A multicenter randomized open-label long-term sequential deferiprone-deferoxamine (DFP-DFO) versus DFP alone trial (sequential DFP-DFO) performed in patients with thalassemia major (TM) was retrospectively reanalyzed to assess the variation in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) [1].Serial observations of LVEF over 3 years, in the same patient, were retrospectively assessed in 99 patients with TM during the sequential DFP-DFO multicenter randomized open-label trial [1]. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model was used to demonstrate changes in mean LVEF over time [2].The regression coefficient of treatment suggested that the DFP-alone group showed a statistically significant increase in mean LVEF over time (coefficient 0.97, 95% CI (0.51; 1.44), P-value <0.0001).These findings suggest that long-term treatment with DFP-alone can significantly enhance LVEF over time. These findings agree with a survival analysis reporting a substantial decline in cardiac deaths during recent years, related to the switching of high-risk patients from DFO to chelation regimens that include the oral chelator DFP [3][4][5].Oral chelation treatment has improved greatly adherence and management of patients with TM [6,7].The improvement of the LVEF after 1-year DFP treatment has been reported [8][9][10][11].However, the effects of DFP on LVEF after long-term treatment have not been fully investigated.This letter reports a retrospective survey performed on patients with TM, previously enrolled in a long-term randomized open-label trial carrying ahead in Italy on the behalf of the Italian Society for the Study of Thalassaemia and Haemoglobinopathies (SoSTE) [1]. Ninety-nine out of 213 patients enrolled in the sequential DFP-DFO trial underwent longterm echocardiographic study of LVEF measured at baseline and every 12 months over three consecutive years (Fig. 1). Among these, 39 and 60 received sequential DFP (75 mg/kg for 4 days/week)-DFO (50 mg/kg for 3 days/week) or DFP-alone (75 mg/kg for 7 days/week) treatment, respectively (Table I).The hematological and clinical findings at enrollment are shown in Table I. No differences were observed at baseline between the two randomized groups. Particularly, the main findings of body iron overloading, expressed as serum ferritin at baseline, liver iron concentration (LIC), baseline LVEF <55%, and total number of blood transfusions were not statistically significantly different (Table I). Moreover, although baseline LVEF appears unlike between the two groups ( Fig. 1), this was not statistically significantly different (P-value 5 0.10, Table I).The DFP-alone group showed statistically significant increase over time in mean LVEF in comparison with sequential DFO-FP treatment (coefficient 0.97, 95% CI (0.51; 1.44), P-value <0.0001).Furthermore, the regression coefficient of treatment suggested that there was a statistically significant difference in mean LVEF between the two treated groups favoring the sequential group (coefficient 2.36, 95% CI (0.02; 4.71), P-value 5 0.047, but this ...

Summary Blood transfusions may prevent and treat serious complications related to sickle‐cell disease (SCD) when performed according to specific guidelines. However, blood transfusion requirements in SCD inevitably lead to increased body iron burden. An adequate chelation treatment may prevent complications and reduce morbidity and mortality. This review evaluates the effectiveness, safety and costs of chelation treatment. The included trials were examined according to the recommendations of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA). Overall, 14 trials and a total of 502 patients with SCD were included in this review. Deferoxamine alone (s.c. or i.v.), deferiprone alone or versus deferoxamine, deferasirox versus deferoxamine and combined treatment with deferoxamine plus deferiprone were included and evaluated in the analysis. Only two randomized clinical trials have been reported. The results of this analysis suggest that use of chelation treatment in SCD to date has been based on little efficacy and safety evidence, although it is widely recommended and practised. The cost/benefit ratio has not been fully explored. Further research with larger randomized clinical trials needs to be performed.

No abstract

No abstract