↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for improving adherence to iron chelation therapy in people with sickle cell disease or thalassaemia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Interventions for improving adherence to iron chelation therapy in people with sickle cell disease or thalassaemia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012349.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patricia M Fortin, Sheila A Fisher, Karen V Madgwick, Marialena Trivella, Sally Hopewell, Carolyn Doree, Lise J Estcourt

Abstract

Regularly transfused people with sickle cell disease (SCD) and people with thalassaemia (who are transfusion-dependent or non-transfusion-dependent) are at risk of iron overload. Iron overload can lead to iron toxicity in vulnerable organs such as the heart, liver and endocrine glands; which can be prevented and treated with iron chelating agents. The intensive demands and uncomfortable side effects of therapy can have a negative impact on daily activities and well-being, which may affect adherence. To identify and assess the effectiveness of interventions (psychological and psychosocial, educational, medication interventions, or multi-component interventions) to improve adherence to iron chelation therapy in people with SCD or thalassaemia. We searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, Web of Science Science & Social Sciences Conference Proceedings Indexes and ongoing trial databases (01 February 2017). We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register (12 December 2017). For trials comparing medications or medication changes, only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion.For studies including psychological and psychosocial interventions, educational Interventions, or multi-component interventions, non-RCTs, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series studies with adherence as a primary outcome were also eligible for inclusion. Three authors independently assessed trial eligibility, risk of bias and extracted data. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. We included 16 RCTs (1525 participants) published between 1997 and 2017. Most participants had β-thalassaemia major; 195 had SCD and 88 had β-thalassaemia intermedia. Mean age ranged from 11 to 41 years. One trial was of medication management and 15 RCTs were of medication interventions. Medications assessed were subcutaneous deferoxamine, and two oral-chelating agents, deferiprone and deferasirox.We rated the quality of evidence as low to very low across all outcomes identified in this review.Three trials measured quality of life (QoL) with validated instruments, but provided no analysable data and reported no difference in QoL.Deferiprone versus deferoxamineWe are uncertain whether deferiprone increases adherence to iron chelation therapy (four trials, very low-quality evidence). Results could not be combined due to considerable heterogeneity (participants' age and different medication regimens). Medication adherence was high (deferiprone (85% to 94.9%); deferoxamine (71.6% to 93%)).We are uncertain whether deferiprone increases the risk of agranulocytosis, risk ratio (RR) 7.88 (99% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 352.39); or has any effect on all-cause mortality, RR 0.44 (95% CI 0.12 to 1.63) (one trial; 88 participants; very low-quality evidence).Deferasirox versus deferoxamineWe are uncertain whether deferasirox increases adherence to iron chelation therapy, mean difference (MD) -1.40 (95% CI -3.66 to 0.86) (one trial; 197 participants; very-low quality evidence). Medication adherence was high (deferasirox (99%); deferoxamine (100%)). We are uncertain whether deferasirox decreases the risk of thalassaemia-related serious adverse events (SAEs), RR 0.95 (95% CI 0.41 to 2.17); or all-cause mortality, RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.06 to 15.06) (two trials; 240 participants; very low-quality evidence).We are uncertain whether deferasirox decreases the risk of SCD-related pain crises, RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.62); or other SCD-related SAEs, RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.51) (one trial; 195 participants; very low-quality evidence).Deferasirox film-coated tablet (FCT) versus deferasirox dispersible tablet (DT)Deferasirox FCT may make little or no difference to adherence, RR 1.10 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.22) (one trial; 173 participants; low-quality evidence). Medication adherence was high (FCT (92.9%); DT (85.3%)).We are uncertain if deferasirox FCT increases the incidence of SAEs, RR 1.22 (95% CI 0.62 to 2.37); or all-cause mortality, RR 2.97 (95% CI 0.12 to 71.81) (one trial; 173 participants; very low-quality evidence).Deferiprone and deferoxamine combined versus deferiprone alone We are uncertain if deferiprone and deferoxamine combined increases adherence to iron chelation therapy (very low-quality evidence). Medication adherence was high (deferiprone 92.7% (range 37% to 100%) to 93.6% (range 56% to 100%); deferoxamine 70.6% (range 25% to 100%).Combination therapy may make little or no difference to the risk of SAEs, RR 0.15 (95% CI 0.01 to 2.81) (one trial; 213 participants; low-quality evidence).We are uncertain if combination therapy decreases all-cause mortality, RR 0.77 (95% CI 0.18 to 3.35) (two trials; 237 participants; very low-quality evidence).Deferiprone and deferoxamine combined versus deferoxamine aloneDeferiprone and deferoxamine combined may have little or no effect on adherence to iron chelation therapy (four trials; 216 participants; low-quality evidence). Medication adherence was high (deferoxamine 91.4% to 96.1%; deferiprone: 82.4%)Deferiprone and deferoxamine combined, may have little or no difference in SAEs or mortality (low-quality evidence). No SAEs occurred in three trials and were not reported in one trial. No deaths occurred in two trials and were not reported in two trials.Deferiprone and deferoxamine combined versus deferiprone and deferasirox combinedDeferiprone and deferasirox combined may improve adherence to iron chelation therapy, RR 0.84 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.99) (one trial; 96 participants; low-quality evidence). Medication adherence was high (deferiprone and deferoxamine: 80%; deferiprone and deferasirox: 95%).We are uncertain if deferiprone and deferasirox decreases the incidence of SAEs, RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.06 to 15.53) (one trial; 96 participants; very low-quality evidence).There were no deaths in the trial (low-quality evidence).Medication management versus standard careWe are uncertain if medication management improves health-related QoL (one trial; 48 participants; very low-quality evidence). Adherence was only measured in one arm of the trial. The medication comparisons included in this review had higher than average adherence rates not accounted for by differences in medication administration or side effects.Participants may have been selected based on higher adherence to trial medications at baseline. Also, within the clinical trial context, there is increased attention and involvement of clinicians, thus high adherence rates may be an artefact of trial participation.Real-world, pragmatic trials in community and clinic settings are needed that examine both confirmed or unconfirmed adherence strategies that may increase adherence to iron chelation therapy.Due to lack of evidence this review cannot comment on intervention strategies for different age groups.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 127 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 21%
Student > Bachelor 21 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Other 12 9%
Researcher 9 7%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 25 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 19%
Psychology 11 9%
Social Sciences 9 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 5%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 34 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 May 2019.
All research outputs
#3,364,240
of 13,935,576 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,977
of 10,765 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,746
of 275,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#126
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,935,576 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,765 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 275,567 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.