Estimates of the effect on hepatic iron of oral deferiprone compared with subcutaneous desferrioxamine for treatment of iron overload in thalassemia major: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Beta thalassemia major requires regular blood transfusions and iron chelation to alleviate the harmful accumulation of iron. Evidence on the efficacy and safety of the available agents, desferrioxamine and deferiprone, is derived from small, non-comparative, heterogeneous observational studies. This evidence was reviewed to quantitatively compare the ability of these chelators to reduce hepatic iron. METHODS: The literature was searched using Medline and all reports addressing the effect of either chelator on hepatic iron were considered. Data were abstracted independently by two investigators. Analyses were performed using reported individual patient data. Hepatic iron concentrations at study end and changes over time were compared using ANCOVA, controlling for initial iron load. Differences in the proportions of patients improving were tested using χ(2). RESULTS: Eight of 11 reports identified provided patient-level data relating to 30 desferrioxamine- and 68 deferiprone-treated patients. Desferrioxamine was more likely than optimal dose deferiprone to decrease hepatic iron over the average follow-up of 45 months (odds ratio, 19.0, 95% CI, 2.4 to 151.4). The degree of improvement was also larger with desferrioxamine. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that desferrioxamine is more effective than deferiprone in lowering hepatic iron. This comparative analysis – despite its limitations – should prove beneficial to physicians faced with the challenge of selecting the optimal treatment for their patients

Impact of controllability on pain and suffering

Introduction: Chronic pain and pain-related suffering are major health problems. The lack of controllability of experienced pain seems to greatly contribute to the extent of suffering. This study examined how controllability affects the perception of pain and pain related suffering, and the modulation of this effect by beliefs and emotions such as locus of control of reinforcement, pain catastrophizing, and fear of pain. Methods: Twenty-six healthy subjects received painful electric stimulation in both controllable and uncontrollable conditions. Visual analogue scales and the “Pictorial Representation of Illness and Self Measure” were used to assess pain intensity, unpleasantness, pain-related suffering, and the level of perceived control. We also investigated nonverbal indicators of pain and suffering such as heart rate, skin conductance, and corrugator electromyogram. Results: Controllability selectively reduced the experience of pain-related suffering, but did not affect pain intensity or pain unpleasantness. This effect was modulated by chance locus of control but was unrelated to fear of pain or catastrophizing. Physiological responses were not affected by controllability. In a second sample of 25 participants,we varied the instruction. The effect of controllability on pain-related suffering was only present when instructions focused on the person being able to stop the pain. Discussion: Our data suggest that the additional measure of pain-related suffering may be important in the assessment of pain and may be more susceptible to the effects of perceived control than pain intensity and unpleasantness. We also show that this effect depends on personal involvement