4.7 Article

A 1-year randomized controlled trial of deferasirox vs deferoxamine for myocardial iron removal in β-thalassemia major (CORDELIA)

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 123, Issue 10, Pages 1447-1454

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2013-04-497842

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Novartis Pharmaceuticals
  2. Novartis Pharma AG
  3. British Heart Foundation [PG/09/074/27961] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0508-10081] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Randomized comparison data on the efficacy and safety of deferasirox for myocardial iron removal in transfusion dependent patients are lacking. CORDELIA was a prospective, randomized comparison of deferasirox (target dose 40 mg/kg per day) vs subcutaneous deferoxamine (50-60 mg/kg per day for 5-7 days/week) for myocardial iron removal in 197 beta-thalassemia major patients with myocardial siderosis (T2* 6-20 milliseconds) and no signs of cardiac dysfunction (mean age, 19.8 years). Primary objective was to demonstrate noninferiority of deferasirox for myocardial iron removal, assessed by changes in myocardial T2* after 1 year using a per-protocol analysis. Geometric mean (Gmean) myocardial T2* improved with deferasirox from 11.2 milliseconds at baseline to 12.6 milliseconds at 1 year (Gmeans ratio, 1.12) and with deferoxamine (11.6 milliseconds to 12.3 milliseconds; Gmeans ratio, 1.07). The between-arm Gmeans ratio was 1.056 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.998, 1.133). The lower 95% CI boundary was greater than the prespecified margin of 0.9, establishing noninferiority of deferasirox vs deferoxamine (P=.057 for superiority of deferasirox). Left ventricular ejection fraction remained stable in both arms. Frequency of drug-related adverse events was comparable between deferasirox (35.4%) and deferoxamine (30.8%). CORDELIA demonstrated the noninferiority of deferasirox compared with deferoxamine for myocardial iron removal. This trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00600938.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available