Restrictive versus liberal red blood cell transfusion strategies for people with haematological malignancies treated with intensive chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or both, with or without haematopoietic stem cell support.

BACKGROUND: An estimated one-quarter to one-half of people diagnosed with haematological malignancies experience anaemia. There are different strategies for red blood cell (RBC) transfusions to treat anaemia. A restrictive transfusion strategy permits a lower haemoglobin (Hb) level whereas a liberal transfusion strategy aims to maintain a higher Hb. The most effective and safest strategy is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion strategies for people diagnosed with haematological malignancies treated with intensive chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or both, with or without a haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). SEARCH METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (NRS) in MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1982), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2023, Issue 2), and eight other databases (including three trial registries) to 21 March 2023. We also searched grey literature and contacted experts in transfusion for additional trials. There were no language, date or publication status restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and prospective NRS that evaluated restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion strategies in children or adults with malignant haematological disorders receiving intensive chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or both, with or without HSCT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened references, full-text reports of potentially relevant studies, extracted data from the studies, and assessed the risk of bias. Any disagreement was discussed and resolved with a third review author. Dichotomous outcomes were presented as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Narrative syntheses were used for heterogeneous outcome measures. Review Manager Web was used to meta-analyse the data. Main outcomes of interest included: all-cause mortality at 31 to 100 days, quality of life, number of participants with any bleeding, number of participants with clinically significant bleeding, serious infections, length of hospital admission (days) and hospital readmission at 0 to 3 months. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Nine studies met eligibility; eight RCTs and one NRS. Six hundred and forty-four participants were included from six completed RCTs (n = 560) and one completed NRS (n = 84), with two ongoing RCTs consisting of 294 participants (260 adult and 34 paediatric) pending inclusion. Only one completed RCT included children receiving HSCT (n = 6); the other five RCTs only included adults: 239 with acute leukaemia receiving chemotherapy and 315 receiving HSCT (166 allogeneic and 149 autologous). The transfusion threshold ranged from 70 g/L to 80 g/L for restrictive and from 80 g/L to 120 g/L for liberal strategies. Effects were reported in the summary of findings tables only for the trials that included adults to reduce indirectness due to the limited evidence contributed by the prematurely terminated paediatric trial. Evidence from RCTs Overall, there may be little to no difference in the number of participants who die within 31 to 100 days using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy, but the evidence is very uncertain (three studies; 451 participants; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.70, P=0.99; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in quality of life at 0 to 3 months using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy, but the evidence is very uncertain (three studies; 431 participants; analysis unable to be completed due to heterogeneity; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in the number of participants who suffer from any bleeding at 0 to 3 months using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy (three studies; 448 participants; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06, P = 0.22; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in the number of participants who suffer from clinically significant bleeding at 0 to 3 months using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy (four studies; 511 participants; RR: 0.94, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.19, P = 0.60; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in the number of participants who experience serious infections at 0 to 3 months using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy (three studies, 451 participants; RR: 1.20, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.55, P = 0.17; low-certainty evidence). A restrictive transfusion strategy likely results in little to no difference in the length of hospital admission at 0 to 3 months compared to a liberal strategy (two studies; 388 participants; analysis unable to be completed due to heterogeneity in reporting; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between hospital readmission using a restrictive transfusion strategy compared to a liberal transfusion strategy (one study, 299 participants; RR: 0.89, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.50; P = 0.65; low-certainty evidence). Evidence from NRS The evidence is very uncertain whether a restrictive RBC transfusion strategy: reduces the risk of death within 100 days (one study, 84 participants, restrictive 1 death; liberal 1 death; very low-certainty evidence); or decreases the risk of clinically significant bleeding (one study, 84 participants, restrictive 3; liberal 8; very low-certainty evidence). No NRS reported on the other eligible outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this review were based on seven studies and 644 participants. Definite conclusions are challenging given the relatively few included studies, low number of included participants, heterogeneity of intervention and outcome reporting, and overall certainty of evidence. To increase the certainty of the true effect of a restrictive RBC transfusion strategy on clinical outcomes, there is a need for rigorously designed and executed studies. The evidence is largely based on two populations: adults with acute leukaemia receiving intensive chemotherapy and adults with haematologic malignancy requiring HSCT. Despite the addition of 405 participants from three RCTs to the previous review's results, there is still insufficient evidence to answer this review's primary outcome. If we assume a mortality rate of 3% within 100 days, we would need a total of 1492 participants to have an 80% chance of detecting, at a 5% level of significance, an increase in all-cause mortality from 3% to 6%. Further RCTs are needed overall, particularly in children.

Impact of Risk Factors on COVID-19 Outcomes in Unvaccinated People With Rheumatic Diseases: A Comparative Analysis of Pandemic Epochs Using the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately one third of individuals worldwide have not received a COVID-19 vaccine. Although studies have investigated risk factors linked to severe COVID-19 among unvaccinated people with rheumatic diseases (RDs), we know less about whether these factors changed as the pandemic progressed. We aimed to identify risk factors associated with severe COVID-19 in unvaccinated individuals in different pandemic epochs corresponding to major variants of concern. METHODS: Patients with RDs and COVID-19 were entered into the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Registry between March 2020 and June 2022. An ordinal logistic regression model (not hospitalized, hospitalized, and death) was used with date of COVID-19 diagnosis, age, sex, race and/or ethnicity, comorbidities, RD activity, medications, and the human development index (HDI) as covariates. The main analysis included all unvaccinated patients across COVID-19 pandemic epochs; subanalyses stratified patients according to RD types. RESULTS: Among 19,256 unvaccinated people with RDs and COVID-19, those who were older, male, had more comorbidities, used glucocorticoids, had higher disease activity, or lived in lower HDI regions had worse outcomes across epochs. For those with rheumatoid arthritis, sulfasalazine and B-cell-depleting therapy were associated with worse outcomes, and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors were associated with improved outcomes. In those with connective tissue disease or vasculitis, B-cell-depleting therapy was associated with worse outcomes. CONCLUSION: Risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes were similar throughout pandemic epochs in unvaccinated people with RDs. Ongoing efforts, including vaccination, are needed to reduce COVID-19 severity in this population, particularly in those with medical and social vulnerabilities identified in this study.

Impact of iron supplementation on patient outcomes for women with abnormal uterine bleeding: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB), which includes heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), is a common condition placing women at increased risk for developing iron deficiency and iron deficiency anemia (IDA). Depletion of iron stores has negative implications on physical, social, and emotional health, as well as quality of life. Iron supplements are safe, effective, and readily available, while red blood cell (RBC) transfusions have inherent risks including infectious and immune reactions. Despite high prevalence of IDA among women with AUB, there are limited studies on the impact of iron therapies on patient outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis will evaluate the impact of iron supplementation on patient outcomes for women with AUB, when compared to combination therapy, no intervention, placebo, or standard of care. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies evaluating the impact of iron interventions on patient outcomes for women with AUB. Systematic literature searches will be conducted in major databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Studies assessing the impact of iron interventions on patient outcomes in women experiencing AUB, in comparison to combination therapy, no intervention, placebo, or standard of care, will be included in the review. Independent reviewers will screen for eligibility, assess risk of bias, and abstract data. Overall certainty of evidence for each outcome will be assessed using the GRADE approach. We will meta-analyze outcomes which are sufficiently homogeneous to summarize intervention effects and narratively synthesize nonhomogeneous outcomes. The main outcomes of interest are hemoglobin levels immediately prior to surgery and post-operatively, number of RBC transfusions, and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes will include length of hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, adverse and side effects, quality of life, and iron indices. DISCUSSION: This review will evaluate the impact of iron interventions on patient outcomes in women with IDA secondary to AUB with focus on changes in hematological and iron indices, red blood cell utilization, quality of life, cost of treatment, and adverse events. The results will inform evidence-based clinical practice for the management of iron deficiency and IDA secondary to AUB. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019137282.

Characteristics associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes in people with psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis: data from the COVID-19 PsoProtect and Global Rheumatology Alliance physician-reported registries.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate factors associated with severe COVID-19 in people with psoriasis (PsO), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). METHODS: Demographic data, clinical characteristics and COVID-19 outcome severity of adults with PsO, PsA and axSpA were obtained from two international physician-reported registries. A three-point ordinal COVID-19 severity scale was defined: no hospitalisation, hospitalisation (and no death) and death. ORs were estimated using multivariable ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 5045 cases, 18.3% had PsO, 45.5% PsA and 36.3% axSpA. Most (83.6%) were not hospitalised, 14.6% were hospitalised and 1.8% died. Older age was non-linearly associated with COVID-19 severity. Male sex (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.83), cardiovascular, respiratory, renal, metabolic and cancer comorbidities (ORs 1.25-2.89), moderate/high disease activity and/or glucocorticoid use (ORs 1.39-2.23, vs remission/low disease activity and no glucocorticoids) were associated with increased odds of severe COVID-19. Later pandemic time periods (ORs 0.42-0.52, vs until 15 June 2020), PsO (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.65, vs PsA) and baseline exposure to TNFi, IL17i and IL-23i/IL-12+23i (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.73; OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.87; OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.98; respectively; vs no disease-modifying antirheumatic drug) were associated with reduced odds of severe COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Older age, male sex, comorbidity burden, higher disease activity and glucocorticoid intake were associated with more severe COVID-19. Later pandemic time periods, PsO and exposure to TNFi, IL17i and IL-23i/IL-12+23i were associated with less severe COVID-19. These findings will enable risk stratification and inform management decisions for patients with PsO, PsA and axSpA during COVID-19 waves or similar future respiratory pandemics.

Immediate effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient health, health-care use, and behaviours: results from an international survey of people with rheumatic diseases.

BACKGROUND: The impact and consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with rheumatic disease are unclear. We developed the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Patient Experience Survey to assess the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with rheumatic disease worldwide. METHODS: Survey questions were developed by key stakeholder groups and disseminated worldwide through social media, websites, and patient support organisations. Questions included demographics, rheumatic disease diagnosis, COVID-19 diagnosis, adoption of protective behaviours to mitigate COVID-19 exposure, medication access and changes, health-care access and communication with rheumatologists, and changes in employment or schooling. Adults age 18 years and older with inflammatory or autoimmune rheumatic diseases were eligible for inclusion. We included participants with and without a COVID-19 diagnosis. We excluded participants reporting only non-inflammatory rheumatic diseases such as fibromyalgia or osteoarthritis. FINDINGS: 12 117 responses to the survey were received between April 3 and May 8, 2020, and of these, 10 407 respondents had included appropriate age data. We included complete responses from 9300 adults with rheumatic disease (mean age 46·1 years; 8375 [90·1%] women, 893 [9·6%] men, and 32 [0·3%] participants who identified as non-binary). 6273 (67·5%) of respondents identified as White, 1565 (16·8%) as Latin American, 198 (2·1%) as Black, 190 (2·0%) as Asian, and 42 (0·5%) as Native American or Aboriginal or First Nation. The most common rheumatic disease diagnoses included rheumatoid arthritis (3636 [39·1%] of 9300), systemic lupus erythematosus (2882 [31·0%]), and Sjögren's syndrome (1290 [13·9%]). Most respondents (6921 [82·0%] of 8441) continued their antirheumatic medications as prescribed. Almost all (9266 [99·7%] of 9297) respondents adopted protective behaviours to limit SARS-CoV-2 exposure. A change in employment status occurred in 2524 (27·1%) of 9300) of respondents, with a 13·6% decrease in the number in full-time employment (from 4066 to 3514). INTERPRETATION: People with rheumatic disease maintained therapy and followed public health advice to mitigate the risks of COVID-19. Substantial employment status changes occurred, with potential implications for health-care access, medication affordability, mental health, and rheumatic disease activity. FUNDING: American College of Rheumatology.

Characteristics and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational nutritional epidemiology: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Dietary recommendations and policies should be guided by rigorous systematic reviews. Reviews that are of poor methodological quality may be ineffective or misleading. Most of the evidence in nutrition comes from nonrandomized studies of nutritional exposures (usually referred to as nutritional epidemiology studies), but to date methodological evaluations of the quality of systematic reviews of such studies have been sparse and inconsistent. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate the quality of recently published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nutritional epidemiology studies and to propose guidance addressing major limitations. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (January 2018-August 2019), EMBASE (January 2018-August 2019), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 2018-February 2019) for systematic reviews of nutritional epidemiology studies. We included a random sample of 150 reviews. RESULTS: Most reviews were published by authors from Asia (n = 49; 32.7%) or Europe (n = 43; 28.7%) and investigated foods or beverages (n = 60; 40.0%) and cancer morbidity and mortality (n = 54; 36%). Reviews often had important limitations: less than one-quarter (n = 30; 20.0%) reported preregistration of a protocol and almost one-third (n = 42; 28.0%) did not report a replicable search strategy. Suboptimal practices and errors in the synthesis of results were common: one-quarter of meta-analyses (n = 30; 26.1%) selected the meta-analytic model based on statistical indicators of heterogeneity and almost half of meta-analyses (n = 50; 43.5%) did not consider dose-response associations even when it was appropriate to do so. Only 16 (10.7%) reviews used an established system to evaluate the certainty of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews of nutritional epidemiology studies often have serious limitations. Authors can improve future reviews by involving statisticians, methodologists, and researchers with substantive knowledge in the specific area of nutrition being studied and using a rigorous and transparent system to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

Factors associated with COVID-19-related death in people with rheumatic diseases: results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician-reported registry.

OBJECTIVES: To determine factors associated with COVID-19-related death in people with rheumatic diseases. METHODS: Physician-reported registry of adults with rheumatic disease and confirmed or presumptive COVID-19 (from 24 March to 1 July 2020). The primary outcome was COVID-19-related death. Age, sex, smoking status, comorbidities, rheumatic disease diagnosis, disease activity and medications were included as covariates in multivariable logistic regression models. Analyses were further stratified according to rheumatic disease category. RESULTS: Of 3729 patients (mean age 57 years, 68% female), 390 (10.5%) died. Independent factors associated with COVID-19-related death were age (66-75 years: OR 3.00, 95% CI 2.13 to 4.22; >75 years: 6.18, 4.47 to 8.53; both vs ≤65 years), male sex (1.46, 1.11 to 1.91), hypertension combined with cardiovascular disease (1.89, 1.31 to 2.73), chronic lung disease (1.68, 1.26 to 2.25) and prednisolone-equivalent dosage >10 mg/day (1.69, 1.18 to 2.41; vs no glucocorticoid intake). Moderate/high disease activity (vs remission/low disease activity) was associated with higher odds of death (1.87, 1.27 to 2.77). Rituximab (4.04, 2.32 to 7.03), sulfasalazine (3.60, 1.66 to 7.78), immunosuppressants (azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, ciclosporin, mycophenolate or tacrolimus: 2.22, 1.43 to 3.46) and not receiving any disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) (2.11, 1.48 to 3.01) were associated with higher odds of death, compared with methotrexate monotherapy. Other synthetic/biological DMARDs were not associated with COVID-19-related death. CONCLUSION: Among people with rheumatic disease, COVID-19-related death was associated with known general factors (older age, male sex and specific comorbidities) and disease-specific factors (disease activity and specific medications). The association with moderate/high disease activity highlights the importance of adequate disease control with DMARDs, preferably without increasing glucocorticoid dosages. Caution may be required with rituximab, sulfasalazine and some immunosuppressants.

Association of Race and Ethnicity With COVID-19 Outcomes in Rheumatic Disease: Data From the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Physician Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Racial/ethnic minorities experience more severe outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the general US population. This study was undertaken to examine the association between race/ethnicity and COVID-19 hospitalization, ventilation status, and mortality in people with rheumatic disease. METHODS: US patients with rheumatic disease and COVID-19 were entered into the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry between March 24, 2020 and August 26, 2020 were included. Race/ethnicity was defined as White, African American, Latinx, Asian, or other/mixed race. Outcome measures included hospitalization, requirement for ventilatory support, and death. Multivariable regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, rheumatic disease diagnosis, comorbidities, medication use prior to infection, and rheumatic disease activity. RESULTS: A total of 1,324 patients were included, of whom 36% were hospitalized and 6% died; 26% of hospitalized patients required mechanical ventilation. In multivariable models, African American patients (OR 2.74 [95% CI 1.90-3.95]), Latinx patients (OR 1.71 [95% CI 1.18-2.49]), and Asian patients (OR 2.69 [95% CI 1.16-6.24]) had higher odds of hospitalization compared to White patients. Latinx patients also had 3-fold increased odds of requiring ventilatory support (OR 3.25 [95% CI 1.75-6.05]). No differences in mortality based on race/ethnicity were found, though power to detect associations may have been limited. CONCLUSION: Similar to findings in the general US population, racial/ethnic minorities with rheumatic disease and COVID-19 had increased odds of hospitalization and ventilatory support. These results illustrate significant health disparities related to COVID-19 in people with rheumatic diseases. The rheumatology community should proactively address the needs of patients currently experiencing inequitable health outcomes during the pandemic.

Characteristics associated with hospitalisation for COVID-19 in people with rheumatic disease: data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician-reported registry.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 outcomes in people with rheumatic diseases remain poorly understood. The aim was to examine demographic and clinical factors associated with COVID-19 hospitalisation status in people with rheumatic disease. METHODS: Case series of individuals with rheumatic disease and COVID-19 from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry: 24 March 2020 to 20 April 2020. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate ORs and 95% CIs of hospitalisation. Age, sex, smoking status, rheumatic disease diagnosis, comorbidities and rheumatic disease medications taken immediately prior to infection were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 600 cases from 40 countries were included. Nearly half of the cases were hospitalised (277, 46%) and 55 (9%) died. In multivariable-adjusted models, prednisone dose ≥10 mg/day was associated with higher odds of hospitalisation (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.96). Use of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) alone or in combination with biologics/Janus Kinase inhibitors was not associated with hospitalisation (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.17 and OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.46, respectively). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use was not associated with hospitalisation status (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.06). Tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (anti-TNF) use was associated with a reduced odds of hospitalisation (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.81), while no association with antimalarial use (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.57) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: We found that glucocorticoid exposure of ≥10 mg/day is associated with a higher odds of hospitalisation and anti-TNF with a decreased odds of hospitalisation in patients with rheumatic disease. Neither exposure to DMARDs nor NSAIDs were associated with increased odds of hospitalisation.