Prophylactic plasma transfusion for patients without inherited bleeding disorders or anticoagulant use undergoing non-cardiac surgery or invasive procedures.

BACKGROUND: In the absence of bleeding, plasma is commonly transfused to people prophylactically to prevent bleeding. In this context, it is transfused before operative or invasive procedures (such as liver biopsy or chest drainage tube insertion) in those considered at increased risk of bleeding, typically defined by abnormalities of laboratory tests of coagulation. As plasma contains procoagulant factors, plasma transfusion may reduce perioperative bleeding risk. This outcome has clinical importance given that perioperative bleeding and blood transfusion have been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Plasma is expensive, and some countries have experienced issues with blood product shortages, donor pool reliability, and incomplete screening for transmissible infections. Thus, although the benefit of prophylactic plasma transfusion has not been well established, plasma transfusion does carry potentially life-threatening risks. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and safety of prophylactic plasma transfusion for people with coagulation test abnormalities (in the absence of inherited bleeding disorders or use of anticoagulant medication) requiring non-cardiac surgery or invasive procedures. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), without language or publication status restrictions in: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017 Issue 7); Ovid MEDLINE (from 1946); Ovid Embase (from 1974); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; EBSCOHost) (from 1937); PubMed (e-publications and in-process citations ahead of print only); Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950); Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (from 1982); Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) (Thomson Reuters, from 1990); ClinicalTrials.gov; and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Search Platform (ICTRP) to 28 January 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing: prophylactic plasma transfusion to placebo, intravenous fluid, or no intervention; prophylactic plasma transfusion to alternative pro-haemostatic agents; or different haemostatic thresholds for prophylactic plasma transfusion. We included participants of any age, and we excluded trials incorporating individuals with previous active bleeding, with inherited bleeding disorders, or taking anticoagulant medication before enrolment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials in this review, all were conducted in high-income countries. Three additional trials are ongoing. One trial compared fresh frozen plasma (FFP) transfusion with no transfusion given. One trial compared FFP or platelet transfusion or both with neither FFP nor platelet transfusion given. One trial compared FFP transfusion with administration of alternative pro-haemostatic agents (factors II, IX, and X followed by VII). One trial compared the use of different transfusion triggers using the international normalised ratio measurement. One trial compared the use of a thromboelastographic-guided transfusion trigger using standard laboratory measurements of coagulation. Four trials enrolled only adults, whereas the fifth trial did not specify participant age. Four trials included only minor procedures that could be performed by the bedside. Only one trial included some participants undergoing major surgical operations. Two trials included only participants in intensive care. Two trials included only participants with liver disease. Three trials did not recruit sufficient participants to meet their pre-calculated sample size. Overall, the quality of evidence was low to very low across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology, due to risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision. One trial was stopped after recruiting two participants, therefore this review's findings are based on the remaining four trials (234 participants). When plasma transfusion was compared with no transfusion given, we are very uncertain whether there was a difference in 30-day mortality (1 trial comparing FFP or platelet transfusion or both with neither FFP nor platelet transfusion, 72 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 1.10; very low-quality evidence). We are very uncertain whether there was a difference in major bleeding within 24 hours (1 trial comparing FFP transfusion vs no transfusion, 76 participants; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.93; very low-quality evidence; 1 trial comparing FFP or platelet transfusion or both with neither FFP nor platelet transfusion, 72 participants; RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.28 to 8.93; very low-quality evidence). We are very uncertain whether there was a difference in the number of blood product transfusions per person (1 trial, 76 participants; study authors reported no difference; very low-quality evidence) or in the number of people requiring transfusion (1 trial comparing FFP or platelet transfusion or both with neither FFP nor platelet transfusion, 72 participants; study authors reported no blood transfusion given; very low-quality evidence) or in the risk of transfusion-related adverse events (acute lung injury) (1 trial, 76 participants; study authors reported no difference; very low-quality evidence). When plasma transfusion was compared with other pro-haemostatic agents, we are very uncertain whether there was a difference in major bleeding (1 trial; 21 participants; no events; very low-quality evidence) or in transfusion-related adverse events (febrile or allergic reactions) (1 trial, 21 participants; RR 9.82, 95% CI 0.59 to 162.24; very low-quality evidence). When different triggers for FFP transfusion were compared, the number of people requiring transfusion may have been reduced (for overall blood products) when a thromboelastographic-guided transfusion trigger was compared with standard laboratory tests (1 trial, 60 participants; RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.39; low-quality evidence). We are very uncertain whether there was a difference in major bleeding (1 trial, 60 participants; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87; very low-quality evidence) or in transfusion-related adverse events (allergic reactions) (1 trial; 60 participants; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87; very low-quality evidence). Only one trial reported 30-day mortality. No trials reported procedure-related harmful events (excluding bleeding) or quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Review findings show uncertainty for the utility and safety of prophylactic FFP use. This is due to predominantly very low-quality evidence that is available for its use over a range of clinically important outcomes, together with lack of confidence in the wider applicability of study findings, given the paucity or absence of study data in settings such as major body cavity surgery, extensive soft tissue surgery, orthopaedic surgery, or neurosurgery. Therefore, from the limited RCT evidence, we can neither support nor oppose the use of prophylactic FFP in clinical practice.

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 improving adherence to iron chelation therapy in people with sickle cell disease or thalassaemia.

BACKGROUND: Regularly transfused people with sickle cell disease (SCD) and people with thalassaemia (who are transfusion-dependent or non-transfusion-dependent) are at risk of iron overload. Iron overload can lead to iron toxicity in vulnerable organs such as the heart, liver and endocrine glands; which can be prevented and treated with iron chelating agents. The intensive demands and uncomfortable side effects of therapy can have a negative impact on daily activities and well-being, which may affect adherence. OBJECTIVES: To identify and assess the effectiveness of interventions (psychological and psychosocial, educational, medication interventions, or multi-component interventions) to improve adherence to iron chelation therapy in people with SCD or thalassaemia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, Web of Science Science & Social Sciences Conference Proceedings Indexes and ongoing trial databases (01 February 2017). We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register (12 December 2017). SELECTION CRITERIA: For trials comparing medications or medication changes, only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion.For studies including psychological and psychosocial interventions, educational Interventions, or multi-component interventions, non-RCTs, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series studies with adherence as a primary outcome were also eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently assessed trial eligibility, risk of bias and extracted data. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 RCTs (1525 participants) published between 1997 and 2017. Most participants had ß-thalassaemia major; 195 had SCD and 88 had ß-thalassaemia intermedia. Mean age ranged from 11 to 41 years. One trial was of medication management and 15 RCTs were of medication interventions. Medications assessed were subcutaneous deferoxamine, and two oral-chelating agents, deferiprone and deferasirox.We rated the quality of evidence as low to very low across all outcomes identified in this review.Three trials measured quality of life (QoL) with validated instruments, but provided no analysable data and reported no difference in QoL.Deferiprone versus deferoxamineWe are uncertain whether deferiprone increases adherence to iron chelation therapy (four trials, very low-quality evidence). Results could not be combined due to considerable heterogeneity (participants' age and different medication regimens). Medication adherence was high (deferiprone (85% to 94.9%); deferoxamine (71.6% to 93%)).We are uncertain whether deferiprone increases the risk of agranulocytosis, risk ratio (RR) 7.88 (99% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 352.39); or has any effect on all-cause mortality, RR 0.44 (95% CI 0.12 to 1.63) (one trial; 88 participants; very low-quality evidence).Deferasirox versus deferoxamineWe are uncertain whether deferasirox increases adherence to iron chelation therapy, mean difference (MD) -1.40 (95% CI -3.66 to 0.86) (one trial; 197 participants; very-low quality evidence). Medication adherence was high (deferasirox (99%); deferoxamine (100%)). We are uncertain whether deferasirox decreases the risk of thalassaemia-related serious adverse events (SAEs), RR 0.95 (95% CI 0.41 to 2.17); or all-cause mortality, RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.06 to 15.06) (two trials; 240 participants; very low-quality evidence).We are uncertain whether deferasirox decreases the risk of SCD-related pain crises, RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.62); or other SCD-related SAEs, RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.51) (one trial; 195 participants; very low-quality evidence).Deferasirox film-coated tablet (FCT) versus deferasirox dispersible tablet (DT)Deferasirox FCT may make little or no difference to adherence, RR 1.10 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.22) (one trial; 173 participants; low-quality evidence). Medication adherence was high (FCT (92.9%); DT (85.3%)).We are uncertain if deferasirox FCT increases the incidence of SAEs, RR 1.22 (95% CI 0.62 to 2.37); or all-cause mortality, RR 2.97 (95% CI 0.12 to 71.81) (one trial; 173 participants; very low-quality evidence).Deferiprone and deferoxamine combined versus deferiprone alone We are uncertain if deferiprone and deferoxamine combined increases adherence to iron chelation therapy (very low-quality evidence). Medication adherence was high (deferiprone 92.7% (range 37% to 100%) to 93.6% (range 56% to 100%); deferoxamine 70.6% (range 25% to 100%).Combination therapy may make little or no difference to the risk of SAEs, RR 0.15 (95% CI 0.01 to 2.81) (one trial; 213 participants; low-quality evidence).We are uncertain if combination therapy decreases all-cause mortality, RR 0.77 (95% CI 0.18 to 3.35) (two trials; 237 participants; very low-quality evidence).Deferiprone and deferoxamine combined versus deferoxamine aloneDeferiprone and deferoxamine combined may have little or no effect on adherence to iron chelation therapy (four trials; 216 participants; low-quality evidence). Medication adherence was high (deferoxamine 91.4% to 96.1%; deferiprone: 82.4%)Deferiprone and deferoxamine combined, may have little or no difference in SAEs or mortality (low-quality evidence). No SAEs occurred in three trials and were not reported in one trial. No deaths occurred in two trials and were not reported in two trials.Deferiprone and deferoxamine combined versus deferiprone and deferasirox combinedDeferiprone and deferasirox combined may improve adherence to iron chelation therapy, RR 0.84 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.99) (one trial; 96 participants; low-quality evidence). Medication adherence was high (deferiprone and deferoxamine: 80%; deferiprone and deferasirox: 95%).We are uncertain if deferiprone and deferasirox decreases the incidence of SAEs, RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.06 to 15.53) (one trial; 96 participants; very low-quality evidence).There were no deaths in the trial (low-quality evidence).Medication management versus standard careWe are uncertain if medication management improves health-related QoL (one trial; 48 participants; very low-quality evidence). Adherence was only measured in one arm of the trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The medication comparisons included in this review had higher than average adherence rates not accounted for by differences in medication administration or side effects.Participants may have been selected based on higher adherence to trial medications at baseline. Also, within the clinical trial context, there is increased attention and involvement of clinicians, thus high adherence rates may be an artefact of trial participation.Real-world, pragmatic trials in community and clinic settings are needed that examine both confirmed or unconfirmed adherence strategies that may increase adherence to iron chelation therapy.Due to lack of evidence this review cannot comment on intervention strategies for different age groups.

Interventions for chronic kidney disease in people with sickle cell disease.

BACKGROUND: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is one of the commonest severe monogenic disorders in the world, 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. Kidney disease is a frequent and potentially severe complication in people with SCD.Chronic kidney disease is defined as abnormalities of kidney structure or function, present for more than three months. Sickle cell nephropathy refers to the spectrum of kidney complications in SCD.Glomerular damage is a cause of microalbuminuria and can develop at an early age in children with SCD, and increases in prevalence in adulthood. In people with sickle cell nephropathy, outcomes are poor as a result of the progression to proteinuria and chronic kidney insufficiency. Up to 12% of people who develop sickle cell nephropathy will develop end-stage renal disease. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of any intervention in preventing or reducing kidney complications or chronic kidney disease in people with SCD (including red blood cell transfusions, hydroxyurea and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)), either alone or in combination with each other. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for relevant trials in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1980), and ongoing trial databases; all searches current to 05 April 2016. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register: 13 April 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing interventions to prevent or reduce kidney complications or chronic kidney disease in people with SCD. There were no restrictions by outcomes examined, language or publication status. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: We included two trials with 215 participants. One trial was published in 2011 and included 193 children aged 9 months to 18 months, and compared treatment with hydroxyurea to placebo. The second trial was published in 1998 and included 22 adults with normal blood pressure and microalbuminuria and compared ACEI to placebo.We rated the quality of evidence as low to very low across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology. This was due to trials having: a high or unclear risk of bias including attrition and detection bias; indirectness (the available evidence was for children aged 9 months to 18 months in one trial and a small and select adult sample size in a second trial); and imprecise outcome effect estimates of significant benefit or harm. Hydroxyurea versus placebo We are very uncertain if hydroxyurea reduces or prevents progression of kidney disease (assessed by change in glomerular filtration rate), or reduces hyperfiltration in children aged 9 to 18 months, mean difference (MD) 0.58 (95% confidence interval (CI) -14.60 to 15.76 (mL/min per 1.73 m²)) (one study; 142 participants; very low-quality evidence).In children aged 9 to 18 months, hydroxyurea may improve the ability to concentrate urine, MD 42.23 (95% CI 12.14 to 72.32 (mOsm/kg)) (one study; 178 participants; low-quality evidence).Hydroxyurea may make little or no difference to SCD-related serious adverse events including: incidence of acute chest syndrome, risk ratio (RR) 0.39 (99% CI 0.13 to 1.16); painful crisis, RR 0.68 (99% CI 0.45 to 1.02); and hospitalisations, RR 0.83 (99% CI 0.68 to 1.01) (one study, 193 participants; low-quality evidence).No deaths occurred in the trial. Quality of life was not reported. ACEI versus placeboWe are very uncertain if ACEI reduces proteinuria in adults with SCD who have normal blood pressure and microalbuminuria, MD -49.00 (95% CI -124.10 to 26.10 (mg per day)) (one study; 22 participants; very low-quality evidence). We are very uncertain if ACEI reduce or prevent kidney disease as measured by creatinine clearance. The authors state that creatinine clearance remained constant over six months in both groups, but no comparative data were provided (very low-quality evidence).All-cause mortality, serious adverse events and quality of life were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In young children aged 9 months to 18 months, we are very uncertain if hydroxyurea improves glomerular filtration rate or reduces hyperfiltration, but it may improve young children's ability to concentrate urine and may make little or no difference on the incidence of acute chest syndrome, painful crises and hospitalisations.We are very uncertain if giving ACEI to adults with normal blood pressure and microalbuminuria has any effect on preventing or reducing kidney complications.This review identified no trials that looked at red cell transfusions nor any combinations of interventions to prevent or reduce kidney complications.Due to lack of evidence this review cannot comment on the management of either children aged over 18 months or adults with any known genotype of SCD.We have identified a lack of adequately-designed and powered studies, and no ongoing trials which address this critical question. Trials of hydroxyurea, ACEI or red blood cell transfusion in older children and adults are urgently needed to determine any effect on prevention or reduction kidney complications in people with SCD.

Interventions for preventing silent cerebral infarcts in people with sickle cell disease.

BACKGROUND: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is one of the commonest severe monogenic disorders in the world, 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. Silent cerebral infarcts are the commonest neurological complication in children and probably adults with SCD. Silent cerebral infarcts also affect academic performance, increase cognitive deficits and may lower intelligence quotient. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions to reduce or prevent silent cerebral infarcts in people with SCD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for relevant trials in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1980), and ongoing trial databases; all searches current to 19 September 2016. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register: 06 October 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing interventions to prevent silent cerebral infarcts in people with SCD. There were no restrictions by outcomes examined, language or publication status. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials (660 children or adolescents) published between 1998 and 2016. Four of the five trials were terminated early. The vast majority of participants had the haemoglobin (Hb)SS form of SCD. One trial focused on preventing silent cerebral infarcts or stroke; three trials were for primary stroke prevention and one trial dealt with secondary stroke prevention.Three trials compared the use of regular long-term red blood cell transfusions to standard care. Two of these trials included children with no previous long-term transfusions: one in children with normal transcranial doppler (TCD) velocities; and one in children with abnormal TCD velocities. The third trial included children and adolescents on long-term transfusion.Two trials compared the drug hydroxyurea and phlebotomy to long-term transfusions and iron chelation therapy: one in primary prevention (children), and one in secondary prevention (children and adolescents).The quality of the evidence was moderate to very low across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology. This was due to trials being at high risk of bias because they were unblinded; indirectness (available evidence was only for children with HbSS); and imprecise outcome estimates. Long-term red blood cell transfusions versus standard care Children with no previous long-term transfusions and higher risk of stroke (abnormal TCD velocities or previous history of silent cerebral infarcts) Long-term red blood cell transfusions may reduce the incidence of silent cerebral infarcts in children with abnormal TCD velocities, risk ratio (RR) 0.11 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.86) (one trial, 124 participants, low-quality evidence); but make little or no difference to the incidence of silent cerebral infarcts in children with previous silent cerebral infarcts on magnetic resonance imaging and normal or conditional TCDs, RR 0.70 (95% CI 0.23 to 2.13) (one trial, 196 participants, low-quality evidence).No deaths were reported in either trial.Long-term red blood cell transfusions may reduce the incidence of: acute chest syndrome, RR 0.24 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.49) (two trials, 326 participants, low-quality evidence); and painful crisis, RR 0.63 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.95) (two trials, 326 participants, low-quality evidence); and probably reduces the incidence of clinical stroke, RR 0.12 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.49) (two trials, 326 participants, moderate-quality evidence).Long-term red blood cell transfusions may improve quality of life in children with previous silent cerebral infarcts (difference estimate -0.54; 95% confidence interval -0.92 to -0.17; one trial; 166 participants), but may have no effect on cognitive function (least squares means: 1.7, 95% CI -1.1 to 4.4) (one trial, 166 participants, low-quality evidence). Transfusions continued versus transfusions halted: children and adolescents with normalised TCD velocities (79 participants; one trial)Continuing red blood cell transfusions may reduce the incidence of silent cerebral infarcts, RR 0.29 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.97 (low-quality evidence).We are very uncertain whether continuing red blood cell transfusions has any effect on all-cause mortality, Peto odds ratio (OR) 8.00 (95% CI 0.16 to 404.12); or clinical stroke, RR 0.22 (95% CI 0.01 to 4.35) (very low-quality evidence).The trial did not report: comparative numbers for SCD-related adverse events; quality of life; or cognitive function. Hydroxyurea and phlebotomy versus transfusions and chelation Primary prevention, children (121 participants; one trial)We are very uncertain whether switching to hydroxyurea and phlebotomy has any effect on: silent cerebral infarcts (no infarcts); all-cause mortality (no deaths); risk of stroke (no strokes); or SCD-related complications, RR 1.52 (95% CI 0.58 to 4.02) (very low-quality evidence). Secondary prevention, children and adolescents with a history of stroke (133 participants; one trial)We are very uncertain whether switching to hydroxyurea and phlebotomy has any effect on: silent cerebral infarcts, Peto OR 7.28 (95% CI 0.14 to 366.91); all-cause mortality, Peto OR 1.02 (95%CI 0.06 to 16.41); or clinical stroke, RR 14.78 (95% CI 0.86 to 253.66) (very low-quality evidence).Switching to hydroxyurea and phlebotomy may increase the risk of SCD-related complications, RR 3.10 (95% CI 1.42 to 6.75) (low-quality evidence).Neither trial reported on quality of life or cognitive function. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified no trials for preventing silent cerebral infarcts in adults, or in children who do not have HbSS SCD.Long-term red blood cell transfusions may reduce the incidence of silent cerebral infarcts in children with abnormal TCD velocities, but may have little or no effect on children with normal TCD velocities. In children who are at higher risk of stroke and have not had previous long-term transfusions, long-term red blood cell transfusions probably reduce the risk of stroke, and other SCD-related complications (acute chest syndrome and painful crises).In children and adolescents at high risk of stroke whose TCD velocities have normalised, continuing red blood cell transfusions may reduce the risk of silent cerebral infarcts. No treatment duration threshold has been established for stopping transfusions.Switching to hydroxyurea with phlebotomy may increase the risk of silent cerebral infarcts and SCD-related serious adverse events in secondary stroke prevention.All other evidence in this review is of very low-quality.

Blood transfusion for preventing primary and secondary stroke in people with sickle cell disease.

BACKROUND: Sickle cell disease is one of the commonest severe monogenic disorders in the world, due to the inheritance of two abnormal haemoglobin (beta globin) genes. Sickle cell disease can cause severe pain, significant end-organ damage, pulmonary complications, and premature death. Stroke affects around 10% of children with sickle cell anaemia (HbSS). Chronic blood transfusions may reduce the risk of vaso-occlusion and stroke by diluting the proportion of sickled cells in the circulation.This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002, and last updated in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To assess risks and benefits of chronic blood transfusion regimens in people with sickle cell disease for primary and secondary stroke prevention (excluding silent cerebral infarcts). SEARCH METHODS: We searched for relevant trials in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1980), and ongoing trial databases; all searches current to 04 April 2016.We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 25 April 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing red blood cell transfusions as prophylaxis for stroke in people with sickle cell disease to alternative or standard treatment. There were no restrictions by outcomes examined, language or publication status. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and the risk of bias and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials (660 participants) published between 1998 and 2016. Four of these trials were terminated early. The vast majority of participants had the haemoglobin (Hb)SS form of sickle cell disease.Three trials compared regular red cell transfusions to standard care in primary prevention of stroke: two in children with no previous long-term transfusions; and one in children and adolescents on long-term transfusion.Two trials compared the drug hydroxyurea (hydroxycarbamide) and phlebotomy to long-term transfusions and iron chelation therapy: one in primary prevention (children); and one in secondary prevention (children and adolescents).The quality of the evidence was very low to moderate across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology. This was due to the trials being at a high risk of bias due to lack of blinding, indirectness and imprecise outcome estimates. Red cell transfusions versus standard care Children with no previous long-term transfusionsLong-term transfusions probably reduce the incidence of clinical stroke in children with a higher risk of stroke (abnormal transcranial doppler velocities or previous history of silent cerebral infarct), risk ratio 0.12 (95% confidence interval 0.03 to 0.49) (two trials, 326 participants), moderate quality evidence.Long-term transfusions may: reduce the incidence of other sickle cell disease-related complications (acute chest syndrome, risk ratio 0.24 (95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.48)) (two trials, 326 participants); increase quality of life (difference estimate -0.54, 95% confidence interval -0.92 to -0.17) (one trial, 166 participants); but make little or no difference to IQ scores (least square mean: 1.7, standard error 95% confidence interval -1.1 to 4.4) (one trial, 166 participants), low quality evidence.We are very uncertain whether long-term transfusions: reduce the risk of transient ischaemic attacks, Peto odds ratio 0.13 (95% confidence interval 0.01 to 2.11) (two trials, 323 participants); have any effect on all-cause mortality, no deaths reported (two trials, 326 participants); or increase the risk of alloimmunisation, risk ratio 3.16 (95% confidence interval 0.18 to 57.17) (one trial, 121 participants), very low quality evidence. Children and adolescents with previous long-term transfusions (one trial, 79 participants)We are very uncertain whether continuing long-term transfusions reduces the incidence of: stroke, risk ratio 0.22 (95% confidence interval 0.01 to 4.35); or all-cause mortality, Peto odds ratio 8.00 (95% confidence interval 0.16 to 404.12), very low quality evidence.Several review outcomes were only reported in one trial arm (sickle cell disease-related complications, alloimmunisation, transient ischaemic attacks).The trial did not report neurological impairment, or quality of life. Hydroxyurea and phlebotomy versus red cell transfusions and chelationNeither trial reported on neurological impairment, alloimmunisation, or quality of life. Primary prevention, children (one trial, 121 participants)Switching to hydroxyurea and phlebotomy may have little or no effect on liver iron concentrations, mean difference -1.80 mg Fe/g dry-weight liver (95% confidence interval -5.16 to 1.56), low quality evidence.We are very uncertain whether switching to hydroxyurea and phlebotomy has any effect on: risk of stroke (no strokes); all-cause mortality (no deaths); transient ischaemic attacks, risk ratio 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.21 to 4.84); or other sickle cell disease-related complications (acute chest syndrome, risk ratio 2.03 (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 10.69)), very low quality evidence. Secondary prevention, children and adolescents (one trial, 133 participants)Switching to hydroxyurea and phlebotomy may: increase the risk of sickle cell disease-related serious adverse events, risk ratio 3.10 (95% confidence interval 1.42 to 6.75); but have little or no effect on median liver iron concentrations (hydroxyurea, 17.3 mg Fe/g dry-weight liver (interquartile range 10.0 to 30.6)); transfusion 17.3 mg Fe/g dry-weight liver (interquartile range 8.8 to 30.7), low quality evidence.We are very uncertain whether switching to hydroxyurea and phlebotomy: increases the risk of stroke, risk ratio 14.78 (95% confidence interval 0.86 to 253.66); or has any effect on all-cause mortality, Peto odds ratio 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.06 to 15.92); or transient ischaemic attacks, risk ratio 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.25 to 1.74), very low quality evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence for managing adults, or children who do not have HbSS sickle cell disease.In children who are at higher risk of stroke and have not had previous long-term transfusions, there is moderate quality evidence that long-term red cell transfusions reduce the risk of stroke, and low quality evidence they also reduce the risk of other sickle cell disease-related complications.In primary and secondary prevention of stroke there is low quality evidence that switching to hydroxyurea with phlebotomy has little or no effect on the liver iron concentration.In secondary prevention of stroke there is low-quality evidence that switching to hydroxyurea with phlebotomy increases the risk of sickle cell disease-related events.All other evidence in this review is of very low quality.

Interventions for improving adherence to iron chelation therapy in people with sickle cell disease or thalassaemia.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To identify and assess the effectiveness of interventions to improve adherence to iron chelation therapy compared to standard care in people with SCD or thalassaemia including: identifying and assessing the effectiveness of different types of interventions (psychological and psychosocial, educational, medication interventions, or multi-component interventions);identifying and assessing the effectiveness of interventions specific to different age groups (children, adolescents, adults).

Regular long-term red blood cell transfusions for managing chronic chest complications in sickle cell disease.

BACKGROUND: Sickle cell disease is a genetic haemoglobin disorder, which can cause severe pain, significant end-organ damage, pulmonary complications, and premature death. Sickle cell disease is one of the most common severe monogenic disorders in the world, due to the inheritance of two abnormal haemoglobin (beta globin) genes. The two most common chronic chest complications due to sickle cell disease are pulmonary hypertension and chronic sickle lung disease. These complications can lead to morbidity (such as reduced exercise tolerance) and increased mortality.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2011 and updated in 2014. OBJECTIVES: We wanted to determine whether trials involving people with sickle cell disease that compare regular long-term blood transfusion regimens with standard care, hydroxycarbamide (hydroxyurea) any other drug treatment show differences in the following: mortality associated with chronic chest complications; severity of established chronic chest complications; development and progression of chronic chest complications; serious adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register. Date of the last search: 25 April 2016.We also searched for randomised controlled trials in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 26 January 2016), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and ongoing trial databases to 26 January 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of people of any age with one of four common sickle cell disease genotypes, i.e. Hb SS, Sß(0), SC, or Sß(+) that compared regular red blood cell transfusion regimens (either simple or exchange transfusions) to hydroxycarbamide, any other drug treatment, or to standard care that were aimed at reducing the development or progression of chronic chest complications (chronic sickle lung and pulmonary hypertension). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: No studies matching the selection criteria were found. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for randomised controlled trials looking at the role of long-term transfusion therapy in pulmonary hypertension and chronic sickle lung disease. Due to the chronic nature of the conditions, such trials should aim to use a combination of objective and subjective measures to assess participants repeatedly before and after the intervention.

Preoperative blood transfusions for sickle cell disease.

BACKGROUND: Sickle cell disease is one of the commonest severe monogenic disorders in the world, due to the inheritance of two abnormal haemoglobin (beta globin) genes. Sickle cell disease can cause severe pain, significant end-organ damage, pulmonary complications, and premature death. Surgical interventions are more common in people with sickle cell disease, and occur at much younger ages than in the general population. Blood transfusions are frequently used prior to surgery and several regimens are used but there is no consensus over the best method or the necessity of transfusion in specific surgical cases. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2001. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether there is evidence that preoperative blood transfusion in people with sickle cell disease undergoing elective or emergency surgery reduces mortality and perioperative or sickle cell-related serious adverse events.To compare the effectiveness of different transfusion regimens (aggressive or conservative) if preoperative transfusions are indicated in people with sickle cell disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for relevant trials in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1980), and ongoing trial databases; all searches current to 23 March 2016.We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register: 18 January 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing preoperative blood transfusion regimens to different regimens or no transfusion in people with sickle cell disease undergoing elective or emergency surgery. There was no restriction by outcomes examined, language or publication status. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and the risk of bias and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials with 990 participants were eligible for inclusion in the review. There were no ongoing trials identified. These trials were conducted between 1988 and 2011. The majority of people included had haemoglobin (Hb) SS SCD. The majority of surgical procedures were considered low or intermediate risk for developing sickle cell-related complications. Aggressive versus simple red blood cell transfusions One trial (551 participants) compared an aggressive transfusion regimen (decreasing sickle haemoglobin to less than 30%) to a simple transfusion regimen (increasing haemoglobin to 100 g/l). This trial re-randomised participants and therefore quantitative analysis was only possible on two subsets of data: participants undergoing cholecystectomy (230 participants); and participants undergoing tonsillectomy or adenoidectomy surgeries (107 participants). Data were not combined as we do not know if any participant received both surgeries. Overall, the quality of the evidence was very low across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology. This was due to the trial being at high risk of bias primarily due to lack of blinding, indirectness and the outcome estimates being imprecise. Cholecystectomy subgroup results are reported in the abstract. Results for both subgroups were similar.There was no difference in all-cause mortality between people receiving aggressive transfusions and those receiving conservative transfusions. No deaths occurred in either subgroup.There were no differences between the aggressive transfusion group and conservative transfusion group in the number of people developing:• an acute chest syndrome, risk ratio 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.38 to 1.84) (one trial, 230 participants, very low quality evidence);• vaso-occlusive crisis, risk ratio 0.30 (95% confidence interval 0.09 to 1.04) (one trial, 230 participants, very low quality evidence);• serious infection, risk ratio 1.75 (95% confidence interval 0.59 to 5.18) (one trial, 230 participants, very low quality evidence);• any perioperative complications, risk ratio 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.36 to 1.55) (one trial, 230 participants, very low quality evidence);• a transfusion-related complication, risk ratio 1.85 (95% confidence interval 0.89 to 3.88) (one trial, 230 participants, very low quality evidence). Preoperative transfusion versus no preoperative transfusion Two trials (434 participants) compared a preoperative transfusion plus standard care to a group receiving standard care. Overall, the quality of the evidence was low to very low across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology. This was due to the trials being at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding, and outcome estimates being imprecise. One trial was stopped early because more people in the no transfusion arm developed an acute chest syndrome.There was no difference in all-cause mortality between people receiving preoperative transfusions and those receiving no preoperative transfusions (two trials, 434 participants, no deaths occurred).There was significant heterogeneity between the two trials in the number of people developing an acute chest syndrome, a meta-analysis was therefore not performed. One trial showed a reduced number of people developing acute chest syndrome between people receiving preoperative transfusions and those receiving no preoperative transfusions, risk ratio 0.11 (95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.80) (65 participants), whereas the other trial did not, risk ratio 4.81 (95% confidence interval 0.23 to 99.61) (369 participants).There were no differences between the preoperative transfusion groups and the groups without preoperative transfusion in the number of people developing:• a vaso-occlusive crisis, Peto odds ratio 1.91 (95% confidence interval 0.61 to 6.04) (two trials, 434 participants, very low quality evidence).• a serious infection, Peto odds ratio 1.29 (95% confidence interval 0.29 to 5.71) (two trials, 434 participants, very low quality evidence);• any perioperative complications, risk ratio 0.24 (95% confidence interval 0.03 to 2.05) (one trial, 65 participants, low quality evidence).There was an increase in the number of people developing circulatory overload in those receiving preoperative transfusions compared to those not receiving preoperative transfusions in one of the two trials, and no events were seen in the other trial (no meta-analysis performed). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence from randomised trials to determine whether conservative preoperative blood transfusion is as effective as aggressive preoperative blood transfusion in preventing sickle-related or surgery-related complications in people with HbSS disease. There is very low quality evidence that preoperative blood transfusion may prevent development of acute chest syndrome.Due to lack of evidence this review cannot comment on management for people with HbSC or HbSß(+) disease or for those with high baseline haemoglobin concentrations.

Intravenous immunoglobulin as adjuvant therapy for Wegener's granulomatosis.

BACKGROUND: Wegener's granulomatosis (WG) is a necrotizing small-vessel vasculitis that can affect any organ in the body but mainly affects the upper and lower respiratory tract, the kidneys, joints, skin and eyes. The current mainstay of remission induction therapy is systemic corticosteroids in combination with oral daily cyclophosphamide (CYC) which induces remission in 75% to 100% of cases. Although standard therapy is effective in inducing partial or complete remission, 50% of complete remissions are followed by at least one relapse. This is an update of a review first published in 2009. OBJECTIVES: To determine if intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) adjuvant therapy provides a therapeutic advantage over and above treatment with systemic corticosteroids in combination with immunosuppressants for the treatment of WG. SEARCH METHODS: For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the Specialised Register (last searched November 2012) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 11). Trial databases were searched by the TSC for details of ongoing and unpublished studies. No date or language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), or quasi RCTs, or randomized cross-over trials. Participants had to be adults with a confirmed diagnosis of WG. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Relative risk was used to analyze dichotomous variables, and mean difference (MD) was used to analyze continuous variables. MAIN RESULTS: We included one RCT with 34 participants who were randomly assigned to receive IVIg or placebo once daily in addition to azathioprine and prednisolone for remission maintenance. There were no significant differences between adjuvant IVIg and adjuvant placebo in mortality, serious adverse events, time to relapse, open-label rescue therapy, and infection rates. The fall in disease activity score, derived from patient-reported symptoms, was slightly greater in the IVIg group than in the placebo group at one month (MD 2.30; 95% Confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 3.48, P < 0.01) and three months (MD 1.80; 95% CI 0.35 to 3.25, P = 0.01). There was a significant increase in total adverse events in the IVIg group (relative risk (RR) 3.50; 95% CI 1.44 to 8.48, P < 0.01). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence from one RCT that IVIg adjuvant therapy provides a therapeutic advantage compared with the combination of steroids and immunosuppressants for patients with WG. Given the high cost of IVIg (one dose at 2 g/kg for a 70 kg patient = $8,400), it should be limited to treat WG in the context of a well conducted RCT powered to detect patient-relevant outcomes.

Intravenous immunoglobulin as adjuvant therapy for Wegener's granulomatosis.

BACKGROUND: Wegener's granulomatosis (WG) is a necrotizing small-vessel vasculitis that can affect any organ in the body but mainly affects the upper and lower respiratory tract, the kidneys, joints, skin and eyes. The current mainstay of remission induction therapy is systemic corticosteroids in combination with oral daily cyclophosphamide (CYC) which induces remission in 75% to 100% of cases. Although standard therapy is effective in inducing partial or complete remission, 50% of complete remissions are followed by at least one relapse. OBJECTIVES: To determine if intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) adjuvant therapy provides a therapeutic advantage over and above treatment with systemic corticosteroids in combination with immunosuppressants for the treatment of WG. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases (PVD) Group searched their Trials Register (last searched 8 May) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (last searched 2009, Issue 2). We searched MEDLINE (1966 to May 2009) and EMBASE (1980 to May 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), or quasi RCTs, or randomized cross-over trials. Participants had to be adults with a confirmed diagnosis of WG. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Relative risk was used to analyze dichotomous variables, and mean difference (MD) was used to analyze continuous variables. MAIN RESULTS: We included one RCT with 34 participants who were randomly assigned to receive IVIg or placebo once daily in addition to azathioprine and prednisolone for remission maintenance. There were no significant differences between adjuvant IVIg and adjuvant placebo in mortality, serious adverse events, time to relapse, open-label rescue therapy, and infection rates. The fall in disease activity score, derived from patient-reported symptoms, was slightly greater in the IVIg group than in the placebo group at one month (MD 2.30; 95% Confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 3.48, P < 0.01) and three months (MD 1.80; 95% CI 0.35 to 3.25, P = 0.01). There was a significant increase in total adverse events in the IVIg group (relative risk (RR) 3.50; 95% CI 1.44 to 8.48, P < 0.01). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence from one RCT that IVIg adjuvant therapy provides a therapeutic advantage compared with the combination of steroids and immunosuppressants for patients with WG. Given the high cost of IVIg (one dose at 2g/kg for a 70kg patient = $8,400), it should be limited to treat WG in the context of a well conducted RCT powered to detect patient-relevant outcomes.