Efficacy of therapeutic plasma exchange for the treatment of autoimmune hemolytic anemia: Protocol for a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

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]:

1. Treatment A vs. Treatment B

2. Treatment B+A vs. Treatment B+C

3. 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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

1. identify outlier studies with treatment effect that is not included in the 95% confidence interval of the pooled effect size using the dmetar library;

2. perform influence analyses, or the “leave-one-out” analysis, where the meta-analysis is repeated with one study omitted, using the dmetar library;

3. 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:

1. % of patients with primary/secondary AIHA

2. % of patients with warm/cold AIHA

3. % female patients

4. follow up periods