Abstract
Autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) is a rare blood disorder that results in hemolysis of red blood cells (RBCs) due to the presence of autoantibodies in the serum. Previous research has shown that the use of therapeutic plasma exchange therapy (TPE) may be effective at treating AIHA by removing autoimmune antibodies from the intravascular space. However, very little knowledge synthesis is available on the use of TPE in AIHA patients due to the rarity of the disease. We propose a meta-analysis that investigates whether the use of TPE, with or without concurrent treatment regimens, can decrease adverse events, increase remission rate and improve lab results including hemoglobin, RBC, reticulocyte counts, hematocrit and total bilirubin.
INTRODUCTION
Autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) is a rare blood disorder characterized by the hemolysis of self red blood cells (RBCs) as a result of the production of autoantibodies[1]. Previous research had shown that the use of therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) may be effective in increasing remission in AIHA patients[1]. However, there are no knowledge synthesis in this area of study, since AIHA is a rare disease. We propose to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate whether the use of TPE can decrease adverse events, increase the rate of remission and improve lab figures.
METHODS
We will conduct this meta-analysis in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework[2]. This study is currently being reviewed for registration on The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Any significant amendments to this protocol will be reported and published with the results of the review.
This study is conducted concurrently with the project “Therapeutic use of blood products for the treatment of autoimmune hemolytic anemia: A network meta-analysis”, and thus they share the same search strategy and various aspects of study design. The protocol for the “Therapeutic use of blood products for the treatment of autoimmune hemolytic anemia: A network meta-analysis” can be found here: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.15.20017657.
Eligibility Criteria
Types of Participants
We will include adult patients (18 years or older) who have been diagnosed with autoimmune hemolytic anemia, defined as per individual study criteria.
Types of Interventions
We will first include all studies that include the use of TPE. We will then categorize the included studies using the following classifications, as reported by ter Veer et al[3]:
Treatment A vs. Treatment B
Treatment B+A vs. Treatment B+C
Treatment A vs. Treatment A+B
Studies satisfying category 3), where Treatment B consists of TPE, will be included. The concurrent treatment arm, Treatment A, should remain the same between treatment arms. Studies where TPE is compared to no treatment will be included as well. If a study contains more than 2 treatment arms, only the treatment arms satisfying category 3) will be included.
Types of Studies
We will include randomized and quasi-randomized parallel-groups RCTs.
Primary Outcomes
Remission Incidence (n)
We will evaluate incidence of remission based on data collected at the latest follow-up. Definitions of remission will be defined as per individual study criteria. We expect the definitions of remission to be a combination of improvements in clinical symptoms and lab results.
Secondary Outcomes
Lab Results
We will evaluate hemoglobin count (g/L), RBC count (1012/L), reticulocyte count (%), hematocrit (%), and total bilirubin (μmol/L) based on the latest lab results.
Adverse Events (n)
We will evaluate the incidence of adverse events based on data collected at the latest follow-up. Definitions of adverse events will be defined as per individual study criteria.
Search Methods for Identification of Studies
Electronic Database Search
We will conduct a database search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and CENTRAL from inception to January 2020. We will use relevant MeSH headings to ensure appropriate inclusion of titles and abstracts (see Table 1 for search strategy).
MEDLINE Search Strategy
Major Chinese databases, including Wanfang Data, Wanfang Med Online, CNKI, and CQVIP will also be searched using a custom Chinese search strategy.
The study strategy utilized in this study will be shared with the study “Therapeutic use of blood products for the treatment of autoimmune hemolytic anemia: A network meta-analysis”.
Other Data Sources
We will also conduct hand search the reference list of previous meta-analyses and NMAs for included articles.
Data Collection and Analysis
Study Selection
We will perform title and abstract screening independently and in duplicate using Rayyan QCRI (https://rayyan.qcri.org). Studies will only be selected for full-text screening if both reviewers deem the study relevant. Full-text screening will also be conducted in duplicate. We will resolve any conflicts via discussion and consensus or by recruiting a third author for arbitration.
Data Collection
We will carry out data collection independently and in duplicate using data extraction sheets developed a priori. We will resolve discrepancies by recruiting a third author to review the data.
Risk of Bias
We will assess risk of bias (RoB) independently and in duplicate using The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials[4]. Two reviewers will assess biases within each article in seven domains: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other biases (see Table 2 for definitions of RoB domains).
Definitions of Risk of Bias Domains
If a majority of domains are considered to be low risk, the study will be assigned a low RoB. Similarly, if a majority of domains are considered to be high risk, the study will be assigned a high RoB. If more than half of the domains have unclear risk or if there are an equivalent number of low and high, low and unclear or high and unclear domains, the study will be assigned an unclear RoB.
Data Items
Bibliometric Data
Authors, year of publication, trial registration, digital object identifier (DOI), publication journal, funding sources and conflict of interest.
Methodology
# of participating centers, study setting, blinding methods, phase of study, enrollment duration, randomization and allocation methods, criteria for remission.
Baseline Data
# randomized, # analyzed, mean age, sex, baseline lab results, follow up duration.
Outcomes
# of patients in remission at the latest follow up, lab results at the latest follow up, # of patients who had experienced at least one adverse event at the latest follow up.
Statistical Analysis
Meta-Analysis
We will conduct all statistical analyses using R 3.6.2[5]. We will perform meta-analyses using the meta library. Because we expect significant heterogeneity among studies due to differences in methodology, we will use a random effects model[6].
For remission incidence and adverse event incidence we will report the results of the analyses as risk ratio (RR), pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel method[7], with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with Hartung-Knapp adjustment for random effects model[8]. For Hb, RBC, reticulocyte counts, hematocrit and total bilirubin, we will report the results as mean differences (MDs), pooled using the inverse variance method[9], with corresponding 95% CIs with Hartung-Knapp adjustment for random effects model[8]. We used the Sidik-Jonkman estimator[8,9] for τ2 calculations, and we used the Q-profile method[10] for estimating the confidence interval of τ2 and τ.
Missing Data
We will attempt to contact the authors of the original studies to obtain missing or unpublished data. If we cannot obtain missing standard deviations (SDs), the study will be excluded from the analysis even if the mean was provided. SDs will not be imputed.
Heterogeneity Assessment
We will assess statistical heterogeneity using I2 statistics, τ2 and Cochran’s Q[11]. We will identify the source of heterogeneity by
identify outlier studies with treatment effect that is not included in the 95% confidence interval of the pooled effect size using the dmetar library;
perform influence analyses, or the “leave-one-out” analysis, where the meta-analysis is repeated with one study omitted, using the dmetar library;
Perform GOSH analyses[12] using the metafor library. The GOSH plot will be examined for evaluable clusters, and gosh.diagnostics function will be used to identify the outlying studies if there are evaluable clusters.
We will perform sensitivity analyses excluding outlier studies to observe the outliers’ effects on the original pooled effect size and heterogeneity measures.
Publication Bias
We will use funnel plots[13] to detect the presence of small study effects. We will use Egger’s test[14] to check for asymmetry within the funnel plot to identify possible publication bias. If Egger’s test reveals significant publication bias, we will use the trim-and-fill method[15] to estimate the actual effect size with imputations of the missing small studies. This will be done using the trimfill method in the meta library.
We will also perform p-curve[16] analyses to detect the presence of “p-hacking”[17] using the dmetar library. We will report whether we observed evidence of “p-hacking”, such as a lack of right skew in the p-curve plot or low estimated statistical power.
Meta-Regression
We will perform meta-regression on:
% of patients with primary/secondary AIHA
% of patients with warm/cold AIHA
% female patients
follow up periods
Data Availability
No data is available for this manuscript.
AUTHOR STATEMENT
JD made significant contributions to conception and design of the work, drafted the work, and substantially reviewed it.
FUNDING
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
No potential conflicts of interest were reported by the authors.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
None