MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2987698787 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-123686

A Meta-Analysis Evaluating the Risk of Bleeding-Related Adverse Events with Defibrotide Treatment

2019· article· en· W2987698787 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
William Tappe, S. Aggarwal, Özlem Topaloglu, Massimo Iacobelli

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDefibrotideMedicineAdverse effectInternal medicineHepatic veno-occlusive diseaseTransplantationIncidence (geometry)Retrospective cohort studyThymoglobulinSurgeryFibrinolytic agentHematopoietic stem cell transplantationAntithromboticTacrolimus

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Defibrotide is approved for adult and pediatric patients with hepatic veno-occlusive disease/sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (VOD/SOS) with renal or pulmonary dysfunction after hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in the United States and Canada and for patients aged >1 month with severe hepatic VOD/SOS post-HCT in the European Union. The recommended dose is 6.25 mg/kg every 6 hours given as a 2-hour intravenous (IV) infusion. Defibrotide has been shown in vitro to reduce endothelial cell (EC) activation and promote EC-mediated fibrinolysis. Post-HCT patients with VOD/SOS are often at a high risk for bleeding events. In a phase 3 study of patients with VOD/SOS post-HCT, rates of bleeding-related adverse events (AEs) with defibrotide were generally similar to matched historic controls (Richardson PG, et al. Blood. 2016;127[13]:1656-1665). To broaden our understanding of the risk of bleeding events associated with defibrotide treatment, this meta-analysis assessed the incidence and risk of bleeding-related AEs with defibrotide treatment in studies outside of the VOD/SOS and HCT setting, using published literature. Methods: PubMed and Embase were searched from database inception through July 24, 2018 for studies using defibrotide (controlled trials with ≥1 arm assessing an intervention of interest, observational/retrospective studies, retrospective or post hoc analyses, and case series with ≥10 patients). Studies of patients with VOD/SOS or HCT, case reports with <10 patients, and reviews were excluded. Publications were evaluated for the presence of data on endpoints of interest, which included any bleeding-related event and overall safety or efficacy summaries; all studies with available data were included in the analysis. Overall bleeding rate was estimated for defibrotide and controls using the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation and random-effects modeling (Stata Software). The risk ratio of bleeding was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method and random-effects modeling (RevMan 5.3 Software). Overall bleeding rate and risk ratio of bleeding were calculated from studies that used the IV defibrotide formulation; studies using oral or intramuscular formulations were excluded from these calculations. Results: A total of 1,857 records were identified in the search; 124 studies reported on defibrotide and 19 contained data related to bleeding and were included in the analysis. Of the 19 included studies, 2 had >1,000 patients. An IV defibrotide formulation was used in 12 studies; the other 7 used intramuscular or oral delivery or more than one method of defibrotide administration. The most common indications were prevention of deep vein thrombosis (11 of 19) and treatment of thrombosis (3 of 19). Most studies (14 of 19) had 2 treatment arms; among these studies, heparin was the most common comparator (11 of 14). For the other 5 of 19 studies, 4 studies were single-arm and 1 study had 3 arms. The majority of studies (16 of 19) were conducted in adults; the other 3 studies did not specify patients' age. The most commonly administered defibrotide dose was 800 mg daily (14 of 19 studies). Bleeding rate and risk ratio of bleeding were calculated based upon data from the 12 studies that used IV defibrotide. Rates of bleeding events reported in the 12 studies with IV defibrotide ranged from 0% to 10% in individual studies and the estimated overall bleeding rate was 1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.00-0.03). In 10 studies with control treatments (9 calcium heparin, 1 urokinase), rates of bleeding events ranged from 1% to 37%, with 7 studies having rates ≥10%. Across the 10 control studies, the estimated overall bleeding rate for controls was 11% (95% CI: 0.05-0.20). Among the 8 studies with available data on IV defibrotide and controls (7 calcium heparin, 1 urokinase), the risk ratio for bleeding events with IV defibrotide versus controls was 0.36 (95% CI: 0.24-0.52; P <0.00001; Figure). Conclusions: This meta-analysis of defibrotide use outside of the VOD/SOS setting suggests that the bleeding risk with defibrotide is low, and there is comparable risk of bleeding with defibrotide treatment versus controls such as heparin or urokinase. Important limitations of this analysis include variations in AE reporting across studies and the use of a defibrotide dose that is lower than the currently approved recommendation in the majority of studies. Disclosures Tappe: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Aggarwal:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Topaloglu:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Iacobelli:Massimo Iacobelli: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: The abstract describes a meta-analysis of defibrotide (indicated for VOD/SOS) in the non-VOD/SOS setting. As this analysis drew data from existing literature, no patients were administered defibrotide for off-label indications in the course of this analysis.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,012
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Méta-analyse · Signal consensuel: Méta-analyse
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,012
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,064

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0120,026
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0120,056
Bibliométrie0,0050,006
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,001
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,055
Tête enseignante GPT0,304
Écart entre enseignants0,249 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeMéta-analyse
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation→Travaux en français237 207→