Cryoprecipitate-Poor Plasma Instead of Fresh Frozen Plasma As Replacement Therapy in Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) is a life-threatening condition characterized by the presence of small-vessel thrombi enriched with platelets, leading to thrombocytopenia, thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA), and on occasion, resulting in end-organ damage. The standard therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) approach, initiated after suspicion of TTP, is done with fresh frozen plasma (FFP). Yet, the use of cryoprecipitate-poor plasma (CPP) has been suggested as alternative in recent decades given its absence of von Willebrand factor, which would benefit the pathophysiology of TTP. However, its efficacy over FFP remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of CPP versus FFP in patients with TTP. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Central and Embase for clinical studies published up to June 2023, comparing CPP to FFP as replacement fluids in TPP or TMA patients. Outcomes assessed were overall mortality, relapse rate, response to treatment and number of TPE sessions. We pooled outcomes as odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We also performed a subgroup analysis with randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Statistical analysis was performed with Review Manager version 5.4.1. Heterogeneity was assessed with I 2 statistics. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023440665). Results: A total of eight articles met inclusion criteria, of which three were RCTs. The combined dataset involved 290 patients, of which 144 (49.7%) were in CPP group and 146 (50.3%) in the FFP group. CPP significantly reduced overall mortality compared to FFP (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.13-0.59; p=0.001; I 2=0%; Figure 1A). However, our subgroup analysis of RCTs showed no significant difference in overall mortality between groups (OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.13-1.84; p=0.29; I 2=0%; Figure 1B). Additionally, there were no significant differences between groups regarding relapses (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.37-1.77; p=0.60; I 2=0%; Figure 1C), response to treatment (OR 2.20; 95% CI 0.69-7.07; p=0.18; I 2=44%; Figure 1D) or number of TPE sessions (MD 1.63; 95% CI -2.83 - 6.08; p=0.47; I 2=55%; Figure 1E). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis shows that the safety and efficacy of CPP in TTP patients is at least similar to FFP in reducing mortality, relapse rate, and improving response to treatment. The reduced mortality with CPP found in the whole pool of studies, along with the trend towards reduced mortality found in the RCT-only analysis indicates the potential benefit of CPP over FFP. However, larger population-based randomized trials should contribute to narrow confidence intervals and decrease bias of observational studies, providing clearer conclusions for treatment efficacy in the future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".