Donor Deferral Due to Low Hemoglobin-An Updated Systematic Review.

Blood donors attending a donation session may be deferred from donating blood due to a failure to meet low hemoglobin (Hb) thresholds. This costs the blood donor service and donors valuable time and resources. In addition, donors who are deferred may have more symptoms, and as a direct and/or indirect effect of their experience, return rates of donors deferred for low Hb are reduced, even in repeat donors. It is therefore vital that low Hb deferral (LHD) is minimized. The aim of this updated systematic review is to expand the evidence base for factors which affect a donor's risk of deferral due to low Hb. Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry to March 2019. Demographic data, donor history, hematological/biological factors, and the primary outcome of deferral due to low Hb were extracted. Our primary outcome was deferral due to low Hb. Analyses were descriptive and quantitative; pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained by meta-analysis using random-effects models. A total of 116 studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis showed a significantly greater risk of LHD in females compared with males in studies applying universal Hb thresholds for males and females (OR 14.62 95% CI 12.43-17.19) and in those which used sex-specific thresholds (OR 5.73, 95% CI 4.36-7.53). Higher rates of LHD were also associated with increasing age in men, low body weight, shorter interdonation interval, donors of Hispanic or African descent, higher ambient temperature, donors with low ferritin levels, and donation in a fixed donor center. There was conflicting evidence on the effect of new and repeat donor status, and blood group. This work has strengthened the evidence of the previous review in identifying factors that should be considered in studies of donor deferral and highlighting areas in need of further study, including ABO and Rh blood groups, previous platelet donation, diet, smoking, time of day, and genetic data. These factors may lead to individually tailored donation criteria for safe and efficient donation in the future.

The role of vitamin D in increasing circulating T regulatory cell numbers and modulating T regulatory cell phenotypes in patients with inflammatory disease or in healthy volunteers: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The evidence for vitamin D and other agents that experimentally modulate T regulatory cells (Tregs) for the treatment of patients with autoimmune or allergic diseases has not been established. OBJECTIVE: We have undertaken a systematic review of randomised controlled trials to assess the efficacy of vitamin D, vitamin A, niacin and short-chain fatty acids in enhancing absolute Treg numbers and phenotypes in patients with inflammatory or autoimmune disease. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted using a predefined protocol (PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews, ID = CRD42016048648/ CRD42016048646). Randomised controlled trials of patients with inflammatory or autoimmune disease or healthy participants which compared either oral vitamin D or vitamin A or short-chain fatty acids with control or placebo and measured the absolute concentration of proportion of Tregs were eligible for inclusion. Searches of electronic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PUBMED and Web of Science) identified eight eligible independent trials (seven autoimmune disease trials, one trial of healthy subjects). Data were extracted by two reviewers and the risk of study bias was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration methodology. RESULTS: Planned meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneous nature of the studies. Nevertheless, in five trials of autoimmune disorders which measured the proportion of Tregs, a higher proportion was observed in the vitamin D group compared to controls at 12 months in all but one trial. In the trial of healthy subjects, a significant difference was reported, with a higher percentage of Tregs observed in the vitamin D group (at 12 weeks, mean 6.4% (SD 0.8%) (vitamin D) vs 5.5% (1.0%) (placebo). There were no trials to assess the efficacy of vitamin A, niacin and short-chain fatty acids in enhancing absolute Treg numbers. CONCLUSIONS: Vitamin D supplementation may increase Treg/CD3 ratios in both healthy individuals and patients with autoimmune disorders and may increase Treg function. There remains a need for further suitably powered clinical studies aimed at enhancing Treg numbers and/or function.

Mesenchymal stromal cells as treatment or prophylaxis for acute or chronic graft-versus-host disease in haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients with a haematological condition.

BACKGROUND: Recipients of allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT) can develop acute or chronic, or both forms of graft-versus-host disease (a/cGvHD), whereby immune cells of the donor attack host tissues. Steroids are the primary treatment, but patients with severe, refractory disease have limited options and a poor prognosis. Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) exhibit immunosuppressive properties and are being tested in clinical trials for their safety and efficacy in treating many immune-mediated disorders. GvHD is one of the first areas in which MSCs were clinically applied, and it is important that the accumulating evidence is systematically reviewed to assess whether their use is favoured. OBJECTIVES: To determine the evidence for the safety and efficacy of MSCs for treating immune-mediated inflammation post-transplantation of haematopoietic stem cells. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library 2018, Issue 12), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) (from 1990) and ongoing trial databases to 6 December 2018. No constraints were placed on language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs of participants with a haematological condition who have undergone an HSCT as treatment for their condition and were randomised to MSCs (intervention arm) or no MSCs (comparator arm), to prevent or treat GvHD. We also included RCTs which compared different doses of MSCs or MSCs of different sources (e.g. bone marrow versus cord). We included MSCs co-transplanted with haematopoietic stem cells as well as MSCs administered post-transplantation of haematopoietic stem cells. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.We employed a random-effects model for all analyses due to expected clinical heterogeneity arising from differences in participant characteristics and interventions. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 12 completed RCTs (879 participants), and 13 ongoing trials (1532 enrolled participants planned). Of 12 completed trials, 10 compared MSCs versus no MSCs and two compared different doses of MSCs. One trial was in people with thalassaemia major, the remaining trials were for haematological malignancies. Seven trials administered MSCs to prevent GvHD, whereas five trials gave MSCs to treat GvHD.In the comparison of MSCs with no MSCs, cells were administered at a dose of between 105 and 107 cells/kg in either a single dose (six trials) or in multiple doses (four trials) over a period of three days to four months. The dose-comparison trials compared 2 x 106 cells/kg with 8 x 106 cells/kg in two infusions, or 1 x 106 cells/kg with 3 x 106 cells/kg in a single infusion.The median duration of follow-up in seven trials which administered MSCs prophylactically ranged from 10 to 60 months. In three trials of MSCs as treatment for aGvHD, participants were followed up for 90 or 100 days. In two trials of MSCs as treatment for cGvHD, the mean duration of follow-up was 13.4 months (MSC group) and 23.6 months (control group) in one trial, and 56 weeks in the second trial. Five trials included adults only, six trials included adults and children, and one trial included children only. In eight trials which reported the gender distribution, the percentage of females ranged from 20% to 59% (median 35.8%).The overall quality of the included studies was low: randomisation methods were poorly reported and several of the included studies were subject to a high risk of performance bias and reporting bias. One trial which started in 2008 has not been published and the progress of this trial in unknown, leading to potential publication bias. The quality of evidence was therefore low or very low for all outcomes due to a high risk of bias as well as imprecision due to the low number of overall participants, and in some cases evidence based on a single study. We found that MSCs may make little or no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality in either prophylactic trials (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.42; participants = 301; studies = 5; I2 = 34% ; low-quality evidence) or therapeutic trials (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.56; participants = 244; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence), and no difference in the risk of relapse of malignant disease (prophylactic trials: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.59; participants = 323; studies = 6; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) compared with no MSCs. MSCs were well-tolerated, no infusion-related toxicity or ectopic tissue formation was reported. No study reported health-related quality of life. In prophylactic trials, MSCs may reduce the risk of chronic GvHD (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.89; participants = 283; studies = 6; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). This means that only 310 (95% CI 230 to 418) in every 1000 patients in the MSC arm are expected to develop chronic GvHD compared to 469 in the control arm. However, MSCs may make little or no difference to the risk of aGvHD (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.17; participants = 247; studies = 6; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). In GvHD therapeutic trials, we are very uncertain whether MSCs improve complete response of either aGvHD (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.70, participants = 260, studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) or cGvHD (RR 5.00, 95%CI 0.75 to 33.21, participants = 40, studies = 1; very low-quality evidence).In two trials which compared different doses of MSCs, we found no evidence of any differences in outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: MSCs are an area of intense research activity, and an increasing number of trials have been undertaken or are planned. Despite a number of reports of positive outcomes from the use of MSCs for treating acute GvHD, the evidence to date from RCTs has not supported the conclusion that they are an effective therapy. There is low-quality evidence that MSCs may reduce the risk of cGvHD. New trial evidence will be incorporated into future updates of this review, which may better establish a role for MSCs in the prevention or treatment of GvHD.

Safety and efficacy of iron therapy on reducing red blood cell transfusion requirements and treating anaemia in critically ill adults: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety (risk of infection) and efficacy (transfusion requirements, changes in haemoglobin (Hb)) of iron therapy in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically searched seven databases for all relevant studies until January 2018 and included randomized (RCT) studies comparing iron, by any route, with placebo/no iron. RESULTS: 805 participants from 6 RCTs were included. Iron therapy, by any route, did not decrease the risk of requirement for a red blood cell (RBC) transfusion (Risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.04, p = 0.15) or mean number of RBCs transfused per participant (mean difference (MD) -0.30, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.07, p = 0.15). Iron therapy did increase mean Hb concentration (MD 0.31 g/dL, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.59, p = 0.03). There was no difference in infection (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.19, p = 0.44). Trial Sequential Analysis suggests that the required participant numbers to detect or reject a clinically important effect of iron therapy on transfusion requirements or infection in ICU patients has not yet been reached. CONCLUSION: Iron therapy results in a modest increase in Hb. The current evidence is inadequate to exclude an important effect on transfusion requirements or infection.

What is the effect of perioperative intravenous iron therapy in patients undergoing non-elective surgery? A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines to treat anaemia with intravenous (IV) iron have focused on elective surgical patients with little attention paid to those undergoing non-elective/emergency surgery. Whilst these patients may experience poor outcomes because of their presenting illness, observational data suggests that untreated anaemia may also be a contributing factor to poor outcomes. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the safety and efficacy of IV iron in patients undergoing non-elective surgery. METHODS: We followed a pre-defined review protocol and included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in patients undergoing non-elective surgery who received IV iron. Primary outcomes were all-cause infection and mean difference in haemoglobin (Hb) at follow-up. Secondary outcomes included transfusion requirements, hospital length of stay (LOS), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), mortality and adverse events. RESULTS: Three RCTs (605 participants) were included in this systematic review of which two, in both hip fracture (HF) patients, provided data for meta-analysis. Both of these RCTs were at low risk of bias. We found no evidence of a difference in the risk of infection (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.80, I 2 = 9%) or in the Hb concentration at 'short-term' (≤ 7 days) follow-up (mean difference - 0.32 g/L, 95% CI - 3.28 to 2.64, I 2 = 37%). IV iron did not reduce the risk of requiring a blood transfusion (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.11, p = 0.46, I 2 = 0%), and we observed no difference in mortality, LOS or adverse events. One RCT reported on HRQoL and found no difference between treatment arms. CONCLUSION: We found no conclusive evidence of an effect of IV iron on clinically important outcomes in patients undergoing non-elective surgery. Further adequately powered trials to evaluate its benefit in emergency surgical specialties with a high burden of anaemia are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018096288).

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.

Computerised decision support systems to promote appropriate use of blood products.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effect of computerised decision support systems (DSSs) on transfusion practice.

Increased regulatory T cell graft content is associated with improved outcome in haematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a systematic review.

Allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients are at increased risk of morbidity and mortality, often due to the development of acute or chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Low numbers or proportions of regulatory T cells (Tregs) have been reported in patients who develop GVHD. We undertook a systematic review of studies that reported the Treg composition of HSCT grafts in patients with haematological malignancies. Fourteen eligible studies were identified, eight of which stratified patients by Tregs (absolute dose or ratio to CD3+ or CD4+ cells). Meta-analyses showed that high levels of Tregs in the grafts were associated with improved overall survival [hazard ratio (HR) 0·42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0·23-0·74, P = 0·003, 2 studies], with a significant reduction in non-relapse mortality (HR 0·30, 95% CI 0·14-0·64, P = 0·002, 2 studies) and a reduced risk of acute GVHD (relative risk (RR) 0·59, 95% CI 0·40-0·89, P = 0·01, 6 studies). The consistency of these findings strongly suggests that the Treg composition of HSCT grafts has a powerful effect on the success of allogeneic HSCT. The major challenge is to translate these findings into better selection of allografts and future donors to provide a substantial improvement in allogeneic HSCT outcomes and practice.

Stem cell therapy for chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure.

BACKGROUND: A promising approach to the treatment of chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure is the use of stem cells. The last decade has seen a plethora of randomised controlled trials developed worldwide, which have generated conflicting results. OBJECTIVES: The critical evaluation of clinical evidence on the safety and efficacy of autologous adult bone marrow-derived stem/progenitor cells as a treatment for chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, and four ongoing trial databases for relevant trials up to 14 December 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials comparing autologous adult stem/progenitor cells with no cells in people with chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure. We included co-interventions, such as primary angioplasty, surgery, or administration of stem cell mobilising agents, when administered to treatment and control arms equally. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all references for eligibility, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We undertook a quantitative evaluation of data using random-effects meta-analyses. We evaluated heterogeneity using the I2 statistic and explored substantial heterogeneity (I2 greater than 50%) through subgroup analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADEprofiler (GRADEpro), excluding studies with a high or unclear risk of selection bias. We focused our summary of findings on long-term follow-up of mortality, morbidity outcomes, and left ventricular ejection fraction measured by magnetic resonance imaging. MAIN RESULTS: We included 38 randomised controlled trials involving 1907 participants (1114 cell therapy, 793 controls) in this review update. Twenty-three trials were at high or unclear risk of selection bias. Other sources of potential bias included lack of blinding of participants (12 trials) and full or partial commercial sponsorship (13 trials).Cell therapy reduced the incidence of long-term mortality (≥ 12 months) (risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 0.87; participants = 491; studies = 9; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Periprocedural adverse events associated with the mapping or cell/placebo injection procedure were infrequent. Cell therapy was also associated with a long-term reduction in the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.97; participants = 345; studies = 5; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) and incidence of arrhythmias (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.99; participants = 82; studies = 1; low-quality evidence). However, we found no evidence that cell therapy affects the risk of rehospitalisation for heart failure (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.09; participants = 375; studies = 6; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) or composite incidence of mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and/or rehospitalisation for heart failure (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.08; participants = 141; studies = 3; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence), or long-term left ventricular ejection fraction when measured by magnetic resonance imaging (mean difference -1.60, 95% CI -8.70 to 5.50; participants = 25; studies = 1; low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis found low-quality evidence that treatment with bone marrow-derived stem/progenitor cells reduces mortality and improves left ventricular ejection fraction over short- and long-term follow-up and may reduce the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction and improve New York Heart Association (NYHA) Functional Classification in people with chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure. These findings should be interpreted with caution, as event rates were generally low, leading to a lack of precision.

Iron supplementation to treat anaemia in adult critical care patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Anaemia affects 60-80 % of patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusions remain the mainstay of treatment for anaemia but are associated with risks and are costly. Our objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of iron supplementation by any route, in anaemic patients in adult ICUs. METHODS: Electronic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE) were searched through March 2016 for randomized controlled trials (RCT)s comparing iron by any route with placebo/no iron. Primary outcomes were red blood cell transfusions and mean haemoglobin concentration. Secondary outcomes included mortality, infection, ICU and hospital length of stay, mean difference (MD) in iron biomarkers, health-related quality of life and adverse events. RESULTS: Five RCTs recruiting 665 patients met the inclusion criteria; intravenous iron was tested in four of the RCTs. There was no difference in allogeneic RBC transfusion requirements (relative risk 0.87, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.07, p = 0.18, five trials) or mean number of RBC units transfused (MD -0.45, 95 % CI -1.34 to 0.43, p = 0.32, two trials) in patients receiving or not receiving iron. Similarly, there was no difference between groups in haemoglobin at short-term (up to 10 days) (MD -0.25, 95 % CI -0.79 to 0.28, p = 0.35, three trials) or mid-term follow up (last measured time point in hospital or end of trial) (MD 0.21, 95 % CI -0.13 to 0.55, p = 0.23, three trials). There was no difference in secondary outcomes of mortality, in-hospital infection, or length of stay. Risk of bias was generally low although three trials had high risk of attrition bias; only one trial had low risk of bias across all domains. CONCLUSION: Iron supplementation does not reduce RBC transfusion requirements in critically ill adults, but there is considerable heterogeneity between trials in study design, nature of interventions, and outcomes. Well-designed trials are needed to investigate the optimal iron dosing regimens and strategies to identify which patients are most likely to benefit from iron, together with patient-focused outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews CRD42015016627 . Registered 2 March 2015.

Stem cell treatment for acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Cell transplantation offers a potential therapeutic approach to the repair and regeneration of damaged vascular and cardiac tissue after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This has resulted in multiple randomised controlled trials (RCTs) across the world. OBJECTIVES: To determine the safety and efficacy of autologous adult bone marrow stem cells as a treatment for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), focusing on clinical outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: This Cochrane review is an update of a previous version (published in 2012). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1950 to March 2015), EMBASE (1974 to March 2015), CINAHL (1982 to March 2015) and the Transfusion Evidence Library (1980 to March 2015). In addition, we searched several international and ongoing trial databases in March 2015 and handsearched relevant conference proceedings to January 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs comparing autologous bone marrow-derived cells with no cells in patients diagnosed with AMI were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all references, assessed the risk of bias of the included trials and extracted data. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models throughout. We analysed outcomes at short-term (less than 12 months) and long-term (12 months or more) follow-up. Dichotomous outcomes are reported as risk ratio (RR) and continuous outcomes are reported as mean difference (MD) or standardised MD (SMD). We performed sensitivity analyses to evaluate the results in the context of the risk of selection, performance and attrition bias. Exploratory subgroup analysis investigated the effects of baseline cardiac function (left ventricular ejection fraction, LVEF) and cell dose, type and timing of administration, as well as the use of heparin in the final cell solution. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-one RCTs with a total of 2732 participants (1564 cell therapy, 1168 controls) were eligible for inclusion. Cell treatment was not associated with any changes in the risk of all-cause mortality (34/538 versus 32/458; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.50; 996 participants; 14 studies; moderate quality evidence), cardiovascular mortality (23/277 versus 18/250; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.99; 527 participants; nine studies; moderate quality evidence) or a composite measure of mortality, reinfarction and re-hospitalisation for heart failure (24/262 versus 33/235; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.10; 497 participants; six studies; moderate quality evidence) at long-term follow-up. Statistical heterogeneity was low (I(2) = 0% to 12%). Serious periprocedural adverse events were rare and were generally unlikely to be related to cell therapy. Additionally, cell therapy had no effect on morbidity, quality of life/performance or LVEF measured by magnetic resonance imaging. Meta-analyses of LVEF measured by echocardiography, single photon emission computed tomography and left ventricular angiography showed evidence of differences in mean LVEF between treatment groups although the mean differences ranged between 2% and 5%, which are accepted not to be clinically relevant. Results were robust to the risk of selection, performance and attrition bias from individual studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review suggest that there is insufficient evidence for a beneficial effect of cell therapy for AMI patients. However, most of the evidence comes from small trials that showed no difference in clinically relevant outcomes. Further adequately powered trials are needed and until then the efficacy of this intervention remains unproven.

Current evidence of the efficacy of cell-based therapies in heart failure.

Heart failure (HF) is the major cause of mortality worldwide. For more than a decade, cell-based therapies have been developed as treatment for heart disease as an alternative to current therapies. Trials and systematic reviews have assessed the safety and efficacy of cell therapies in a diverse number of participants and clinical settings. The present study collated and synthesized evidence from all systematic reviews related to cell-based therapies and HF. A total of 11 systematic reviews were identified through searches of electronic databases up to June 2014. We set out to answer 2 key questions on the efficacy of cell therapies in HF: (1) What is the overall effect of cell therapies on primary outcomes such as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and mortality? (2) How important is it to define the clinical setting and length of follow-up when assessing cell therapies and HF? There seems to be enough evidence to suggest that cell therapies have a moderate, long-lasting effect on LVEF, but the reduction on the risk of mortality observed by some systematic reviews needs to be confirmed in larger, statistically powered clinical trials. Additionally, and in order to strengthen conclusions, it is important to assess clinical evidence for defined clinical settings and to standardize the length of follow-up when comparing outcome data across several trials and systematic reviews.

Meta-analysis of cell therapy trials for patients with heart failure.

RATIONALE: Cell-based therapies are a promising intervention for the treatment of heart failure (HF) secondary to ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy. However, the clinical efficacy of such new treatment requires further evaluation. OBJECTIVE: To assess available clinical evidence on the safety and efficacy of cell-based therapies for HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Electronic databases (CENTRAL, DARE, NHSEED & HTA, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, KoreaMed, PakMediNet, IndMed, and the Transfusion Evidence Library) were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials to June 2014. Trials of participants with HF and where the administration of any dose of autologous cells by any delivery route was compared with no intervention or placebo were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes were defined as mortality and rehospitalization as a result of HF. Secondary outcomes included performance status, quality of life, incidence of arrhythmias, brain natriuretic peptide levels, left ventricular ejection fraction, myocardial perfusion, and adverse events. Thirty-one independent trials (1521 participants) were included. The treatment significantly reduced the risk of mortality and rehospitalization caused by HF. There was a significant improvement in favor of stem cell treatment in performance status and exercise capacity, left ventricular ejection fraction, and quality of life. The treatment was also associated with a reduction of brain natriuretic peptide levels and no increase in the incidence of arrhythmias. However, there was considerable risk of performance, selection, and reporting bias among the included trials. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows evidence that autologous cell therapy may be beneficial for patients having HF, but further evidence is required.

Oral or parenteral iron supplementation to reduce deferral, iron deficiency and/or anaemia in blood donors.

BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency is a significant cause of deferral in people wishing to donate blood. If iron removed from the body through blood donation is not replaced, then donors may become iron deficient. All donors are screened at each visit for low haemoglobin (Hb) levels. However, some deferred blood donors do not return to donate. Deferred first-time donors are even less likely to return. Interventions that reduce the risk of provoking iron deficiency and anaemia in blood donors will therefore increase the number of blood donations. Currently, iron supplementation for blood donors is not a standard of care in many blood services. A systematic review is required to answer specific questions regarding the efficacy and safety of iron supplementation in blood donors. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of iron supplementation to reduce deferral, iron deficiency and/or anaemia in blood donors. SEARCH METHODS: We ran the search on 18 November 2013. We searched Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCO Host) and six other databases. We also searched clinical trials registers and screened guidelines reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing iron supplementation versus placebo or control, oral versus parenteral iron supplementation, iron supplementation versus iron-rich food supplements, and different doses, treatment durations and preparations of iron supplementation in healthy blood donors. Autologous blood donors were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We combined data using random-effects meta-analyses. We evaluated heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic; we explored considerable heterogeneity (I(2) > 75%) in subgroup analyses. We carried out sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of trial quality on the results. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty RCTs (4704 participants) met the eligibility criteria, including 19 comparisons of iron supplementation and placebo or control; one comparison of oral and parenteral iron supplementation; four comparisons of different doses of iron supplementation; one comparison of different treatment durations of iron supplementation; and 12 comparisons of different iron supplementation preparations.Many studies were of low or uncertain methodological quality and therefore at high or uncertain risk of bias. We therefore rated the quality of the evidence for our outcomes as moderate. There was a statistically significant reduction in deferral due to low haemoglobin in donors who received iron supplementation compared with donors who received no iron supplementation, both at the first donation visit after commencement of iron supplementation (risk ratio (RR) 0.34; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 0.55; four studies; 1194 participants; P value < 0.0001) and at subsequent donations (RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; three studies; 793 participants; P value < 0.00001). Supplementation also resulted in significantly higher haemoglobin levels (mean difference (MD) 2.36 g/L; 95% CI 0.06 to 4.66; eight studies; 847 participants, P value =0.04), and iron stores, including serum ferritin (MD 13.98 ng/mL; 95% CI 8.92 to 19.03; five studies; 640 participants; P value < 0.00001) and transferrin saturation (MD 3.91%; 95% CI 2.02 to 5.80; four studies; 344 participants; P value < 0.0001) prior to further donation. The differences were maintained after subsequent donation(s).Adverse effects were widely reported and were more frequent in donors who received iron supplementation (RR 1.60; 95% CI 1.23 to 2.07; four studies; 1748 participants; P value = 0.0005). Adverse effects included constipation, diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting and taste disturbances, and some participants stopped treatment due to side effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate quality evidence that rates of donor deferral due to low haemoglobin are considerably less in those taking iron supplements compared with those without iron supplementation, both at the first donation visit and at subsequent donation. Iron-supplemented donors also show elevated haemoglobin and iron stores. These beneficial effects are balanced by more frequent adverse events in donors who receive iron supplementation than in those who do not; this is likely to limit acceptability and compliance. The long-term effects of iron supplementation without measurement of iron stores are unknown. These considerations are likely to preclude widespread use of iron supplementation by tablets. Blood services may consider targeted use of supplementation in those at greatest risk of iron deficiency, personalised donation intervals and providing dietary advice.

Whole-exome sequencing and clinical interpretation of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor samples to guide precision cancer medicine.

Translating whole-exome sequencing (WES) for prospective clinical use may have an impact on the care of patients with cancer; however, multiple innovations are necessary for clinical implementation. These include rapid and robust WES of DNA derived from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissue, analytical output similar to data from frozen samples and clinical interpretation of WES data for prospective use. Here, we describe a prospective clinical WES platform for archival formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor samples. The platform employs computational methods for effective clinical analysis and interpretation of WES data. When applied retrospectively to 511 exomes, the interpretative framework revealed a 'long tail' of somatic alterations in clinically important genes. Prospective application of this approach identified clinically relevant alterations in 15 out of 16 patients. In one patient, previously undetected findings guided clinical trial enrollment, leading to an objective clinical response. Overall, this methodology may inform the widespread implementation of precision cancer medicine.

Stem cell therapy for chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure.

BACKGROUND: A promising approach to the treatment of chronic ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and heart failure is the use of stem cells. The last decade has seen a plethora of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) developed worldwide which have generated conflicting results. OBJECTIVES: The critical evaluation of clinical evidence on the safety and efficacy of autologous adult bone marrow-derived stem cells (BMSC) as a treatment for chronic ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and heart failure. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2013, Issue 3), MEDLINE (from 1950), EMBASE (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1982) and the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1980), together with ongoing trial databases, for relevant trials up to 31st March 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies included RCTs comparing autologous adult stem/progenitor cells with no autologous stem/progenitor cells in participants with chronic IHD and heart failure. Co-interventions such as primary angioplasty, surgery or administration of stem cell mobilising agents, were included where administered to treatment and control arms equally. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all references for eligibility, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We undertook a quantitative evaluation of data using fixed-effect meta-analyses. We evaluated heterogeneity using the I² statistic; we explored considerable heterogeneity (I² > 75%) using a random-effects model and subgroup analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We include 23 RCTs involving 1255 participants in this review. Risk of bias was generally low, with the majority of studies reporting appropriate methods of randomisation and blinding, Autologous bone marrow stem cell treatment reduced the incidence of mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.53, P = 0.0001, 8 studies, 494 participants, low quality evidence) and rehospitalisation due to heart failure (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.94, P = 0.04, 2 studies, 198 participants, low quality evidence) in the long term (≥12 months). The treatment had no clear effect on mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.41, P = 0.30, 21 studies, 1138 participants, low quality evidence) or rehospitalisation due to heart failure (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.06, P = 0.06, 4 studies, 236 participants, low quality evidence) in the short term (< 12 months), which is compatible with benefit, no difference or harm. The treatment was also associated with a reduction in left ventricular end systolic volume (LVESV) (mean difference (MD) -14.64 ml, 95% CI -20.88 ml to -8.39 ml, P < 0.00001, 3 studies, 153 participants, moderate quality evidence) and stroke volume index (MD 6.52, 95% CI 1.51 to 11.54, P = 0.01, 2 studies, 62 participants, moderate quality evidence), and an improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (MD 2.62%, 95% CI 0.50% to 4.73%, P = 0.02, 6 studies, 254 participants, moderate quality evidence), all at long-term follow-up. Overall, we observed a reduction in functional class (New York Heart Association (NYHA) class) in favour of BMSC treatment during short-term follow-up (MD -0.63, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.19, P = 0.005, 11 studies, 486 participants, moderate quality evidence) and long-term follow-up (MD -0.91, 95% CI -1.38 to -0.44, P = 0.0002, 4 studies, 196 participants, moderate quality evidence), as well as a difference in Canadian Cardiovascular Society score in favour of BMSC (MD -0.81, 95% CI -1.55 to -0.07, P = 0.03, 8 studies, 379 participants, moderate quality evidence). Of 19 trials in which adverse events were reported, adverse events relating to the BMSC treatment or procedure occurred in only four individuals. No long-term adverse events were reported. Subgroup analyses conducted for outcomes such as LVEF and NYHA class revealed that (i) route of administration, (ii) baseline LVEF, (iii) cell type, and (iv) clinical condition are important factors that may influence treatment effect. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis found moderate quality evidence that BMSC treatment improves LVEF. Unlike in trials where BMSC were administered following acute myocardial infarction (AMI), we found some evidence for a potential beneficial clinical effect in terms of mortality and performance status in the long term (after at least one year) in people who suffer from chronic IHD and heart failure, although the quality of evidence was low.

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 red blood cell transfusions.Repeated transfusions result in an 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 with desferrioxamine for thalassaemia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies trials Register and MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), LILACS and other international medical databases, plus registers of ongoing trials and the Transfusion Evidence Library (www.transfusionevidencelibrary.com). We also contacted the manufacturers of deferiprone and desferrioxamine.All searches were updated to 05 March 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing deferiprone with another iron chelator; or comparing two schedules or doses of deferiprone, in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trials for risk of bias and extracted data. Missing data were requested from the original investigators. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 17 trials involving 1061 participants (range 13 to 213 participants per trial) were included. Of these, 16 trials compared either deferiprone alone with desferrioxamine alone, or a combined therapy of deferiprone and desferrioxamine with either deferiprone alone or desferrioxamine alone; one compared different schedules of deferiprone. There was little consistency between outcomes and limited information to fully assess the risk of bias of most of the included trials.Four trials reported mortality; each reported the death of one individual receiving deferiprone with or without desferrioxamine. One trial reported five further deaths in patients who withdrew from randomised treatment (deferiprone with or without desferrioxamine) and switched to desferrioxamine alone. Seven trials reported cardiac function or liver fibrosis as measures of end organ damage.Earlier trials measuring the cardiac iron load indirectly by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) T2* signal had suggested deferiprone may reduce cardiac iron more quickly than desferrioxamine. However, a meta-analysis of two trials suggested that left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly reduced in patients who received desferrioxamine alone compared with combination therapy.  One trial, which planned five years of follow up, was stopped early due to the beneficial effects of combined treatment compared with deferiprone alone in terms of serum ferritin levels reduction.The results of this and three other trials suggest an advantage of combined therapy over monotherapy to reduce iron stores as measured by serum ferritin. There is, however, no conclusive or consistent evidence for the improved efficacy of combined deferiprone and desferrioxamine therapy over monotherapy from direct or indirect measures of liver iron. Both deferiprone and desferrioxamine produce a significant reduction in iron stores in transfusion-dependent, iron-overloaded people. There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials to suggest that either has a greater reduction of clinically significant end organ damage.Evidence of adverse events were observed in all treatment groups. Occurrence of any adverse event was significantly more likely with deferiprone than desferrioxamine in one trial, RR 2.24 (95% CI 1.19 to 4.23). Meta-analysis of a further two trials showed a significant increased risk of adverse events associated with combined deferiprone and desferrioxamine compared with desferrioxamine alone, RR 3.04 (95% CI 1.18 to 7.83). The most commonly reported adverse event was joint pain, which occurred significantly more frequently in patients receiving deferiprone than desferrioxamine, RR 2.64 (95% CI 1.21 to 5.77). Other common adverse events included gastrointestinal disturbances as well as neutropenia or leucopenia, or both. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of data from randomised controlled trials, there is no evidence to suggest the need for a change in current treatment recommendations; namely that deferiprone is indicated for treating iron overload in people with thalassaemia major when desferrioxamine is contraindicated or inadequate. Intensified desferrioxamine treatment (by either subcutaneous or intravenous route) or use of other oral iron chelators, or both, remains the established treatment to reverse cardiac dysfunction due to iron overload. Indeed, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently only gave support for deferiprone to be used as a last resort for treating iron overload in thalassaemia, myelodysplasia and sickle cell disease. However, there is evidence that adverse events are increased in patients treated with deferiprone compared with desferrioxamine and in patients treated with combined deferiprone and desferrioxamine compared with desferrioxamine alone. There is an urgent need for adequately-powered, high-quality trials comparing the overall clinical efficacy and long-term outcome of deferiprone with desferrioxamine.

Desferrioxamine mesylate for managing transfusional iron overload in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia.

BACKGROUND: Thalassaemia major is a genetic disease characterised by a reduced ability to produce haemoglobin. Management of the resulting anaemia is through red blood cell transfusions.Repeated transfusions result in an excessive accumulation of iron in the body (iron overload), removal of which is achieved through iron chelation therapy. Desferrioxamine mesylate (desferrioxamine) is one of the most widely used iron chelators. Substantial data have shown the beneficial effects of desferrioxamine, although adherence to desferrioxamine therapy is a challenge. Alternative oral iron chelators, deferiprone and deferasirox, are now commonly used. Important questions exist about whether desferrioxamine, as monotherapy or in combination with an oral iron chelator, is the best treatment for iron chelation therapy. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness (dose and method of administration) of desferrioxamine in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia.To summarise data from trials on the clinical efficacy and safety of desferrioxamine for thalassaemia and to compare these with deferiprone and deferasirox. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register. We also searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), LILACS and other international medical databases, plus ongoing trials registers and the Transfusion Evidence Library (www.transfusionevidencelibrary.com). All searches were updated to 5 March 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing desferrioxamine with placebo, with another iron chelator, or comparing two schedules or doses of desferrioxamine, in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Six authors working independently were involved in trial quality assessment and data extraction. For one trial, investigators supplied additional data upon request. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 22 trials involving 2187 participants (range 11 to 586 people) were included. These trials included eight comparisons between desferrioxamine alone and deferiprone alone; five comparisons between desferrioxamine combined with deferiprone and deferiprone alone; eight comparisons between desferrioxamine alone and desferrioxamine combined with deferiprone; two comparisons of desferrioxamine with deferasirox; and two comparisons of different routes of desferrioxamine administration (bolus versus continuous infusion). Overall, few trials measured the same or long-term outcomes. Seven trials reported cardiac function or liver fibrosis as measures of end organ damage; none of these included a comparison with deferasirox.Five trials reported a total of seven deaths; three in patients who received desferrioxamine alone, two in patients who received desferrioxamine and deferiprone. A further death occurred in a patient who received deferiprone in another who received deferasirox alone. One trial reported five further deaths in patients who withdrew from randomised treatment (deferiprone with or without desferrioxamine) and switched to desferrioxamine alone.One trial planned five years of follow up but was stopped early due to the beneficial effects of a reduction in serum ferritin levels in those receiving combined desferrioxamine and deferiprone treatment compared with deferiprone alone. The results of this and three other trials suggest an advantage of combined therapy with desferrioxamine and deferiprone over monotherapy to reduce iron stores as measured by serum ferritin. There is, however, no evidence for the improved efficacy of combined desferrioxamine and deferiprone therapy against monotherapy from direct or indirect measures of liver iron.Earlier trials measuring the cardiac iron load indirectly by measurement of the magnetic resonance imaging T2* signal had suggested deferiprone may reduce cardiac iron more quickly than desferrioxamine. However, meta-analysis of two trials showed a significantly lower left ventricular ejection fraction in patients who received desferrioxamine alone compared with those who received combination therapy using desferrioxamine with deferiprone.Adverse events were recorded by 18 trials. These occurred with all treatments, but were significantly less likely with desferrioxamine than deferiprone in one trial, relative risk 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.84) and significantly less likely with desferrioxamine alone than desferrioxamine combined with deferiprone in two other trials, relative risk 0.33 (95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.84). In particular, four studies reported permanent treatment withdrawal due to adverse events from deferiprone; only one of these reported permanent withdrawals associated with desferrioxamine. Adverse events also occurred at a higher frequency in patients who received deferasirox than desferrioxamine in one trial. Eight trials reported local adverse reactions at the site of desferrioxamine infusion including pain and swelling. Adverse events associated with deferiprone included joint pain, gastrointestinal disturbance, increases in liver enzymes and neutropenia; adverse events associated with deferasirox comprised increases in liver enzymes and renal impairment. Regular monitoring of white cell counts has been recommended for deferiprone and monitoring of liver and renal function for deferasirox.In summary, desferrioxamine and the oral iron chelators deferiprone and deferasirox produce significant reductions in iron stores in transfusion-dependent, iron-overloaded people. There is no evidence from randomised clinical trials to suggest that any one of these has a greater reduction of clinically significant end organ damage, although in two trials, combination therapy with desferrioxamine and deferiprone showed a greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction than desferrioxamine used alone. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Desferrioxamine is the recommended first-line therapy for iron overload in people with thalassaemia major and deferiprone or deferasirox are indicated for treating iron overload when desferrioxamine is contraindicated or inadequate. Oral deferasirox has been licensed for use in children aged over six years who receive frequent blood transfusions and in children aged two to five years who receive infrequent blood transfusions. In the absence of randomised controlled trials with long-term follow up, there is no compelling evidence to change this conclusion.Worsening iron deposition in the myocardium in patients receiving desferrioxamine alone would suggest a change of therapy by intensification of desferrioxamine treatment or the use of desferrioxamine and deferiprone combination therapy.Adverse events are increased in patients treated with deferiprone compared with desferrioxamine and in patients treated with combined deferiprone and desferrioxamine compared with desferrioxamine alone. People treated with all chelators must be kept under close medical supervision and treatment with deferiprone or deferasirox requires regular monitoring of neutrophil counts or renal function respectively. There is an urgent need for adequately-powered, high-quality trials comparing the overall clinical efficacy and long-term outcomes of deferiprone, deferasirox and desferrioxamine.

A systematic review of factors associated with the deferral of donors failing to meet low haemoglobin thresholds.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Blood donors attending a donation session may be deemed ineligible to donate blood due to a failure to meet low haemoglobin (Hb) thresholds. Several studies have identified factors associated with a donor falling below these Hb thresholds. A review of these factors will inform future prospective studies and form the basis for predictive models of deferral due to low Hb. MATERIALS/METHODS: Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry from 1980 to September 2012. Demographic data, donor history, haematological/biological factors and the primary outcome of deferral due to low Hb were extracted. Analyses were descriptive and quantitative; pooled odds ratios (ORs) were obtained by meta-analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. A consistently higher rate of low Hb deferral was reported in females compared with males; meta-analysis showed a significantly greater risk of deferral due to low Hb in females compared with males in studies with universal Hb thresholds for males and females (OR 14.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 12.82-17.34) and in studies with sex-specific Hb thresholds (OR 8.19, 95% CI 4.88-13.74). Greater rates of deferral due to low Hb were also associated with increasing age, higher ambient temperature, low body weight, shorter inter-donation interval and in donors of Hispanic or African descent. CONCLUSION: This work will help to define the criteria that should be considered in any large scale study of blood donor deferral, especially those that measure or aim to change failure to meet low Hb thresholds.