Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina · 2024
Emicizumab prophylaxis in people with hemophilia A and inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Систематический обзорСтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Prudente Tiago Paiva, Camelo Ricardo Mesquita, Guimarães Rafael Alves, Roberti Maria do Rosário Ferraz
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Until recently, the treatment of people with hemophilia A and inhibitors (PwHAi) was based on the use of bypassing agents (BPA). However, the advent of emicizumab as prophylaxis has demonstrated promising results.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the bleeding endpoints between PwHAi on BPA and those on emicizumab prophylaxis.
DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of interventions and meta-analysis conducted at the Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.
METHODS: The CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Scopus, and LILACS databases were searched on February 21, 2023. Two authors conducted the literature search, publication selection, and data extraction. The selected publications evaluated the bleeding endpoints between PwHAi on emicizumab prophylaxis and those on BPA prophylaxis. The risk of bias was evaluated according to the Joanna Briggs Institute criteria. A meta-analysis was performed to determine the annualized bleeding rate (ABR) for treated bleeds.
RESULTS: Five publications (56 PwHAi) were selected from the 543 retrieved records. Overall, bleeding endpoints were lower during emicizumab prophylaxis than during BPA prophylaxis. All the publications had at least one risk of bias. The only common parameter for the meta-analysis was the ABR for treated bleeds. During emicizumab prophylaxis, the ABR for treated bleeds was lower than during BPA prophylaxis (standard mean difference: -1.58; 95% confidence interval -2.50, -0.66, P = 0.0008; I2 = 68.4%, P = 0.0031).
CONCLUSION: Emicizumab was superior to BPA in bleeding prophylaxis in PwHAi. However, both the small population size and potential risk of bias should be considered when evaluating these results.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42021278726, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=278726.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the bleeding endpoints between PwHAi on BPA and those on emicizumab prophylaxis.
DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of interventions and meta-analysis conducted at the Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.
METHODS: The CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Scopus, and LILACS databases were searched on February 21, 2023. Two authors conducted the literature search, publication selection, and data extraction. The selected publications evaluated the bleeding endpoints between PwHAi on emicizumab prophylaxis and those on BPA prophylaxis. The risk of bias was evaluated according to the Joanna Briggs Institute criteria. A meta-analysis was performed to determine the annualized bleeding rate (ABR) for treated bleeds.
RESULTS: Five publications (56 PwHAi) were selected from the 543 retrieved records. Overall, bleeding endpoints were lower during emicizumab prophylaxis than during BPA prophylaxis. All the publications had at least one risk of bias. The only common parameter for the meta-analysis was the ABR for treated bleeds. During emicizumab prophylaxis, the ABR for treated bleeds was lower than during BPA prophylaxis (standard mean difference: -1.58; 95% confidence interval -2.50, -0.66, P = 0.0008; I2 = 68.4%, P = 0.0031).
CONCLUSION: Emicizumab was superior to BPA in bleeding prophylaxis in PwHAi. However, both the small population size and potential risk of bias should be considered when evaluating these results.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42021278726, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=278726.