Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao American Journal of ...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
American Journal of Hematology
Article . 2014 . Peer-reviewed
License: Wiley Online Library User Agreement
Data sources: Crossref
Blood
Article . 2013 . Peer-reviewed
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 3 versions
addClaim

R2 and R2* are equally effective in evaluating chronic response to iron chelation

Authors: John C, Wood; Pinggao, Zhang; Hugh, Rienhoff; Walid, Abi-Saab; Ellis, Neufeld;

R2 and R2* are equally effective in evaluating chronic response to iron chelation

Abstract

MRI relaxometry (R2, R2*) has generally replaced liver biopsy for estimation of liver iron stores in response to iron chelation, but there have been no longitudinal studies comparing R2 and R2* techniques. We use R2 and R2* liver iron concentration (LIC) estimates, transfusional iron burdens, and drug compliance data to calculate iron chelation efficiency (ICE) in patients undergoing a Phase II trial of SPD602. Fifty‐one patients underwent a baseline examination, 39 patients completed 1 year, and 26 patients completed 2 years. Baseline LICR2 and LICR2* estimates were unbiased, but had limits of agreement exceeding 50%, suggesting that these techniques cannot be interchanged with one another in the same patient. However, ICE estimates across the two techniques compared more favorably, with r2 values reaching 0.89 at 2 years. 95 confidence intervals for efficiency estimates were 0.0 ± 4.1%. These data indicate that clinical trial and clinical effectiveness data calculated using LICR2 and LICR2* estimates can be compared to one another, even though LIC estimates may be disparate on cross‐sectional analysis. While the choice of MRI assessment technique for clinical trials and for clinical management depends on many logistical considerations, one can have confidence comparing conclusions on clinical effectiveness. Am. J. Hematol. 89:505–508, 2014. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Cross-Sectional Studies, Iron Overload, Liver, Humans, Blood Transfusion, Iron Chelating Agents, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Chelation Therapy

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    39
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
39
Top 10%
Top 10%
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!