Platelet-rich-plasmapheresis for minimising peri-operative allogeneic blood transfusion.

BACKGROUND: Concerns regarding the safety of transfused blood have generated considerable enthusiasm for the use of technologies intended to reduce the use of allogeneic blood (blood from an unrelated donor). Platelet-rich plasmapheresis (PRP) offers an alternative approach to blood conservation. OBJECTIVES: To examine the evidence for the efficacy of PRP in reducing peri-operative allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, and the evidence for any effect on clinical outcomes such as mortality and re-operation rates. SEARCH STRATEGY: We identified studies by searching MEDLINE (1950 to 2009), EMBASE (1980 to 2009), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2009), the Internet (to March 2009) and the reference lists of published articles, reports, and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Controlled parallel group trials in which adult patients, scheduled for non-urgent surgery, were randomised to PRP, or to a control group which did not receive the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcomes measured were: the number of patients exposed to allogeneic RBC transfusion, and the amount of RBC transfused. Other outcomes measured were: the number of patients exposed to allogeneic platelet transfusions, fresh frozen plasma, and cryoprecipitate, blood loss, re-operation for bleeding, post-operative complications (thrombosis), mortality, and length of hospital stay. Treatment effects were pooled using a random-effects model. Trial quality was assessed using criteria proposed by Schulz et al (Schulz 1995). MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-two trials of PRP were identified that reported data for the number of patients exposed to allogeneic RBC transfusion. These trials evaluated a total of 1589 patients. The relative risk (RR) of exposure to allogeneic blood transfusion in those patients randomised to PRP was 0.73 (95%CI 0.59 to 0.90), equating to a relative risk reduction (RRR) of 27% and a risk difference (RD) of 19% (95%CI 10% to 29%). However, significant heterogeneity of treatment effect was observed (p < 0.00001; I² = 79%). When the four trials by Boldt are excluded, the RR is 0.76 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.93). On average, PRP did not significantly reduce the total volume of RBC transfused (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.69, 95%CI -1.93 to 0.56 units). Trials provided inadequate data regarding the impact of PRP on morbidity, mortality, and hospital length of stay. Trials were generally small and of poor methodological quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although the results suggest that PRP is effective in reducing allogeneic RBC transfusion in adult patients undergoing elective surgery, there was considerable heterogeneity of treatment effects and the trials were of poor methodological quality. The available studies provided inadequate data for firm conclusions to be drawn regarding the impact of PRP on clinically important endpoints.

Fibrin sealant use for minimising peri-operative allogeneic blood transfusion

It presents the fibrin sealants as an alternative to reduce peri-operative blood loss and the need for blood transfusion.

LDL-cholesterol differences predicted survival benefit in statin trials by the surrogate threshold effect (STE).

OBJECTIVE: We describe a new statistical method called the surrogate threshold effect (STE) that estimates the threshold level of a surrogate needed in a clinical trial to predict a benefit in the target clinical outcome. In this article, we apply this method to the LDL-cholesterol biomarker surrogate and survival benefit-target outcome in statin trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We identified randomized trials comparing statin treatment to placebo treatment or no treatment and reporting all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Trials with fewer than five all-cause deaths in at least one arm were excluded. Multiple regression modeled the reduction in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality as a function of LDL-cholesterol difference. The 95% confidence and 95% prediction bands were calculated and graphed to determine the minimum LDL-cholesterol difference (the surrogate threshold) below which there would be no predicted survival benefit. RESULTS: In 16 qualifying trials, regression analysis yielded an all-cause mortality model whose prediction bands demonstrated no overall survival gain with LDL-cholesterol difference values below 1.5 mmol/L. The cardiovascular mortality model yielded prediction bands that demonstrated no cardiovascular survival benefit with LDL-cholesterol difference values below 1.4 mmol/L. CONCLUSIONS: In a multitrial setting, the STE approach is a promising yet straightforward statistical method for evaluating the surrogate validity of biomarkers.

Response rate or time to progression as predictors of survival in trials of metastatic colorectal cancer or non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The duration and cost of cancer clinical trials could be reduced if a surrogate endpoint were used in place of survival. We did a meta-analysis to assess the extent to which two surrogates, tumour response and time to progression, are predictive of mortality in metastatic colorectal cancer and non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: Summary data (median time to progression, proportion of patients responding to treatment, and median overall survival) from randomised trials of first-line treatment in colorectal cancer (146 trials) and lung cancer (191 trials) were identified. Data were extracted and analysed by linear regression. We used prediction bands for trials with 250, 500, and 750 patients to identify the surrogate threshold effect that would predict a significant difference in survival. FINDINGS: Response to treatment and time to progression correlated with improvement in survival for both lung cancer (p<0.0001 and p=0.0003, respectively) and colorectal cancer (p<0.0001 for both). To predict a significant survival gain in colorectal cancer trials, an improvement of 20% in the number of patients responding to treatment was required in trials with 750 patients, increasing to 26% in trials with 500 patients and 38% in trials with 250 patients. In lung cancer trials, the same prediction required differences in response of 18% for 750 patients, 21% for 500 patients, and 30% for 250 patients. For time to progression for both cancer types, the incremental gain needed to predict a survival improvement was a median of 1.8 months for trials with 750 patients, 2.2 months for 500 patients, and 3.3 months for 250 patients. INTERPRETATION: Irrespective of trial size, large differences in tumour response rate are needed to predict a significant survival benefit. If surrogates are chosen as the primary endpoint in a clinical trial, time to progression is the preferred measure because more modest and achievable differences are needed for a significant survival benefit. Trials in metastatic lung cancer and colorectal cancer should measure survival as their primary outcome unless the surrogate outcome difference is anticipated to exceed the threshold effect size.