↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for prophylaxis of hepatic veno-occlusive disease in people undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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 prophylaxis of hepatic veno-occlusive disease in people undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009311.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel KL Cheuk, Alan KS Chiang, Shau Yin Ha, Godfrey CF Chan

Abstract

Hepatic veno-occlusive disease (VOD) is a severe complication after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Different drugs with different mechanisms of action have been tried in HSCT recipients to prevent hepatic VOD. However, it is uncertain whether high-quality evidence exists to support any prophylactic therapy. We aimed to determine the effects of various prophylactic therapies on the incidence of hepatic VOD, overall survival, mortality, quality of life (QOL), and the safety of these therapies in people undergoing HSCT. We searched the Cochrane Central Registe of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings of three international haematology-oncology societies and two trial registries in January 2015, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic therapies with placebo or no treatment, or comparing different therapies for hepatic VOD in people undergoing HSCT. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We included 14 RCTs. Four trials (612 participants) compared ursodeoxycholic acid with or without additional treatment versus placebo or no treatment or same additional treatment. Two trials (259 participants) compared heparin with no treatment. Two trials (106 participants) compared low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) with placebo or no treatment. One trial (360 participants) compared defibrotide with no treatment. One trial (34 participants) compared glutamine with placebo. Two trials (383 participants) compared fresh frozen plasma (FFP) with or without additional treatment versus no treatment or same additional treatment. One trial (30 participants) compared antithrombin III with heparin versus heparin. One trial compared heparin (47 participants) with LMWH (46 participants) and prostaglandin E1 (PGE1) (47 participants). No trial investigated the effects of danaparoid. The RCTs included participants of both genders with wide age range and disease spectrum undergoing autologous or allogeneic HSCT. Funding was provided by government sources (two studies), research fund (one study), pharmaceutical companies that manufactured defibrotide and ursodeoxycholic acid (two studies), or unclear source (nine studies). All RCTs had high risk of bias because of lack of blinding of participants and study personnel, or other risks of bias (mainly differences in baseline characteristics of comparison groups).Results showed that ursodeoxycholic acid may reduce the incidence of hepatic VOD (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.88; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 15, 95% CI 7 to 50, low quality of evidence), but there was no evidence of difference in overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.83, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.18, low quality of evidence). It may reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; NNTB 17, 95% CI 8 to 431, low quality of evidence) and mortality due to hepatic VOD (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.87; NNTB 34, 95% CI 16 to 220, very low quality of evidence). There was no evidence of difference in the incidence of hepatic VOD between treatment and control groups for heparin (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.26, very low quality of evidence), LMWH (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.18, very low quality of evidence), defibrotide (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.02, low quality of evidence), glutamine (no hepatic VOD in either group, very low quality of evidence), FFP (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.17, very low quality of evidence), antithrombin III (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.15, very low quality of evidence), between heparin and LMWH (RR 1.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 4.77, very low quality of evidence), between heparin and PGE1 (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.50, very low quality of evidence), and between LMWH and PGE1 (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.55, very low quality of evidence). There was no evidence of difference in survival between treatment and control groups for heparin (92.6% vs. 88.7%) and defibrotide (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.02, low quality of evidence). There were no data on survival for trials of LMWH, glutamine, FFP, antithrombin III, between heparin and LMWH, between heparin and PGE1, and between LMWH and PGE1. There were no data on quality of life (QoL) for any trials. Eleven trials reported adverse events. There was no evidence of difference in the frequency of adverse events between treatment and control groups except for one trial showing that defibrotide resulted in more adverse events compared with no treatment (RR 18.79, 95% CI 1.10 to 320.45). These adverse events included coagulopathy, gastrointestinal disorders, haemorrhage and microangiopathy. The quality of evidence was low or very low due to bias of study design, and inconsistent and imprecise results. There is low or very low quality evidence that ursodeoxycholic acid may reduce the incidence of hepatic VOD, all-cause mortality and mortality due to VOD in HSCT recipients. However, the optimal regimen is not well-defined. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of heparin, LMWH, defibrotide, glutamine, FFP, antithrombin III, and PGE1. Further high-quality RCTs are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 72 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 19%
Student > Bachelor 12 16%
Researcher 10 14%
Other 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 11 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 13 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 December 2017.
All research outputs
#6,509,626
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,087
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,509
of 275,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#184
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 275,168 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 231 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.