A comparison of treatment regimens for autoimmune hemolytic anemia: A network meta-analysis protocol

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 include any treatment regimens for AIHA in this analysis. This may include (but not limited to) glucocorticoids, rituximab, splenectomy, cyclosporine, or blood products. Blood product transfusion will be presented as a single treatment arm (i.e. different blood products, such as washed or leukoreduced RBCs will not be differentiated). If available, we will create an “untreated” treatment arm, consisting of patients who had not received any treatment regimens for AIHA; although we believe that this may not be possible due to ethical concerns.

Types of Studies

We will include parallel-groups RCTs. If a RCT uses a crossover design, latest data from before the first crossover will be used.

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[3]. 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.

Network Meta-Analysis

We will conduct all statistical analyses using R 3.5.1[4]. We will perform NMAs using the gemtc 0.8-3 library which is based on the Bayesian probability framework[5]. 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) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). For Hb, RBC, reticulocyte counts, hematocrit and total bilirubin, we will report the results as mean differences (MDs) with corresponding 95% CrIs. We will run all network models for a minimum of 100,000 iterations to ensure convergence.

If there are outcomes for which we did not gather enough information to perform an NMA, we will provide a qualitative description of the available data and study outcomes.

Treatment Ranking

We will use SUCRA scores to provide an estimate as to the ranking of treatments. SUCRA scores range from 0 to 1, with higher SUCRA scores indicating more efficacious treatment arms[7].

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.

Heterogeneity Assessment

We will assess statistical heterogeneity within each outcome network using I² statistics and the Cochrane Q test[8]. We will consider an I² index ≥ 75% as an indication for serious heterogeneity. If we observe serious heterogeneity, we will explore the sources of heterogeneity using meta-regression analyses.

Inconsistency

We will assess inconsistency within the network using the node-splitting method[9].

Publication Bias

To assess small-study effects within the networks, we will use a comparison-adjusted funnel plot[10]. We will use Egger’s regression test to check for asymmetry within the funnel plot to identify possible publication bias[11]. The drugs will be sorted according to their efficacy by their SUCRA values, with the assumption that smaller trials tend to favor more efficacious trials.

If we observe significant publication bias, we will perform a sensitivity analysis with limitations on sample sizes.

Quality of Evidence

We will use the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) web application to evaluate confidence in the findings from our NMA[12]. CINeMA adheres to the GRADE approach for evaluating the quality of evidence by assessing network quality based on six criteria: within-study bias, across-study bias, indirectness, imprecision, heterogeneity and incoherence[13,14].

Sensitivity Analyses

We will perform a range of sensitivity analyses, with the following limitations:

• - Including studies that report the same criteria for evaluating AIHA remission (for the outcome of remission incidence only)

• - Including only studies that reported the same follow up periods

• - Including only studies with a low risk of bias

If we observe significant publication bias, we will perform the following sensitivity analyses:

• - Limiting sample size of the included studies to n ≥ 10 in each treatment arm

• - Limiting sample size of the included studies to n ≥ 30 in each treatment arm

• - Limiting sample size of the included studies to n ≥ 50 in each treatment arm

• - Limiting sample size of the included studies to n ≥ 100 in each treatment arm

Meta-Regression

If we observe serious heterogeneity in a network, we will perform meta-regression analysis for gender, age, primary/secondary AIHA percentage for that particular network to determine the source of hetereogeneity. We will report the results of the meta-regression as a regression coefficient with 95% CrI.