Summary of findings 2. Deferasirox compared to deferiprone in people with transfusion‐dependent thalassemia.
| Deferasirox compared to deferiprone in people with transfusion‐dependent thalassemia | ||||||
| Patient or population:people with transfusion‐dependent thalassemia Setting: outpatient care Intervention: deferasirox Comparison: deferiprone | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with deferiprone | Risk with deferasirox | |||||
| Mortality at any time point | Study population | not estimable | 146 (3 RCTs) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 1 2 | ||
| 0 per 1.000 | 0 per 1.000 (0 to 0) | |||||
| Responder analysis | Not measured | NA | ||||
| Serum ferritin (ng/mL): mean change from baseline and at end of study | MD 229.99 ng/mL higher (403.14 lower to 863.11 higher) | ‐ | 83 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 3 4 | ||
| LIC (mg/g) evaluated by MRI R2*: mean change from baseline | MD 0.8 mg/g lower (2.75 lower to 1.15 higher) | ‐ | 45 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 3 4 | ||
| Satisfaction | Not measured | NA | ||||
| Adherence: discontinuations | Study population | RR 0.16 (0.01 to 2.99) | 179 (3 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW 2 5 | ||
| 32 per 1.000 | 5 per 1.000 (0 to 95) | |||||
| Renal failure | Study population | not estimable | 38 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 1 6 | ||
| 0 per 1.000 | 0 per 1.000 (0 to 0) | |||||
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; LIC: liver iron concentration; MD: mean difference; MRI: magnetic resonance imaging; NA: not applicable RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect | ||||||
1 Very serious imprecision: only very few number of included participants. 2 Serious risk of bias: selective reporting: Results from Elalfy 2015a for 60 participants not reported. 3 Serious risk of bias: no blinding assumed, selective reporting: Results from Elalfy 2015a for 60 participants not reported. 4 Very serious imprecision: very wide confidence interval including both relevant benefit as well as harm. 5 Serious imprecision: wide CIs including both benefit as well as harm. 6 Serious risk of bias: no blinding assumed.