4.6 Article

Tranexamic acid for epistaxis in hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia patients: a European cross-over controlled trial in a rare disease

期刊

JOURNAL OF THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS
卷 12, 期 9, 页码 1494-1502

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jth.12654

关键词

epistaxis; hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia; Osler-Rendu disease; randomized controlled trial; tranexamic acid

资金

  1. Hospices Civils de Lyon (France)
  2. French Ministry of Health (Hospital Clinical Research Programme (PHRC) grant)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundHereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT) is a genetic disorder associated with abnormal angiogenesis and disabling epistaxis. Tranexamic acid (TA) has been widely used in the treatment of these severe bleeds but with no properly designed trial. ObjectivesTo demonstrate the efficacy of TA in epistaxis in HHT patients and to explore its safety of use. Patients/MethodsA randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, cross-over trial was conducted. Participants were randomized to receive TA (3g a day) then placebo or the opposite sequence. The main analysis compared intra-individual mean duration of epistaxis under TA vs. placebo on a log scale. The primary outcome was the mean duration of epistaxis per month, assessed with specific grids to be completed by participants. The number of epistaxis episodes was recorded as a secondary outcome. ResultsA total of 118 randomized patients contributed to the statistical analysis. The mean duration of epistaxis per month was significantly shorter with TA than placebo (0.19 on the log scale; SD=0.07; P=0.005), corresponding to a decrease of 17.3% (15.7min) in the duration of epistaxis per month (CI 95%, 5.5-27.6). The median number of epistaxis episodes per month was 22.1 episodes in the placebo arm vs. 23.3 episodes in the TA arm. No thrombophlebitis was observed. ConclusionsIn the ATERO study, we demonstrated a significant decrease in the duration of epistaxis in HHT patients taking TA. No safety issues were recorded in our cohort of patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据