Desmopressin for treatment of platelet dysfunction and reversal of antiplatelet agents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Essentials The optimal management of patients with platelet dysfunction undergoing surgery is unclear. This meta-analysis compared perioperative administration of desmopressin to placebo. Desmopressin reduced red cell transfusions, blood loss and risk of re-operation due to bleeding. There were too few events to determine if there was a change in the risk of thrombotic events. SUMMARY: Background Platelet dysfunction, including that caused by antiplatelet agents, increases the risk of perioperative bleeding. The optimal management of patients with platelet dysfunction undergoing surgery is unclear. Objectives To assess whether desmopressin reduces perioperative allogeneic red cell transfusion and bleeding in patients with platelet dysfunction. Patients/Methods We searched for randomized controlled trials in The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, the Transfusion Evidence Library and the ISI Web of Science to 7th July 2016. Data were pooled using mean difference (MD), relative risks or Peto odds ratios (pOR) using a random-effects model. Results Ten trials with 596 participants were identified, all in the setting of cardiac surgery. Platelet dysfunction was due to antiplatelet agents in six trials and cardiopulmonary bypass in four trials. Patients treated with desmopressin were transfused with fewer red cells (MD, -0.65 units; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], -1.16 to -0.13 units), lost less blood (MD, -253.93 mL; 95% CI, -408.01 to -99.85 mL) and had a lower risk of re-operation due to bleeding (pOR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.18-0.84). The GRADE quality of evidence was very low to moderate, suggesting considerable uncertainty over the results Conclusions Desmopressin may be a useful agent to reduce bleeding and transfusion requirements for people with platelet dysfunction or with a history of recent antiplatelet drug administration undergoing cardiac surgery.

Interventions to reduce vasovagal reactions in blood donors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Vasovagal reactions (VVRs) in blood donors have significant implications for the welfare of donors, donor retention and the management of donor sessions. We present a systematic review of interventions designed to prevent or reduce VVRs in blood donors. Electronic databases were searched for eligible randomised trials to March 2015. Data on study design and outcomes were extracted and pooled using random effects meta-analyses. Sixteen trials met the inclusion criteria: five trials (12 042 participants) of pre-donation water, eight trials (3500 participants) of applied muscle tension (AMT) and one trial each of AMT combined with water, caffeine, audio-visual distraction and/or social support. In donors receiving pre-donation water, the relative risk (RR) compared with controls for VVRs was 0·79 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0·70-0·89, P < 0·0001] and the mean difference (MD) in severity of VVRs measured with the Blood Donation Reactions Inventory (BDRI) score was -0·32 (95% CI -0·51 to -0·12, P < 0·0001). Excluding trials with a high risk of selection bias, the RR for VVRs was 0·70 (95% CI 0·45-1·11, P = 0·13). In donors who received AMT, there was no difference in the risk of chair recline in response to donor distress from controls (RR 0·76, 95% CI 0·53-1·10, P = 0·15), although the MD in BDRI score was -0·07 (95% CI -0·11 to -0·03, P = 0·0005). There was insufficient data to perform meta-analysis for other interventions. Current evidence on interventions to prevent or reduce VVRs in blood donors is indeed limited and does not provide strong support for the administration of pre-donation water or AMT during donation. Further large trials are required to reliably evaluate the effect of these and other interventions in the prevention of VVRs.

Cell therapy for heart disease: Trial sequential analyses of two Cochrane reviews.

Meta-analyses of cell therapy trials for heart disease have yielded discrepant results. To resolve limitations associated with meta-analyses, such as imprecision and accumulation of random errors, we conducted trial sequential analysis (TSA). Randomized controlled trials that administered autologous bone marrow-derived cells to patients who suffered acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or heart failure (HF) were included. TSA has been applied to two clinical outcomes, all-cause mortality and hospitalization for HF, and to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), as a surrogate of heart function. The results suggest that there is evidence of reduction of the risk of mortality and hospitalization in HF, but insufficient evidence to determine treatment effect in AMI. Moreover, the treatment does not improve LVEF by more than a mean difference of 4% when administered to either AMI or HF patients. The required number of participants to include in a meta-analysis to detect treatment effect was also estimated.

Safety of blood donation from individuals with treated hypertension or non-insulin dependent type 2 diabetes - a systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This systematic review was aimed at finding evidence for the safety of blood donation by individuals with treated hypertension or type 2 diabetes. It was undertaken as part of a wider project to re-evaluate exclusion criteria for UK blood donors with a view to increasing eligibility. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Searches were undertaken in the Cochrane Library to 2008, MEDLINE (1950 onwards), EMBASE (1974 onwards), CINAHL (1982 onwards), BNID (1994 onwards), the NHSBT SRI Handsearching Database and the Web of Science (all years) to February 2008. Planned analysis was largely descriptive. RESULTS: We identified only 16 relevant papers. None of the identified studies directly addressed the review questions and methodological appraisal highlighted a number of deficiencies. However all included papers provided contributory data and the findings were consistent. No study found any evidence of increased risk to homologous (allogeneic) or autologous blood donors with treated hypertension or with raised baseline systolic blood pressure up to 200 mmHg. We found very few data relating to blood donation by diabetic subjects. CONCLUSIONS: No identified study indicated that raised baseline blood pressure level, treated hypertension or diabetes was predictive of increased adverse reactions in blood donors but the level of overall evidence was limited. This is the first attempt to systematically review a donor area as part of an approach to change longstanding practice recommendations, and may have implications for other recommendations for changes in donor acceptance criteria.

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.

Ear drops for the removal of ear wax.

BACKGROUND: Problems attributed to the accumulation of wax (cerumen) are one of the most common reasons for people to present to their general practitioners with ear trouble (Sharp 1990). Treatment for this condition often involves use of a wax softening agent (cerumenolytic) in order to disperse the cerumen and reduce the need for syringing, or to facilitate syringing should it prove necessary, but there is no consensus on the effectiveness of the wide variety of cerumenolytics in use. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of ear drops (cerumenolytics) for the removal of symptomatic ear wax. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane ENT Group Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 1, 2003), and MEDLINE and EMBASE up to March 2003. Reference lists of all trials were also manually searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: We identified all randomised controlled trials (with or without blinding) in which a cerumenolytic was evaluated in comparison with either no treatment, a placebo, or other cerumenolytics in participants with hard or impacted ear wax, and in which the proportion of participants with sufficient clearance of the external canal to make further mechanical clearance unnecessary (primary outcome measure) was stated or calculable. The full text articles of all the retrieved trials of possible relevance were reviewed by the two reviewers and the inclusion criteria applied independently. Any differences in opinion about which studies to include in the review were resolved by discussion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trials were graded for methodological quality using the Cochrane approach. Data extraction was performed in a standardised manner by one reviewer and rechecked by the other reviewer, and where necessary investigators were contacted to obtain missing information. Meta-analysis was neither possible nor considered appropriate because of the heterogeneity of the treatments, treatment amounts and durations, trial procedures, and scoring systems. A narrative overview of the results is therefore presented. MAIN RESULTS: Eight trials satisfied the inclusion criteria, the majority of which were of poor quality. In all, 587 participants received one of nine different cerumenolytics. One trial compared active treatments with no treatment, two trials compared active treatments with water or a saline 'placebo', and all eight trials placed two or more active treatments in head-to-head comparisons. Seven trials included syringing as a secondary treatment where necessary.Overall, results were inconclusive. One trial found a significant difference between one of three active agents (Cerumol) in comparison to no treatment, but no statistically significant difference was found between these three agents (sodium bicarbonate ear drops; Cerumol; sterile water). In two trials no statistical difference was found between the effectiveness of either sodium bicarbonate ear drops, Cerumol, Cerumenex or Colace versus a sterile water or saline 'placebo'. Three trials (from the same source) found statistically significant differences in favour of the same active agent (Exterol) in comparison to glycerol and Cerumol. Three trials found no statistically significant difference between two or more cerumenolytics (Otocerol versus Cerumol; Audax versus Earex; sodium bicarbonate ear drops versus Cerumol). Two trials comparing the same two cerumenolytics (Cerumenex versus Colace) also failed to show any significant benefit of one over the other. No serious adverse effects were reported from any of the interventions. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Trials to date have been heterogeneous and of poor quality, making it difficult to offer any definitive recommendations on the effectiveness of cerumenolytics for the removal of symptomatic ear wax. Future trials should be of high methodological quality, have large sample sizes, and compare both oil-based and water-based solvents with placebo and/or no treatment.