage was less for desferrioxamine than placebo. When desferrioxamine was compared to deferiprone or a different desferrioxamine schedule there were no statistically significant differences in measures of iron overload. Compliance was recorded by two trials. Compliance was less for desferrioxamine than deferiprone in one trial and of no difference in comparison with desferrioxamine and deferiprone combined with a second trial. Adverse events were recorded in trials comparing desferrioxamine with other iron chelators. There was evidence of adverse events in all treatment groups. In one trial, adverse events were significantly less likely with desferrioxamine than deferiprone, relative risk 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.84). Assessment of the methodological quality of included trials was not possible, given the general absence of these data in the trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no reason to change current treatment recommendations. However, considerable uncertainty continues to exist about the optimal schedule for desferrioxamine in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia.

Granulocyte transfusions for treating infections in patients with neutropenia or neutrophil dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Transfusions of granulocytes have a long history of usage in clinical practice to support and treat severe infection in high risk groups of patients with neutropenia or neutrophil dysfunction. However, there is considerable current variability in therapeutic granulocyte transfusion practice, and uncertainty about the beneficial effect of transfusions given as an adjunct to antibiotics on mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of granulocyte transfusions compared to no granulocyte transfusions for treating infections in patients with neutropenia or disorders of neutrophil function in reducing mortality.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were searched for in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in 2003. Searching was also undertaken on the OVID versions of Medline and Embase using an RCT search filter strategy.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs involving transfusions of granulocytes, given therapeutically, to patients with neutropenia or disorders of neutrophil dysfunction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers completed data extraction independently. Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the random effects model were reported for dichotomous outcomes. Pre-specified subgroup analyses were done and reported eg granulocyte dose.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight parallel RCTs were included with 310 total analysed patient episodes. Different policies were applied for the schedule of transfusion, method of granulocyte procurement and process of donor selection including leucocyte compatibility. Each study used different criteria for neutropenia (range < 0.1 to < 1.0 x 10(9)/L) and definition of infection requiring treatment. For mortality, which was extracted from six trials, the summary RR = 0.64 in favour of transfusion (95% CI 0.33, 1.26), but with evidence of significant statistical heterogeneity (Chi-square 11.3 and I(2) = 56%). The data for the combined RR for mortality for the four studies transfusing higher granulocyte doses greater than 1x10(10) indicated a significant summary RR= 0.37 (95% CI 0.17, 0.82); Chi-square 3.9, I(2) 23%. Data on rates of reversal of infection could be extracted from four studies, and the combined RR was 0.94 (95% CI 0.71, 1.26), again with evidence of heterogeneity. In addition to the observed clinical diversity between all studies, uncertainty about the quantitative and qualitative analyses for these studies is compounded by methodological deficiencies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is inconclusive evidence from RCTs to support or refute the generalised use of granulocyte transfusion therapy in the most common neutropenic patient populations, that is caused by myeloablative chemotherapy with or without haematopoietic stem cell support. Contemporary well designed prospective trials are required to evaluate the efficacy of this intervention in these patient populations and to establish definitively whether it has clinical benefit. In such studies, average numbers of collected granulocytes for adults should be (at least) greater than 1x10(10).

Prophylactic platelet transfusion for haemorrhage after chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation

BACKGROUND

Platelet transfusions are used in modern clinical practice to prevent and treat bleeding in thrombocytopenic patients with bone marrow failure. Although considerable advances have been made in platelet transfusion therapy in the last 30 years, some areas continue to provoke debate, especially the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the optimal use of platelet transfusion for the prevention of haemorrhage (prophylactic platelet transfusion) in patients with haematological malignancies undergoing chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were searched for in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Searching was also undertaken on the OVID versions of MEDLINE and EMBASE using an RCT search filter strategy.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials involving transfusions of platelet concentrates, prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given prophylactically to prevent bleeding in patients with haematological malignancies and receiving treatment with chemotherapy and/or stem cell transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All electronically derived citations and abstracts of papers identified by the review search strategy were initially screened for relevancy by one reviewer. Studies clearly irrelevant were excluded at this stage. The full text of all potentially relevant trials was then formally assessed for eligibility by two reviewers independently. Two reviewers completed data extraction independently. Missing data were requested from the original investigators, as appropriate. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with the other reviewers.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight completed published trials, with a total of 390 participants in the intervention groups and 362 participants in the control groups, were included in the review for further analysis. The eight studies were classified as: * three trials relevant to prophylactic platelet transfusions versus therapeutic platelet transfusions; * three trials relevant to prophylactic platelet transfusion with one trigger level versus prophylactic platelet transfusion with another trigger level; * two trials relevant to prophylactic platelet transfusion with one dose schedule versus prophylactic platelet transfusion with another dose schedule. The few reports of controlled trials addressing prophylactic versus therapeutic transfusions contained small numbers of patients and were all undertaken over 25 years ago. None of these three studies explicitly clarified whether the lack of a reported difference was a reflection of insufficient power in the trials. The findings of the meta-analyses for this group of three small studies must be interpreted with caution. In contrast, more contemporary trials addressed the question of what platelet count thresholds should apply for prophylactic transfusion; three identified studies broadly compared platelet transfusion thresholds of 10 versus 20 x 109/litre for different clinical groups of patients. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups with regards to mortality, remission rates, number of participants with severe bleeding events or red cell transfusion requirements. However, it was unclear whether the studies had sufficient power to demonstrate in combination non-inferiority in terms of safety of the lower threshold, 10 x 109/litre. Insufficient randomised trials have been undertaken to make clinically relevant conclusions about the effect of different platelet doses.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

There are no reasons to change current practice but uncertainty about the practice of prophylactic transfusion therapy should be recognised, particularly in the light of concerns about the scenario that blood products, including platelets, could become an increasingly scarce resource in the future and for which adequate alternatives do not exist. Consideration should be given to developing adequately powered trials comparing strategies of prophylaxis versus therapeutic platelet transfusion.

Treatment of myelodysplasia with oral cyclosporin

Recent studies have shown a good response to immunosuppressive treatment with cyclosporin A (CSA) in patients with the myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). We have treated six transfusion-dependent MDS patients with CSA for a minimum of 3 months. None of these patients showed a significant response, while the drug was withdrawn in 3/6 patients because of intolerable side-effects. Two reasons for the failure of this treatment in our patients can be advanced. Firstly, the hypoplastic variant of MDS predominated in previous studies in contrast to ours. Secondly, the concomitant use of other immunosuppressive agents in previous studies might have enhanced the effect of CSA. We suggest further therapeutic trials of CSA in MDS, selecting patients on the basis of in vitro studies that predict an immunological basis for their disease, to assess its efficacy in prolonging survival.