Institute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Institute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Jun 20;6(6):CD012633. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012633.pub2.
Anaemia is common among cancer patients and they may require red blood cell transfusions. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and iron might help in reducing the need for red blood cell transfusions. However, it remains unclear whether the combination of both drugs is preferable compared to using one drug.
To systematically review the effect of intravenous iron, oral iron or no iron in combination with or without ESAs to prevent or alleviate anaemia in cancer patients and to generate treatment rankings using network meta-analyses (NMAs).
We identified studies by searching bibliographic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase; until June 2021). We also searched various registries, conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials.
We included randomised controlled trials comparing intravenous, oral or no iron, with or without ESAs for the prevention or alleviation of anaemia resulting from chemotherapy, radiotherapy, combination therapy or the underlying malignancy in cancer patients.
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes were on-study mortality, number of patients receiving red blood cell transfusions, number of red blood cell units, haematological response, overall mortality and adverse events. We conducted NMAs and generated treatment rankings. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
Ninety-six trials (25,157 participants) fulfilled our inclusion criteria; 62 trials (24,603 participants) could be considered in the NMA (12 different treatment options). Here we present the comparisons of ESA with or without iron and iron alone versus no treatment. Further results and subgroup analyses are described in the full text. On-study mortality We estimated that 92 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia died up to 30 days after the active study period. Evidence from NMA (55 trials; 15,074 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (12 of 1000; risk ratio (RR) 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.29; low certainty) or oral iron (34 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.01 to 27.38; low certainty) may decrease or increase and ESA alone (103 of 1000; RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.35; moderate certainty) probably slightly increases on-study mortality. Additionally, treatment with intravenous iron alone (271 of 1000; RR 2.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 12.34; low certainty) may increase and oral iron alone (24 of 1000; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.00 to 19.73; low certainty) may increase or decrease on-study mortality. Haematological response We estimated that 90 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia had a haematological response. Evidence from NMA (31 trials; 6985 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (604 of 1000; RR 6.71, 95% CI 4.93 to 9.14; moderate certainty), ESA and oral iron (527 of 1000; RR 5.85, 95% CI 4.06 to 8.42; moderate certainty), and ESA alone (467 of 1000; RR 5.19, 95% CI 4.02 to 6.71; moderate certainty) probably increases haematological response. Additionally, treatment with oral iron alone may increase haematological response (153 of 1000; RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.69 to 4.20; low certainty). Red blood cell transfusions We estimated that 360 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia needed at least one transfusion. Evidence from NMA (69 trials; 18,684 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (158 of 1000; RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.63; moderate certainty), ESA and oral iron (144 of 1000; RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.66; moderate certainty) and ESA alone (212 of 1000; RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.69; moderate certainty) probably decreases the need for transfusions. Additionally, treatment with intravenous iron alone (268 of 1000; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.28; low certainty) and with oral iron alone (333 of 1000; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.57; low certainty) may decrease or increase the need for transfusions. Overall mortality We estimated that 347 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia died overall. Low-certainty evidence from NMA (71 trials; 21,576 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (507 of 1000; RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.43) or oral iron (482 of 1000; RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.22) and intravenous iron alone (521 of 1000; RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.63 to 3.56) or oral iron alone (534 of 1000; RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.56) may decrease or increase overall mortality. Treatment with ESA alone may lead to little or no difference in overall mortality (357 of 1000; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.10; low certainty). Thromboembolic events We estimated that 36 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia developed thromboembolic events. Evidence from NMA (50 trials; 15,408 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (66 of 1000; RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.41; moderate certainty) probably slightly increases and with ESA alone (66 of 1000; RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.47; high certainty) slightly increases the number of thromboembolic events. None of the trials reported results on the other comparisons. Thrombocytopenia or haemorrhage We estimated that 76 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia developed thrombocytopenia/haemorrhage. Evidence from NMA (13 trials, 2744 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA alone probably leads to little or no difference in thrombocytopenia/haemorrhage (76 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.48; moderate certainty). None of the trials reported results on other comparisons. Hypertension We estimated that 10 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia developed hypertension. Evidence from NMA (24 trials; 8383 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA alone probably increases the number of hypertensions (29 of 1000; RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.19 to 7.25; moderate certainty). None of the trials reported results on the other comparisons.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When considering ESAs with iron as prevention for anaemia, one has to balance between efficacy and safety. Results suggest that treatment with ESA and iron probably decreases number of blood transfusions, but may increase mortality and the number of thromboembolic events. For most outcomes the different comparisons within the network were not fully connected, so ranking of all treatments together was not possible. More head-to-head comparisons including all evaluated treatment combinations are needed to fill the gaps and prove results of this review.
贫血在癌症患者中很常见,他们可能需要输血。促红细胞生成素刺激剂(ESAs)和铁可能有助于减少输血的需求。然而,目前尚不清楚与使用一种药物相比,联合使用这两种药物是否更具优势。
系统评价静脉铁、口服铁或不补铁联合或不联合 ESAs 预防或缓解癌症患者贫血的效果,并通过网络荟萃分析(NMAs)生成治疗排序。
我们通过检索数据库(CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase;截至 2021 年 6 月)来确定研究。我们还检索了各种登记处、会议记录和已确定试验的参考文献列表。
我们纳入了比较化疗、放疗、联合治疗或癌症本身引起的贫血的预防或缓解中,静脉、口服或不补铁联合或不联合 ESAs 的随机对照试验。
两位综述作者独立提取数据并评估偏倚风险。结局指标包括研究期间的死亡率、需要输血的患者人数、输血量、血液学反应、总死亡率和不良事件。我们进行了 NMAs 并生成了治疗排序。我们使用 GRADE 评估证据的确定性。
96 项试验(25157 名参与者)符合我们的纳入标准;62 项试验(24603 名参与者)可纳入网络荟萃分析(共有 12 种不同的治疗选择)。在此,我们报告了 ESA 联合或不联合铁与单独使用铁或不治疗的比较结果。其他结果和亚组分析在全文中描述。研究期间的死亡率:我们估计,不治疗贫血的 1000 名参与者中,有 92 人在主动研究期后 30 天内死亡。来自 NMA(55 项试验;15074 名参与者)的证据表明,ESA 和静脉铁(12/1000;RR 0.13,95%CI 0.01 至 2.29;低确定性)或口服铁(34/1000;RR 0.37,95%CI 0.01 至 27.38;低确定性)治疗可能降低或增加,ESA 单独治疗(103/1000;RR 1.12,95%CI 0.92 至 1.35;中等确定性)可能略微增加研究期间的死亡率。此外,单独使用静脉铁治疗(271/1000;RR 2.95,95%CI 0.71 至 12.34;低确定性)可能增加,单独使用口服铁治疗(24/1000;RR 0.26,95%CI 0.00 至 19.73;低确定性)可能增加或减少研究期间的死亡率。血液学反应:我们估计,不治疗贫血的 1000 名参与者中有 90 人有血液学反应。来自 NMA(31 项试验;6985 名参与者)的证据表明,ESA 和静脉铁(604/1000;RR 6.71,95%CI 4.93 至 9.14;中等确定性)、ESA 和口服铁(527/1000;RR 5.85,95%CI 4.06 至 8.42;中等确定性)和 ESA 单独治疗(467/1000;RR 5.19,95%CI 4.02 至 6.71;中等确定性)可能增加血液学反应。此外,单独使用口服铁可能增加血液学反应(153/1000;RR 1.70,95%CI 0.69 至 4.20;低确定性)。输血需求:我们估计,不治疗贫血的 1000 名参与者中有 360 人需要至少一次输血。来自 NMA(69 项试验;18684 名参与者)的证据表明,ESA 和静脉铁(158/1000;RR 0.44,95%CI 0.31 至 0.63;中等确定性)、ESA 和口服铁(144/1000;RR 0.40,95%CI 0.24 至 0.66;中等确定性)和 ESA 单独治疗(212/1000;RR 0.59,95%CI 0.51 至 0.69;中等确定性)可能减少输血需求。此外,单独使用静脉铁(268/1000;RR 0.74,95%CI 0.43 至 1.28;低确定性)和口服铁单独治疗(333/1000;RR 0.92,95%CI 0.54 至 1.57;低确定性)可能增加或减少输血需求。总死亡率:我们估计,不治疗贫血的 1000 名参与者中有 347 人总体死亡。来自 NMA(71 项试验;21576 名参与者)的低确定性证据表明,ESA 和静脉铁(507/1000;RR 1.46,95%CI 0.87 至 2.43)或口服铁(482/1000;RR 1.39,95%CI 0.60 至 3.22)以及静脉铁单独治疗(521/1000;RR 1.50,95%CI 0.63 至 3.56)或口服铁单独治疗(534/1000;RR 1.54,95%CI 0.66 至 3.56)可能降低或增加总体死亡率。ESA 单独治疗可能导致总死亡率无差异或略有增加(357/1000;RR 1.03,95%CI 0.97 至 1.10;低确定性)。血栓栓塞事件:我们估计,不治疗贫血的 1000 名参与者中有 36 人发生血栓栓塞事件。来自 NMA(50 项试验;15408 名参与者)的证据表明,ESA 和静脉铁(66/1000;RR 1.82,95%CI 0.98 至 3.41;中等确定性)可能略有增加和 ESA 单独治疗(66/1000;RR 1.82,95%CI 1.34 至 2.47;高确定性)可能略有增加血栓栓塞事件的数量。没有试验报告其他比较的结果。血小板减少症/出血:我们估计,不治疗贫血的 1000 名参与者中有 76 人发生血小板减少症/出血。来自 NMA(13 项试验,2744 名参与者)的证据表明,ESA 单独治疗可能导致血小板减少症/出血无差异或略有增加(76/1000;RR 1.00,95%CI 0.67 至 1.48;中等确定性)。没有试验报告其他比较的结果。高血压:我们估计,不治疗贫血的 1000 名参与者中有 10 人发生高血压。来自 NMA(24 项试验;8383 名参与者)的证据表明,ESA 单独治疗可能会增加高血压的发生(29/1000;RR 2.93,95%CI 1.19 至 7.25;中等确定性)。没有试验报告其他比较的结果。
在考虑 ESAs 联合铁治疗贫血的预防时,需要权衡疗效和安全性。结果表明,ESA 和铁联合治疗可能减少输血需求,但可能增加死亡率和血栓栓塞事件的发生。对于大多数结局,网络内的不同比较尚未完全连接,因此无法对所有治疗方法进行综合排序。需要更多的头对头比较,包括所有评估的治疗组合,以填补空白并验证本综述的结果。