静脉铁治疗危重症成人贫血的疗效和安全性:一项快速系统评价和荟萃分析

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q2 HEMATOLOGY Transfusion Medicine Reviews Pub Date : 2022-04-01 DOI:10.1016/j.tmrv.2021.12.002
Louise J Geneen , Catherine Kimber , Carolyn Doree , Simon Stanworth , Akshay Shah
{"title":"静脉铁治疗危重症成人贫血的疗效和安全性:一项快速系统评价和荟萃分析","authors":"Louise J Geneen ,&nbsp;Catherine Kimber ,&nbsp;Carolyn Doree ,&nbsp;Simon Stanworth ,&nbsp;Akshay Shah","doi":"10.1016/j.tmrv.2021.12.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Our objective was to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) iron therapy for treating anaemia in critically ill adults (&gt;16 years) admitted to intensive care or high dependency units. We excluded quasi-RCTs and other not truly randomised trials. We searched 7 electronic databases (including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase) using a pre-defined search strategy from inception to June 14, 2021. One reviewer screened, extracted, and analysed data, with verification by a second reviewer of all decisions. We used Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) 1 and GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We reported 3 comparisons across 1198 patients, in 8 RCTs:</p><p>(1) IV iron vs control (7 RCTs, 748 participants); our primary outcome (hemoglobin (Hb) concentration at 10 to 30 days) was reported in 7 of the 8 included trials. There was evidence of an effect (very-low certainty) in favour of IV iron over control in the main comparison only (6 RCTs, n = 528, mean difference (MD) 0.52g/dL [95%CI 0.23, 0.81], <em>P</em> = .0005).</p><p>For the remaining outcomes there was no evidence of an effect in either direction (low certainty of evidence for Hb concentration at &lt;10 days; very-low certainty of evidence for hospital duration, ICU duration, hospital readmission, infection, mortality; HRQoL outcomes were not GRADED).</p><p>(2) IV iron + subcutaneous erythropoietin (EPO) vs control (2 RCTs, 104 participants); reported outcomes showed no evidence of effect in either direction, based on very-low certainty evidence (Hb concentration at 10-30 days, and &lt;10 days, infection, mortality).</p><p>(3) Hepcidin-guided treatment with IV iron or iron+ EPO vs standard care (1 RCT, 399 participants) reported evidence of an effect in favour of the intervention for 90-day mortality (low certainty of evidence), but no other group differences for the reported outcomes (low certainty evidence for Hb concentration at 10-30 days, hospital duration; HRQoL was not GRADED).</p><p>The evidence across all comparisons was downgraded for high and unclear ROB for lack of blinding, incomplete outcome data, baseline imbalance, and imprecision around the estimate (wide CIs and small sample size). In conclusion, the current evidence continues to support further investigation into the role for iron therapy in increasing Hb in critically ill patients. Recent, small, trials have begun to focus on patient-centred outcomes but a large, well conducted, and adequately powered trial is needed to inform clinical practice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56081,"journal":{"name":"Transfusion Medicine Reviews","volume":"36 2","pages":"Pages 97-106"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Iron Therapy for Treating Anaemia in Critically ill Adults: A Rapid Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Louise J Geneen ,&nbsp;Catherine Kimber ,&nbsp;Carolyn Doree ,&nbsp;Simon Stanworth ,&nbsp;Akshay Shah\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tmrv.2021.12.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Our objective was to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) iron therapy for treating anaemia in critically ill adults (&gt;16 years) admitted to intensive care or high dependency units. We excluded quasi-RCTs and other not truly randomised trials. We searched 7 electronic databases (including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase) using a pre-defined search strategy from inception to June 14, 2021. One reviewer screened, extracted, and analysed data, with verification by a second reviewer of all decisions. We used Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) 1 and GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We reported 3 comparisons across 1198 patients, in 8 RCTs:</p><p>(1) IV iron vs control (7 RCTs, 748 participants); our primary outcome (hemoglobin (Hb) concentration at 10 to 30 days) was reported in 7 of the 8 included trials. There was evidence of an effect (very-low certainty) in favour of IV iron over control in the main comparison only (6 RCTs, n = 528, mean difference (MD) 0.52g/dL [95%CI 0.23, 0.81], <em>P</em> = .0005).</p><p>For the remaining outcomes there was no evidence of an effect in either direction (low certainty of evidence for Hb concentration at &lt;10 days; very-low certainty of evidence for hospital duration, ICU duration, hospital readmission, infection, mortality; HRQoL outcomes were not GRADED).</p><p>(2) IV iron + subcutaneous erythropoietin (EPO) vs control (2 RCTs, 104 participants); reported outcomes showed no evidence of effect in either direction, based on very-low certainty evidence (Hb concentration at 10-30 days, and &lt;10 days, infection, mortality).</p><p>(3) Hepcidin-guided treatment with IV iron or iron+ EPO vs standard care (1 RCT, 399 participants) reported evidence of an effect in favour of the intervention for 90-day mortality (low certainty of evidence), but no other group differences for the reported outcomes (low certainty evidence for Hb concentration at 10-30 days, hospital duration; HRQoL was not GRADED).</p><p>The evidence across all comparisons was downgraded for high and unclear ROB for lack of blinding, incomplete outcome data, baseline imbalance, and imprecision around the estimate (wide CIs and small sample size). In conclusion, the current evidence continues to support further investigation into the role for iron therapy in increasing Hb in critically ill patients. Recent, small, trials have begun to focus on patient-centred outcomes but a large, well conducted, and adequately powered trial is needed to inform clinical practice.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56081,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transfusion Medicine Reviews\",\"volume\":\"36 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 97-106\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transfusion Medicine Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887796321000687\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transfusion Medicine Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887796321000687","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

我们的目的是系统地评估静脉(IV)铁治疗重症监护或高依赖病房重症成人(16岁)贫血的有效性和安全性。我们排除了准随机对照试验和其他非真正的随机试验。我们使用预定义的检索策略检索了7个电子数据库(包括CENTRAL、MEDLINE和Embase),检索时间从初始到2021年6月14日。一名审稿人筛选、提取和分析数据,由第二名审稿人对所有决策进行验证。我们使用Cochrane风险偏倚(ROB) 1和GRADE来评估证据的确定性。我们在8项随机对照试验中报告了3项比较,涉及1198例患者:(1)IV铁与对照组(7项随机对照试验,748名受试者);8项纳入的试验中有7项报告了我们的主要结局(10 - 30天血红蛋白(Hb)浓度)。仅在主要比较中,有证据表明IV铁优于对照组(非常低的确定性)(6个rct, n = 528,平均差异(MD) 0.52g/dL [95%CI 0.23, 0.81], P = 0.0005)。对于其余的结果,没有证据表明在任何一个方向上都有影响(10天Hb浓度证据的低确定性;住院时间、ICU时间、再入院、感染、死亡率的证据确定性极低;HRQoL结果没有分级)。(2)IV铁+皮下促红细胞生成素(EPO)与对照组(2项随机对照试验,104名参与者);报告的结果显示,基于非常低的确定性证据(10-30天的Hb浓度,以及10天的感染和死亡率),没有证据表明在任何方向上都有效果。(3)hepcidin引导的静脉注射铁或铁+ EPO治疗与标准治疗(1项随机对照试验,399名参与者)报告的证据表明,对90天死亡率的干预有效果(证据的低确定性)。但报告的结果没有其他组间差异(低确定性证据表明10-30天Hb浓度、住院时间;HRQoL未评分)。由于缺乏盲法、结果数据不完整、基线不平衡和估计不精确(ci宽、样本量小),所有比较的证据都被降低为高且不明确的ROB。总之,目前的证据继续支持进一步研究铁治疗在危重患者Hb升高中的作用。最近的小型试验已开始关注以患者为中心的结果,但需要一项大型的、执行良好的、有充分动力的试验来为临床实践提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Iron Therapy for Treating Anaemia in Critically ill Adults: A Rapid Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

Our objective was to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) iron therapy for treating anaemia in critically ill adults (>16 years) admitted to intensive care or high dependency units. We excluded quasi-RCTs and other not truly randomised trials. We searched 7 electronic databases (including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase) using a pre-defined search strategy from inception to June 14, 2021. One reviewer screened, extracted, and analysed data, with verification by a second reviewer of all decisions. We used Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) 1 and GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We reported 3 comparisons across 1198 patients, in 8 RCTs:

(1) IV iron vs control (7 RCTs, 748 participants); our primary outcome (hemoglobin (Hb) concentration at 10 to 30 days) was reported in 7 of the 8 included trials. There was evidence of an effect (very-low certainty) in favour of IV iron over control in the main comparison only (6 RCTs, n = 528, mean difference (MD) 0.52g/dL [95%CI 0.23, 0.81], P = .0005).

For the remaining outcomes there was no evidence of an effect in either direction (low certainty of evidence for Hb concentration at <10 days; very-low certainty of evidence for hospital duration, ICU duration, hospital readmission, infection, mortality; HRQoL outcomes were not GRADED).

(2) IV iron + subcutaneous erythropoietin (EPO) vs control (2 RCTs, 104 participants); reported outcomes showed no evidence of effect in either direction, based on very-low certainty evidence (Hb concentration at 10-30 days, and <10 days, infection, mortality).

(3) Hepcidin-guided treatment with IV iron or iron+ EPO vs standard care (1 RCT, 399 participants) reported evidence of an effect in favour of the intervention for 90-day mortality (low certainty of evidence), but no other group differences for the reported outcomes (low certainty evidence for Hb concentration at 10-30 days, hospital duration; HRQoL was not GRADED).

The evidence across all comparisons was downgraded for high and unclear ROB for lack of blinding, incomplete outcome data, baseline imbalance, and imprecision around the estimate (wide CIs and small sample size). In conclusion, the current evidence continues to support further investigation into the role for iron therapy in increasing Hb in critically ill patients. Recent, small, trials have begun to focus on patient-centred outcomes but a large, well conducted, and adequately powered trial is needed to inform clinical practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Transfusion Medicine Reviews
Transfusion Medicine Reviews 医学-血液学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
审稿时长
21 days
期刊介绍: Transfusion Medicine Reviews provides an international forum in English for the publication of scholarly work devoted to the various sub-disciplines that comprise Transfusion Medicine including hemostasis and thrombosis and cellular therapies. The scope of the journal encompasses basic science, practical aspects, laboratory developments, clinical indications, and adverse effects.
期刊最新文献
Single vs Double-Unit Transfusion in Patients With Hematological Disorders Undergoing Chemotherapy or Stem Cell Transplantation: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis Whole Blood Donor Iron Management Across Europe: Experiences and Challenges in Four Blood Establishments Single-Unit Transfusion Policy in Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: Less is Not Worse Ultra-Massive Transfusion: Predictors of Occurrence and In-Hospital mortality From the Australian and New Zealand Massive Transfusion Registry (ANZ-MTR) Beta-Amyloid Related Neurodegenerative and Neurovascular Diseases: Potential Implications for Transfusion Medicine
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1