Sheila A. Fisher

Stem cell treatment for acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUNDnCell transplantation offers a potential therapeutic approach to the repair and regeneration of damaged vascular and cardiac tissue after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This has resulted in multiple randomised controlled trials (RCTs) across the world.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo determine the safety and efficacy of autologous adult bone marrow stem cells as a treatment for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), focusing on clinical outcomes.nnnSEARCH METHODSnThis Cochrane review is an update of a previous version (published in 2012). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1950 to March 2015), EMBASE (1974 to March 2015), CINAHL (1982 to March 2015) and the Transfusion Evidence Library (1980 to March 2015). In addition, we searched several international and ongoing trial databases in March 2015 and handsearched relevant conference proceedings to January 2011.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnRCTs comparing autologous bone marrow-derived cells with no cells in patients diagnosed with AMI were eligible.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnTwo review authors independently screened all references, assessed the risk of bias of the included trials and extracted data. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models throughout. We analysed outcomes at short-term (less than 12 months) and long-term (12 months or more) follow-up. Dichotomous outcomes are reported as risk ratio (RR) and continuous outcomes are reported as mean difference (MD) or standardised MD (SMD). We performed sensitivity analyses to evaluate the results in the context of the risk of selection, performance and attrition bias. Exploratory subgroup analysis investigated the effects of baseline cardiac function (left ventricular ejection fraction, LVEF) and cell dose, type and timing of administration, as well as the use of heparin in the final cell solution.nnnMAIN RESULTSnForty-one RCTs with a total of 2732 participants (1564 cell therapy, 1168 controls) were eligible for inclusion. Cell treatment was not associated with any changes in the risk of all-cause mortality (34/538 versus 32/458; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.50; 996 participants; 14 studies; moderate quality evidence), cardiovascular mortality (23/277 versus 18/250; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.99; 527 participants; nine studies; moderate quality evidence) or a composite measure of mortality, reinfarction and re-hospitalisation for heart failure (24/262 versus 33/235; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.10; 497 participants; six studies; moderate quality evidence) at long-term follow-up. Statistical heterogeneity was low (I(2) = 0% to 12%). Serious periprocedural adverse events were rare and were generally unlikely to be related to cell therapy. Additionally, cell therapy had no effect on morbidity, quality of life/performance or LVEF measured by magnetic resonance imaging. Meta-analyses of LVEF measured by echocardiography, single photon emission computed tomography and left ventricular angiography showed evidence of differences in mean LVEF between treatment groups although the mean differences ranged between 2% and 5%, which are accepted not to be clinically relevant. Results were robust to the risk of selection, performance and attrition bias from individual studies.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnThe results of this review suggest that there is insufficient evidence for a beneficial effect of cell therapy for AMI patients. However, most of the evidence comes from small trials that showed no difference in clinically relevant outcomes. Further adequately powered trials are needed and until then the efficacy of this intervention remains unproven.

Meta-Analysis of Cell Therapy Trials for Patients With Heart Failure

RATIONALEnCell-based therapies are a promising intervention for the treatment of heart failure (HF) secondary to ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy. However, the clinical efficacy of such new treatment requires further evaluation.nnnOBJECTIVEnTo assess available clinical evidence on the safety and efficacy of cell-based therapies for HF.nnnMETHODS AND RESULTSnElectronic databases (CENTRAL, DARE, NHSEED & HTA, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, KoreaMed, PakMediNet, IndMed, and the Transfusion Evidence Library) were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials to June 2014. Trials of participants with HF and where the administration of any dose of autologous cells by any delivery route was compared with no intervention or placebo were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes were defined as mortality and rehospitalization as a result of HF. Secondary outcomes included performance status, quality of life, incidence of arrhythmias, brain natriuretic peptide levels, left ventricular ejection fraction, myocardial perfusion, and adverse events. Thirty-one independent trials (1521 participants) were included. The treatment significantly reduced the risk of mortality and rehospitalization caused by HF. There was a significant improvement in favor of stem cell treatment in performance status and exercise capacity, left ventricular ejection fraction, and quality of life. The treatment was also associated with a reduction of brain natriuretic peptide levels and no increase in the incidence of arrhythmias. However, there was considerable risk of performance, selection, and reporting bias among the included trials.nnnCONCLUSIONSnThis study shows evidence that autologous cell therapy may be beneficial for patients having HF, but further evidence is required.

Meta-Analysis of Cell Therapy Trials for Patients with Heart Failure - An Update

RATIONALEnCell-based therapies are a promising intervention for the treatment of heart failure (HF) secondary to ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy. However, the clinical efficacy of such new treatment requires further evaluation.nnnOBJECTIVEnTo assess available clinical evidence on the safety and efficacy of cell-based therapies for HF.nnnMETHODS AND RESULTSnElectronic databases (CENTRAL, DARE, NHSEED & HTA, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, KoreaMed, PakMediNet, IndMed, and the Transfusion Evidence Library) were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials to June 2014. Trials of participants with HF and where the administration of any dose of autologous cells by any delivery route was compared with no intervention or placebo were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes were defined as mortality and rehospitalization as a result of HF. Secondary outcomes included performance status, quality of life, incidence of arrhythmias, brain natriuretic peptide levels, left ventricular ejection fraction, myocardial perfusion, and adverse events. Thirty-one independent trials (1521 participants) were included. The treatment significantly reduced the risk of mortality and rehospitalization caused by HF. There was a significant improvement in favor of stem cell treatment in performance status and exercise capacity, left ventricular ejection fraction, and quality of life. The treatment was also associated with a reduction of brain natriuretic peptide levels and no increase in the incidence of arrhythmias. However, there was considerable risk of performance, selection, and reporting bias among the included trials.nnnCONCLUSIONSnThis study shows evidence that autologous cell therapy may be beneficial for patients having HF, but further evidence is required.

Stem cell therapy for chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure

BACKGROUNDnA promising approach to the treatment of chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure is the use of stem cells. The last decade has seen a plethora of randomised controlled trials developed worldwide, which have generated conflicting results.nnnOBJECTIVESnThe critical evaluation of clinical evidence on the safety and efficacy of autologous adult bone marrow-derived stem/progenitor cells as a treatment for chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure.nnnSEARCH METHODSnWe searched CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, and four ongoing trial databases for relevant trials up to 14 December 2015.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnEligible studies were randomised controlled trials comparing autologous adult stem/progenitor cells with no cells in people with chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure. We included co-interventions, such as primary angioplasty, surgery, or administration of stem cell mobilising agents, when administered to treatment and control arms equally.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnTwo review authors independently screened all references for eligibility, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We undertook a quantitative evaluation of data using random-effects meta-analyses. We evaluated heterogeneity using the I2 statistic and explored substantial heterogeneity (I2 greater than 50%) through subgroup analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We created a Summary of findings table using GRADEprofiler (GRADEpro), excluding studies with a high or unclear risk of selection bias. We focused our summary of findings on long-term follow-up of mortality, morbidity outcomes, and left ventricular ejection fraction measured by magnetic resonance imaging.nnnMAIN RESULTSnWe included 38 randomised controlled trials involving 1907 participants (1114 cell therapy, 793 controls) in this review update. Twenty-three trials were at high or unclear risk of selection bias. Other sources of potential bias included lack of blinding of participants (12 trials) and full or partial commercial sponsorship (13 trials).Cell therapy reduced the incidence of long-term mortality (≥ 12 months) (risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 0.87; participants = 491; studies = 9; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Periprocedural adverse events associated with the mapping or cell/placebo injection procedure were infrequent. Cell therapy was also associated with a long-term reduction in the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.97; participants = 345; studies = 5; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) and incidence of arrhythmias (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.99; participants = 82; studies = 1; low-quality evidence). However, we found no evidence that cell therapy affects the risk of rehospitalisation for heart failure (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.09; participants = 375; studies = 6; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) or composite incidence of mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and/or rehospitalisation for heart failure (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.08; participants = 141; studies = 3; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence), or long-term left ventricular ejection fraction when measured by magnetic resonance imaging (mean difference -1.60, 95% CI -8.70 to 5.50; participants = 25; studies = 1; low-quality evidence).nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnThis systematic review and meta-analysis found low-quality evidence that treatment with bone marrow-derived stem/progenitor cells reduces mortality and improves left ventricular ejection fraction over short- and long-term follow-up and may reduce the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction and improve New York Heart Association (NYHA) Functional Classification in people with chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure. These findings should be interpreted with caution, as event rates were generally low, leading to a lack of precision.

Bone Marrow Stem Cell Treatment for Ischemic Heart Disease in Patients with No Option of Revascularization: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective To evaluate bone marrow stem cell treatment (BMSC) in patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD) and no option of revascularization. Background Autologous BMSC therapy has emerged as a novel approach to treat patients with acute myocardial infarction or chronic ischemia and heart failure following percutaneous or surgical revascularization, respectively. However, the effect of the treatment has not been systematic evaluated in patients who are not eligible for revascularization. Methods MEDLINE (1950–2012), EMBASE (1980–2012), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 8) and ongoing trial databases were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials. Trials where participants were diagnosed with IHD, with no option for revascularization and who received any dose of stem cells by any delivery route were selected for inclusion. Study and participant characteristics, details of the intervention and comparator, and outcomes measured were recorded by two reviewers independently. Primary outcome measures were defined as mortality and measures of angina; secondary outcomes were heart failure, quality of life measures, exercise/performance and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Results Nine trials were eligible for inclusion. BMSC treatment significantly reduced the risk of mortality (Relative Risk 0.33; 95% Confidence Interval 0.17 to 0.65; Pu200a=u200a0.001). Patients who received BMSC showed a significantly greater improvement in CCS angina class (Mean Difference −0.55; 95% Confidence Interval −1.00 to −0.10; Pu200a=u200a0.02) and significantly fewer angina episodes per week at the end of the trial (Mean Difference −5.21; 95% Confidence Interval −7.35 to −3.07; P<0.00001) than those who received no BMSC. In addition, the treatment significantly improved quality of life, exercise/performance and LVEF in these patients. Conclusions BMSC treatment has significant clinical benefit as stand-alone treatment in patients with IHD and no other treatment option. These results require confirmation in large well-powered trials with long-term follow-up to fully evaluate the clinical efficacy of this treatment.

Long-Term Effects of Autologous Bone Marrow Stem Cell Treatment in Acute Myocardial Infarction: Factors That May Influence Outcomes

Aims To investigate whether there are important sources of heterogeneity between the findings of different clinical trials which administer autologous stem cell treatment for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and to evaluate what factors may influence the long-term effects of this treatment. Methods and Results MEDLINE (1950-January 2011), EMBASE (1974-January 2011), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1), CINAHL (1982-January 2011), and ongoing trials registers were searched for randomised trials of bone marrow stem cells as treatment for AMI. Hand-searching was used to screen recent, relevant conference proceedings (2005–2010/11). Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models and heterogeneity between subgroups was assessed using chi-squared tests. Planned analyses included length of follow-up, timing of cell infusion and dose, patient selection, small trial size effect, methodological quality, loss of follow-up and date of publication. Thirty-three trials with a total of 1,765 participants were included. There was no evidence of bias due to publication or time-lag, methodological quality of included studies, participant drop-out, duration of follow-up or date of the first disclosure of results. However, in long-term follow-ups the treatment seemed more effective when administered at doses greater than 108 cells and to patients with more severe heart dysfunction. Conclusions Evaluation of heterogeneity between trials has not identified significant sources of bias in this study. However, clinical differences between trials are likely to exist which should be considered when undertaking future trials.

Oral deferiprone for iron chelation in people with thalassaemia.

BACKGROUNDnThalassaemia major is a genetic disease characterised by a reduced ability to produce haemoglobin. Management of the resulting anaemia is through red blood cell transfusions.Repeated transfusions result in an excessive accumulation of iron in the body (iron overload), removal of which is achieved through iron chelation therapy. A commonly used iron chelator, deferiprone, has been found to be pharmacologically efficacious. However, important questions exist about the efficacy and safety of deferiprone compared to another iron chelator, desferrioxamine.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo summarise data from trials on the clinical efficacy and safety of deferiprone and to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of deferiprone with desferrioxamine for thalassaemia.nnnSEARCH METHODSnWe searched the Cochrane Cystic fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Groups Haemoglobinopathies trials Register and MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), LILACS and other international medical databases, plus registers of ongoing trials and the Transfusion Evidence Library (www.transfusionevidencelibrary.com). We also contacted the manufacturers of deferiprone and desferrioxamine.All searches were updated to 05 March 2013.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnRandomised controlled trials comparing deferiprone with another iron chelator; or comparing two schedules or doses of deferiprone, in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnTwo authors independently assessed trials for risk of bias and extracted data. Missing data were requested from the original investigators.nnnMAIN RESULTSnA total of 17 trials involving 1061 participants (range 13 to 213 participants per trial) were included. Of these, 16 trials compared either deferiprone alone with desferrioxamine alone, or a combined therapy of deferiprone and desferrioxamine with either deferiprone alone or desferrioxamine alone; one compared different schedules of deferiprone. There was little consistency between outcomes and limited information to fully assess the risk of bias of most of the included trials.Four trials reported mortality; each reported the death of one individual receiving deferiprone with or without desferrioxamine. One trial reported five further deaths in patients who withdrew from randomised treatment (deferiprone with or without desferrioxamine) and switched to desferrioxamine alone. Seven trials reported cardiac function or liver fibrosis as measures of end organ damage.Earlier trials measuring the cardiac iron load indirectly by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) T2* signal had suggested deferiprone may reduce cardiac iron more quickly than desferrioxamine. However, a meta-analysis of two trials suggested that left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly reduced in patients who received desferrioxamine alone compared with combination therapy. xa0One trial, which planned five years of follow up, was stopped early due to the beneficial effects of combined treatment compared with deferiprone alone in terms of serum ferritin levels reduction.The results of this and three other trials suggest an advantage of combined therapy over monotherapy to reduce iron stores as measured by serum ferritin. There is, however, no conclusive or consistent evidence for the improved efficacy of combined deferiprone and desferrioxamine therapy over monotherapy from direct or indirect measures of liver iron. Both deferiprone and desferrioxamine produce a significant reduction in iron stores in transfusion-dependent, iron-overloaded people. There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials to suggest that either has a greater reduction of clinically significant end organ damage.Evidence of adverse events were observed in all treatment groups. Occurrence of any adverse event was significantly more likely with deferiprone than desferrioxamine in one trial, RR 2.24 (95% CI 1.19 to 4.23). Meta-analysis of a further two trials showed a significant increased risk of adverse events associated with combined deferiprone and desferrioxamine compared with desferrioxamine alone, RR 3.04 (95% CI 1.18 to 7.83). The most commonly reported adverse event was joint pain, which occurred significantly more frequently in patients receiving deferiprone than desferrioxamine, RR 2.64 (95% CI 1.21 to 5.77). Other common adverse events included gastrointestinal disturbances as well as neutropenia or leucopenia, or both.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnIn the absence of data from randomised controlled trials, there is no evidence to suggest the need for a change in current treatment recommendations; namely that deferiprone is indicated for treating iron overload in people with thalassaemia major when desferrioxamine is contraindicated or inadequate. Intensified desferrioxamine treatment (by either subcutaneous or intravenous route) or use of other oral iron chelators, or both, remains the established treatment to reverse cardiac dysfunction due to iron overload. Indeed, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently only gave support for deferiprone to be used as a last resort for treating iron overload in thalassaemia, myelodysplasia and sickle cell disease. However, there is evidence that adverse events are increased in patients treated with deferiprone compared with desferrioxamine and in patients treated with combined deferiprone and desferrioxamine compared with desferrioxamine alone. There is an urgent need for adequately-powered, high-quality trials comparing the overall clinical efficacy and long-term outcome of deferiprone with desferrioxamine.

Desferrioxamine mesylate for managing transfusional iron overload in people with transfusion‐dependent thalassaemia

BACKGROUNDnThalassaemia major is a genetic disease characterised by a reduced ability to produce haemoglobin. Management of the resulting anaemia is through red blood cell transfusions.Repeated transfusions result in an excessive accumulation of iron in the body (iron overload), removal of which is achieved through iron chelation therapy. Desferrioxamine mesylate (desferrioxamine) is one of the most widely used iron chelators. Substantial data have shown the beneficial effects of desferrioxamine, although adherence to desferrioxamine therapy is a challenge. Alternative oral iron chelators, deferiprone and deferasirox, are now commonly used. Important questions exist about whether desferrioxamine, as monotherapy or in combination with an oral iron chelator, is the best treatment for iron chelation therapy.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo determine the effectiveness (dose and method of administration) of desferrioxamine in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia.To summarise data from trials on the clinical efficacy and safety of desferrioxamine for thalassaemia and to compare these with deferiprone and deferasirox.nnnSEARCH METHODSnWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Groups Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register. We also searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), LILACS and other international medical databases, plus ongoing trials registers and the Transfusion Evidence Library (www.transfusionevidencelibrary.com). All searches were updated to 5 March 2013.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnRandomised controlled trials comparing desferrioxamine with placebo, with another iron chelator, or comparing two schedules or doses of desferrioxamine, in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnSix authors working independently were involved in trial quality assessment and data extraction. For one trial, investigators supplied additional data upon request.nnnMAIN RESULTSnA total of 22 trials involving 2187 participants (range 11 to 586 people) were included. These trials included eight comparisons between desferrioxamine alone and deferiprone alone; five comparisons between desferrioxamine combined with deferiprone and deferiprone alone; eight comparisons between desferrioxamine alone and desferrioxamine combined with deferiprone; two comparisons of desferrioxamine with deferasirox; and two comparisons of different routes of desferrioxamine administration (bolus versus continuous infusion). Overall, few trials measured the same or long-term outcomes. Seven trials reported cardiac function or liver fibrosis as measures of end organ damage; none of these included a comparison with deferasirox.Five trials reported a total of seven deaths; three in patients who received desferrioxamine alone, two in patients who received desferrioxamine and deferiprone. A further death occurred in a patient who received deferiprone in another who received deferasirox alone. One trial reported five further deaths in patients who withdrew from randomised treatment (deferiprone with or without desferrioxamine) and switched to desferrioxamine alone.One trial planned five years of follow up but was stopped early due to the beneficial effects of a reduction in serum ferritin levels in those receiving combined desferrioxamine and deferiprone treatment compared with deferiprone alone. The results of this and three other trials suggest an advantage of combined therapy with desferrioxamine and deferiprone over monotherapy to reduce iron stores as measured by serum ferritin. There is, however, no evidence for the improved efficacy of combined desferrioxamine and deferiprone therapy against monotherapy from direct or indirect measures of liver iron.Earlier trials measuring the cardiac iron load indirectly by measurement of the magnetic resonance imaging T2* signal had suggested deferiprone may reduce cardiac iron more quickly than desferrioxamine. However, meta-analysis of two trials showed a significantly lower left ventricular ejection fraction in patients who received desferrioxamine alone compared with those who received combination therapy using desferrioxamine with deferiprone.Adverse events were recorded by 18 trials. These occurred with all treatments, but were significantly less likely with desferrioxamine than deferiprone in one trial, relative risk 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.84) and significantly less likely with desferrioxamine alone than desferrioxamine combined with deferiprone in two other trials, relative risk 0.33 (95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.84). In particular, four studies reported permanent treatment withdrawal due to adverse events from deferiprone; only one of these reported permanent withdrawals associated with desferrioxamine. Adverse events also occurred at a higher frequency in patients who received deferasirox than desferrioxamine in one trial. Eight trials reported local adverse reactions at the site of desferrioxamine infusion including pain and swelling. Adverse events associated with deferiprone included joint pain, gastrointestinal disturbance, increases in liver enzymes and neutropenia; adverse events associated with deferasirox comprised increases in liver enzymes and renal impairment. Regular monitoring of white cell counts has been recommended for deferiprone and monitoring of liver and renal function for deferasirox.In summary, desferrioxamine and the oral iron chelators deferiprone and deferasirox produce significant reductions in iron stores in transfusion-dependent, iron-overloaded people. There is no evidence from randomised clinical trials to suggest that any one ofxa0these has a greater reduction of clinically significant end organ damage, although in two trials, combination therapy with desferrioxamine and deferiprone showed a greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction than desferrioxamine used alone.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnDesferrioxamine is the recommended first-line therapy for iron overload in people with thalassaemia major and deferiprone or deferasirox are indicated for treating iron overload when desferrioxamine is contraindicated or inadequate. Oral deferasirox has been licensed for use in children aged over six years who receive frequent blood transfusions and in children aged two to five years who receive infrequent blood transfusions.xa0In the absence of randomised controlled trials with long-term follow up, there is no compelling evidence to change this conclusion.Worsening iron deposition in the myocardium in patients receiving desferrioxamine alone would suggest a change of therapy by intensification of desferrioxamine treatment or the use of desferrioxamine and deferiprone combination therapy.Adverse events are increased in patients treated with deferiprone compared with desferrioxamine and in patients treated with combined deferiprone and desferrioxamine compared with desferrioxamine alone. People treated with all chelators must be kept under close medical supervision and treatment with deferiprone or deferasirox requires regular monitoring of neutrophil counts or renal function respectively. There is an urgent need for adequately-powered, high-quality trials comparing the overall clinical efficacy and long-term outcomes of deferiprone, deferasirox and desferrioxamine.

Oral or parenteral iron supplementation to reduce deferral, iron deficiency and/or anaemia in blood donors

BACKGROUNDnIron deficiency is a significant cause of deferral in people wishing to donate blood. If iron removed from the body through blood donation is not replaced, then donors may become iron deficient. All donors are screened at each visit for low haemoglobin (Hb) levels. However, some deferred blood donors do not return to donate. Deferred first-time donors are even less likely to return. Interventions that reduce the risk of provoking iron deficiency and anaemia in blood donors will therefore increase the number of blood donations. Currently, iron supplementation for blood donors is not a standard of care in many blood services. A systematic review is required to answer specific questions regarding the efficacy and safety of iron supplementation in blood donors.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo assess the efficacy and safety of iron supplementation to reduce deferral, iron deficiency and/or anaemia in blood donors.nnnSEARCH METHODSnWe ran the search on 18 November 2013. We searched Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCO Host) and six other databases. We also searched clinical trials registers and screened guidelines reference lists.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing iron supplementation versus placebo or control, oral versus parenteral iron supplementation, iron supplementation versus iron-rich food supplements, and different doses, treatment durations and preparations of iron supplementation in healthy blood donors. Autologous blood donors were excluded.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnWe combined data using random-effects meta-analyses. We evaluated heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic; we explored considerable heterogeneity (I(2) > 75%) in subgroup analyses. We carried out sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of trial quality on the results.nnnMAIN RESULTSnThirty RCTs (4704 participants) met the eligibility criteria, including 19 comparisons of iron supplementation and placebo or control; one comparison of oral and parenteral iron supplementation; four comparisons of different doses of iron supplementation; one comparison of different treatment durations of iron supplementation; and 12 comparisons of different iron supplementation preparations.Many studies were of low or uncertain methodological quality and therefore at high or uncertain risk of bias. We therefore rated the quality of the evidence for our outcomes as moderate. There was a statistically significant reduction in deferral due to low haemoglobin in donors who received iron supplementation compared with donors who received no iron supplementation, both at the first donation visit after commencement of iron supplementation (risk ratio (RR) 0.34; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 0.55; four studies; 1194 participants; P value < 0.0001) and at subsequent donations (RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; three studies; 793 participants; P value < 0.00001). Supplementation also resulted in significantly higher haemoglobin levels (mean difference (MD) 2.36 g/L; 95% CI 0.06 to 4.66; eight studies; 847 participants, P value =0.04), and iron stores, including serum ferritin (MD 13.98 ng/mL; 95% CI 8.92 to 19.03; five studies; 640 participants; P value < 0.00001) and transferrin saturation (MD 3.91%; 95% CI 2.02 to 5.80; four studies; 344 participants; P value < 0.0001) prior to further donation. The differences were maintained after subsequent donation(s).Adverse effects were widely reported and were more frequent in donors who received iron supplementation (RR 1.60; 95% CI 1.23 to 2.07; four studies; 1748 participants; P value = 0.0005). Adverse effects included constipation, diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting and taste disturbances, and some participants stopped treatment due to side effects.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnThere is moderate quality evidence that rates of donor deferral due to low haemoglobin are considerably less in those taking iron supplements compared with those without iron supplementation, both at the first donation visit and at subsequent donation. Iron-supplemented donors also show elevated haemoglobin and iron stores. These beneficial effects are balanced by more frequent adverse events in donors who receive iron supplementation than in those who do not; this is likely to limit acceptability and compliance. The long-term effects of iron supplementation without measurement of iron stores are unknown. These considerations are likely to preclude widespread use of iron supplementation by tablets. Blood services may consider targeted use of supplementation in those at greatest risk of iron deficiency, personalised donation intervals and providing dietary advice.

A systematic review of factors associated with the deferral of donors failing to meet low haemoglobin thresholds.

Blood donors attending a donation session may be deemed ineligible to donate blood due to a failure to meet low haemoglobin (Hb) thresholds. Several studies have identified factors associated with a donor falling below these Hb thresholds. A review of these factors will inform future prospective studies and form the basis for predictive models of deferral due to low Hb.