http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5876-2807
Figures
Abstract
Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Several recent controlled trials have reported that deferoxamine (DFX) therapy appears to be effective for ICH. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of DFX therapy for ICH patients and evaluate the efficacy and safety of DFX therapy for ICH patients. We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, clinicaltrials.gov, all Chinese databases and the reference lists of all included studies and review articles. We then performed a systematic review of studies involving the administration of DFX following ICH. Only two studies were included, a prospective, randomized clinical trial and a prospective,observational cohort study with concurrent groups. Qualitative analysis of each study revealed one randomized controlled trial of moderate quality with a moderate risk of bias and one observational cohort study of moderate quality with a moderate risk of bias. DFX may be an effective treatment for edema in patients with ICH. However, due to the small number of trials and small sample sizes of these trials, insufficient evidence exists to determine the effect of DFX on neurologic outcomes after ICH and the safety of this intervention. Further investigation is required before DFX can become a routine treatment for ICH.
Citation: Zeng L, Tan L, Li H, Zhang Q, Li Y, Guo J (2018) Deferoxamine therapy for intracerebral hemorrhage: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 13(3): e0193615. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193615
Editor: Simona Lattanzi, Universita Politecnica delle Marche, ITALY
Received: September 10, 2017; Accepted: January 23, 2018; Published: March 22, 2018
Copyright: © 2018 Zeng et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: This work was supported by the State Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine of the P.R.C (SATCM) (Grant No. ZDJX2012074). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), a subtype of stroke, is caused by the rupture of blood vessels in the brain and is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide[1]. Approximately 40% of patients with ICH die within 30 days, and most survivors are left with severe disability[2, 3]. The acute phase of the mass effect produced by perihematomal edema (PHE) after ICH and other secondary injuries, such as neuronal death, results in neurological deterioration and poor prognosis[4]. However, no specific treatment for PHE and other secondary injuries after ICH currently exists beyond supportive and aggressive medical care[5, 6].
Faced with the limitation of current therapies, deferoxamine (DFX), a potent iron chelator, has become a promising neuro-protective drug that has been repeatedly tested in several studies. Both preliminary experimental and clinical trials has showed improved efficacy with DFX treatment for ICH[7]. Furthermore, a systematic review of DFX for experimental ICH demonstrated that DFX was effective in experimental ICH[8]. Notwithstanding these studies, it is premature to draw conclusion that DFX has sufficient efficacy and safety for patients with ICH due to the limited number of studies involving clinical trials. Furthermore, a search of the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), PROSPERO, Medline and Embase reveals the absence of any systematic review on this topic, except for one on animals[8]. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out an exhaustive literature review to assess all available evidence and explore current knowledge of DFX therapy in the clinical scenario of nonsurgical sICH.
Materials and methods
The review protocol has been registered in PROSPERO, and the registration number is 42016036660.
Research question and objectives
This review aims to answer the following research question: is DFX an effective and safe treatment for edema and hematoma in patients with ICH? The primary objective is to assess the efficacy of DFX for hematoma and edema absorption after ICH; the secondary objective is to assess whether DFX improves neurologic outcomes after ICH and whether it causes adverse events.
Eligibility criteria for the review (PICOS elements)
Detailed information on the participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes and types of studies (PICOS) included are provided in Table 1. Since clinical trials on this topic are rare, and no clear definition of the choice of the treatment window currently exists, the decision to initiate DFX treatment up to 24 h after ICH symptom onset is based on data from animal studies, which is currently considered the most acceptable treatment window[9].
Study design
Scoping searches suggested a paucity of research in this area; therefore we decided to apply a high level of sensitivity and low specificity to the search process and to include not only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but also high-quality, non-RCT studies. All available published data on DFX therapy for patients with ICH were selected for analysis, provided that all the following data were available:
- The data source was a controlled clinical trial or a controlled observational cohort study.
- The study design included the comparison of the efficacy or safety of DFX therapy for patients with ICH in both groups.
- The interventions included medication use, quantity, methods of medication administration, medication dependence, and reported side effects.
Search strategy
A comprehensive search was undertaken, using the following resources:
- Electronic databases: CDSR, Embase (1980 to 15 Sep 2016), Ovid Medline (R) (1950 to 15 Sep 2016), clinicaltrials.gov (from inception to 15 Sep 2016),China National Knowledge Infrastructure (1950 to 15 Sep 2016), VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, Wanfang Database, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (1950 to 15 Sep 2016).
- The following search terms were used: intracerebral h(a)emorrhage OR ICH OR intracranial h(a)emorrhage OR h(a)emorrhagic stroke OR stroke AND deferoxamine OR DFX OR desferrin OR Desferal OR desferrioxamine OR deferoxaminum OR deferoxamine mesylate OR desferrioxamine mesylate OR DFX OR DFM OR DFOM OR DFO OR NOT animal, combined using Boolean logic (AND, OR, NOT). To increase sensitivity, no restrictions were placed on language or study/ trial/review type.
- Grey literature sources: three medical websites (http://www.doc88.com/daokebabakefu; http://www.medlive.cn/; http://www.dxy.cn/) were contacted for recent, or in-progress.
- The following journals were searched by hand from Jan. 2004 to 15 Sep 2016: Stoke; Neurology; Surgical Neurology; Journal of Clinical Neurology; Stroke and Nervous Diseases; and Chinese Journal of Neurology.
Applying selection/eligibility criteria to search results
Search results were merged using Endnote Reference Manager 7 software, and duplicates/multiple reports were removed, leaving 53 articles. Forty-five reports were excluded after review of the title and abstract. A flow chart based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)[10] is shown in Fig 1.
PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; RCT, randomized controlled trial.
Reasons for exclusion included animal experimentation, non-ICH- induced edema, and study type. The review process was independently undertaken by two reviewers (Liling Zeng and Haijun Li), with blinding to reduce bias. Disagreements were addressed by discussion with a third reviewer (Yongxian Li). The full texts of 8 studies were sought. These full-text studies were independently examined by both authors for compliance with the eligibility criteria shown in Table 2; 6 studies were excluded[7, 11–15], and two trials[16, 17], including one RCT and one prospective, controlled, observation cohort study, were deemed suitable for inclusion. The basic study design characteristics were collected and tabulated in Table 3, using a custom-designed data extraction form designed according to the Cochrane Review checklist 7.3a[18].
Quality assessment
Research may vary considerably in methodological rigor, and flaws in the design or conduct of a study could introduce bias, obscuring the benefit/harm of an intervention. Each study included in a review must therefore undergo a quality assessment (QA) process[19]. The Cochrane Review Handbook (5.1.0)[18] for RCTs was chosen for this review as it covers sequence generation, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting and other sources of bias, fully assessing the quality of a study. No established QA guidelines were available on cohort studies, and the assessment instrument designed for observational studies by Liu et al[20] was adapted for this analysis. The checklist of the assessment instrument includes the following key elements [20]: (1) clear definition of the study population; (2) independent assessment of outcome parameters; (3) clear definition of outcomes and outcome assessment; (4) sufficient duration of follow-up; (5) no selective loss during follow-up; and (6) identification of important confounders and prognostic factors identified. If a study did not clearly mention one of these key points, we considered that it had not been performed. As a result, the reported characteristics were probably underestimated.
Results
We identified 79 publications from the above-described electronic search; 26 were excluded due to duplication (n = 26). We screened 53 publications based on title and abstract and excluded 45 publications due to failure to meet the inclusion criteria (n = 45). After the full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, an additional 6 publications were excluded due to protocol only (n = 1), performance of a review only (n = 3), and pilot or similar study or duplicated publication(n = 2). Finally, this systematic review included 2 articles published before 2015 that met the inclusion criteria.
In the two eligible clinical trials[17–18]with a total of 71 patients, 40 patients were treated with DFX and compared with 31 patients who were treated without DFX. One of these studies was a prospective, randomized clinical trial[17], and the other was a prospective, observational cohort study[18] with concurrent groups. Data extraction sheets and QA forms were completed for each study and are shown in Tables 3–5. A meta-analysis was not appropriate for the current review because of the small number of eligible studies and differences in the research methods. However, a brief qualitative analysis of the evidence is presented in narrative form, supplemented by Tables 4 and 5. No significant difference was observed in the mean follow-up duration between the treatment group and the control group.
Review of objectives
Is DFX an effective treatment for edema and hematoma in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage?
The two included trials measured and compared the relative edema volume in both the experimental and control groups at three different times.
Yu et al[17] reported that the control group’s relative edema volume on the fourth, eighth, and fifteenth day (or discharge) was higher than that of the experimental group (P<0.05). However, the control group’s 1–8 day and 8–15 day relative hematoma absorption were greater than those of the experimental group (P<0.05), suggesting that DFX might slow hematoma absorption and inhibit edema after ICH. Similarly, Wu et al[18] found that the control group’s relative edema volumes on the first, 7th, and 14th day (or discharge) were higher than those of the experimental group. Thus, DFX may be an effective treatment for edema in patients with ICH. However, this evidence was based on one RCT of moderate quality with a moderate risk of bias and one observational cohort study of moderate quality with a moderate risk of bias—that is, level 2 evidence, which was deemed inadequate for making any recommendation to introduce this intervention based on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines for evidence grading[21].
Dose DFX improve neurologic outcomes after ICH?
In both studies, the researchers performed neurological deficit assessments, using a variety of measurement tools. Yu et al[17] reported that neurological scores between the two groups did not differ significantly on the fifteenth day (or discharge) or on the thirtieth day. However, Wu[18] reported a significantly greater reduction in neurological scores on the 7th and 14th days after sICH for the experimental group (mean score 11.7 ± 4.1 and 7.4 ± 2.6) than for the control group (15.1 ± 4.9 and 11.8 ± 5.6, P<0.05). However, no significant differences existed on the 90th day. Because of the small number of trials and small sample sizes of these trials, this review concluded that there was no sufficient evidence that DFX could improve neurologic outcomes after ICH and that further investigation was required.
How is the consistency in DFX treatment protocol?
Absence of uniformity or consistency was found in the two included studies, because the dose of DFX ranged from 20 to 32 mg/kg daily, and the duration of follow-up varied from 30 days to 90 days. Furthermore, although the interventions performed in both studies were with DFX, few details were provided about the manufacturer, auxiliary material or specification of the DFX.
Are the details about adverse events acceptable?
Both of the studies provided serious adverse event (SAE) information related to DFX. One study reported no adverse events while patients used DFX. The other authors claimed that no SAEs were associated with DFX; however, the frequency of general adverse events was not reported. This review therefore found that no robust evidence existed regarding the safety of DFX treatment in ICH patients and that further research was needed.
Discussion
To date, no specific treatment has proven clinically effective for ICH[5, 6]. Iron chelation has been anticipated as a suggested therapeutic treatment for ICH. Understanding how iron acts to cause secondary brain damage after ICH and the mechanisms by which the brain might be affected by iron chelation may provide a new targeted therapeutic directed toward preventing or slowing secondary injuries. Secondary injuries after ICH, such as PHE and neuronal death, are the main reasons leading to poor prognosis. Levels of non-transferrin bound iron within the brain increase substantially after ICH [22, 23]and iron-mediated free radical injury is significantly associated with secondary damage, resulting in brain edema, neuronal death and poor neurologic outcomes after ICH[24–26]. These findings indicate that the improved management of iron overload and prevention of second damage may be a promising treatment for ICH [7].
Currently, mounting evidence indicates that DFX, a ferric-iron chelator, is a candidate drug for the treatment of ICH. DFX can cross the blood-brain barrier and chelate iron ions[27], with a subsequent decrease of iron accumulation in nerve tissue[28, 29]. By this mechanism, DFX exerts various neuroprotective functions, raising anticipation of its potential for ICH treatment[7].
However, potential toxic effects of DFX such as growth failure or bone abnormalities[30, 31], hearing impairment[32], visual loss[33, 34], renal toxicity[35], cardiac disease[36] and other side effects[37, 38]have been reported in previous studies, although they were not reported in the studies included in the current review. While the mechanism leading to tissue damage resulting in side effects is not known, it may be more directly related to the high DFX peak doses administered[39, 40]. Three days of DFX infusion at 62 mg/kg/day (maximum dose not to exceed 6000 mg/day) was confirmed as safe and tolerated by ICH patients[15].
This is the first systematic review of DFX in patients with ICH. Many experimental studies have confirmed the efficacy and safety of DFX in the ICH rat model, and more clinical studies of DFX in ICH patients will be launched soon. Some anecdotal and clinical evidence suggests a potentially beneficial role for DFX in the treatment of ICH[7,14]. Indeed, a high-quality, phase II, non-randomized and non-controlled study has suggested that this intervention has merit[15]. Since DFX therapy is still a new and potential treatment for ICH, and many studies of DFX are still in the early stages, few eligible clinical trials were included in this systematic review. Even though this systematic review indicates a current lack of high-quality evidence to advocate the use of DFX as a routine treatment for ICH, it provides some significant reference on study design for future research. The lack of evidence may be due to limitations, including possible publication bias, poor study quality, and the limited number of studies. These limitations are discussed below.
Study quality
Although the highest effect size of DFX was found in the two included studies,they were more likely to overestimate the effect sizes. Moreover, we observed that incomplete outcome data, a measurement to reduce bias, was present in one study[15], and not reported in the other study[16].
Study design
Based on preclinical data from animal studies[8], DFX treatment was initiated in the two included studies up to 24 h after ICH symptom onset and demonstrated great efficacy with no SAEs in the early time points, which may be instructive for future studies. Regarding DFX dose and course of treatment, one study used 32 mg/kg daily, and the other used 20 mg/kg daily.In both studies, DFX was administered for 3 consecutive days from the first admission day with no marked difference in efficacy. However, clinical data regarding the effectiveness and complications of DFX and other iron chelators in human patients with acute stroke, particularly in patients with ICH, are quite limited[7]. Thus, only one phase I clinical trial in humans has been performed to explore the tolerability and safety of DFX using a dose-response relationship[15], suggesting that consecutive daily infusions of DFX after ICH were feasible, well-tolerated, and not associated with excessive SAEs or mortality, which laid the groundwork for future studies to evaluate the efficacy of DFX in ICH.
Limitations
The limited number of studies may be the main limitation in this review, resulting in the lack of evidence for the efficacy and safety of DFX in ICH. The reasons for the limited number of high quality studies may be because DFX has attracted attention only recently, and there is still a lack of evidence-based medical research on study design, including the choice of subjects, dose of DFX and outcome measures.In addition, some clinical trials of DFX in ICH patients are still ongoing and unpublished.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Professor Zehuai Wen and Dr. Wenwei Ouyang because they directed the study design and the quality monitoring.
References
- 1. Sangha N, Gonzales NR. Treatment targets in intracerebral hemorrhage. Neurotherapeutics. 2011;8: 374–387. pmid:21732225
- 2. Qureshi AI, Mendelow AD, Hanley DF. Intracerebral haemorrhage. Lancet. 2009;373: 1632–1644. pmid:19427958
- 3. van Asch CJ, Luitse MJ, Rinkel GJ, van der Tweel I, Algra A, Klijn CJ. Incidence, case fatality, and functional outcome of intracerebral haemorrhage over time, according to age, sex, and ethnic origin: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Neurol. 2010;9: 167–176. pmid:20056489
- 4. Zheng H, Chen C, Zhang J, Hu Z. Mechanism and Therapy of Brain Edema after Intracerebral Hemorrhage. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2016;42: 155–169. pmid:27110940
- 5. Hemphill JC 3rd, Greenberg SM, Anderson CS, Becker K, Bendok BR, Cushman M, et al. Guidelines for the Management of Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2015;46: 2032–2060. pmid:26022637
- 6. Rabinstein AA. Intracerebral haemorrhage: no good treatment but treatment helps. Lancet. 2017;389: 575–576. pmid:28081951
- 7. Selim M. Deferoxamine mesylate: a new hope for intracerebral hemorrhage: from bench to clinical trials. Stroke. 2009;40: S90–91. pmid:19064798
- 8. Cui HJ, He HY, Yang AL, Zhou HJ, Wang C, Luo JK, et al. Efficacy of deferoxamine in animal models of intracerebral hemorrhage: a systematic review and stratified meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10: e0127256. pmid:26000830
- 9. Okauchi M, Hua Y, Keep RF, Morgenstern LB, Xi G. Effects of deferoxamine on intracerebral hemorrhage-induced brain injury in aged rats. Stroke. 2009;40: 1858–1863. pmid:19286595
- 10. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339: b2535. pmid:19622551
- 11. Sun Y, Ayituka DE, Zhao W, Zhu CP, Kong ZP, Xu Y, Liu GZ, Yu Y, Gao XG. Effect of deferoxamine mesylate oil occupied volume and 90 days prognosis in patients after intracerebral hemorrhage.Chin Neuromed. 2015; 14: 1023–1026.
- 12. Hua Y, Keep RF, Hoff JT, Xi G. Deferoxamine therapy for intracerebral hemorrhage. Acta Neurochir Suppl. 2008;105: 3–6. pmid:19066072
- 13. Selim M, Yeatts S, Goldstein JN, Gomes J, Greenberg S, Morgenstern LB, et al. Safety and tolerability of deferoxamine mesylate in patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage. Stroke. 2011;42: 3067–3074. pmid:21868742
- 14. Chaudhary N, Gemmete JJ, Thompson BG, Xi G, Pandey AS. Iron—potential therapeutic target in hemorrhagic stroke. World Neurosurg. 2013;79: 7–9. pmid:23174156
- 15. Yeatts SD, Palesch YY, Moy CS, Selim M. High dose deferoxamine in intracerebral hemorrhage (HI-DEF) trial: rationale, design, and methods. Neurocrit Care. 2013;19: 257–266. pmid:23943316
- 16. Wu G, Hu SK, Chang C, Chen W, Sha LG, Gao X, et al. Effects of deferoxamine in patients of spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage. Chin J Neurosurg. 2014.30: 1235–1238.
- 17. Yu Y, Zhao W, Zhu C, Kong Z, Xu Y, Liu G, et al. The clinical effect of deferoxamine mesylate on edema after intracerebral hemorrhage. PLoS One. 2015;10: e0122371. pmid:25875777
- 18.
Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.Version 5.1.0[updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
- 19. Hearn J, Feuer D, Higginson IJ, Sheldon Tl. Systematic reviews. Palliat Med 1999;13:75–80. pmid:10320880
- 20. Liu T, Li G, Li L, Korantzopoulos P. Association between C-reactive protein and recurrence of atrial fibrillation after successful electrical cardioversion: A meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:1642–8. Epub 2007 Apr 2. pmid:17433956
- 21.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence NICE Guidelines for Evidence Grading. 2005.Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/pdf/GDM_Chapter7_0305.pdf.
- 22. Wu J, Hua Y, Keep RF, Nakamura T, Hoff JT, Xi G. Iron and iron-handling proteins in the brain after intracerebral hemorrhage. Stroke. 2003;34: 2964–2969. pmid:14615611
- 23. Mehdiratta M, Kumar S, Hackney D, Schlaug G, Selim M. Association between serum ferritin level and perihematoma edema volume in patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage. Stroke. 2008;39: 1165–1170. pmid:18292378
- 24. Xi G, Keep RF, Hoff JT. Mechanisms of brain injury after intracerebral haemorrhage. Lancet Neurol. 2006;5: 53–63. pmid:16361023
- 25. Qing WG, Dong YQ, Ping TQ, Lai LG, Fang LD, Min HW, et al. Brain edema after intracerebral hemorrhage in rats: the role of iron overload and aquaporin 4. J Neurosurg. 2009;110: 462–468. pmid:19025353
- 26. Perez ON, Sobrino T, Silva Y, Blanco M, Millan M, Gomis M, et al. Iron-related brain damage in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage. Stroke. 2010;41: 810–813. pmid:20185788
- 27. Keberle H. The biochemistry of desferrioxamine and its relation to iron metabolism. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1964;119: 758–768. pmid:14219455
- 28. Palmer C, Roberts RL, Bero C. Deferoxamine post treatment reduces ischemic brain injury in neonatal rats. Stroke. 1994; 25:1039–1045. pmid:8165675
- 29. Hwang BY, Appelboom G, Ayer A, Kellner CP, Kotchetkov IS, Gigante PR, et al. Advances in neuroprotective strategies: potential therapies for intracerebral hemorrhage. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2011;31: 211–222. pmid:21178344
- 30. Piga A, Luzzatto L, Capalbo P, Gambotto S, Tricta F, Gabutti V. High-dose desferrioxamine as a cause of growth failure in thalassemic patients. Eur J Haematol. 1988;40: 380–381. pmid:3366230
- 31. Olivieri NF, Ko G-DGA, DHatraewJA H-, Kdectak S-DSA, MHA FMH-D, DMA TDM-D, et al. Growth failure and bony changes induced by deferoxamine. 1992;14: 48–56.
- 32. Badfar G, Mansouri A, Shohani M, Karimi H, Khalighi Z, Rahmati S, et al. Hearing loss in Iranian thalassemia major patients treated with deferoxamine: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Caspian J Intern Med. 2017;8: 239–249. pmid:29201313
- 33. Rahi AH, Hungerford JL, Ahmed AI. Ocular toxicity of desferrioxamine: light microscopic histochemical and ultrastructural findings. Br J Ophthalmol. 1986;70: 373–381. pmid:3964637
- 34. De Virgiliis S, Congia M, Turco MP, Frau F, Dessi C, Argiolu F, et al. Depletion of trace elements and acute ocular toxicity induced by desferrioxamine in patients with thalassaemia. Arch Dis Child. 1988;63: 250–255. pmid:3355204
- 35. Ricchi P, Ammirabile M, Costantini S, Spasiano A, Di MT, Cinque P, et al. Nephrolithiasis in patients exposed to deferasirox and desferioxamine: probably an age-linked event with different effects on some renal parameters. Ann Hematol. 2014;93: 525–527. pmid:23807253
- 36. Borgna-Pignatti C, Cappellini MD, De Stefano P, Del VGC, Forni GL, Gamberini MR, et al. Cardiac morbidity and mortality in deferoxamine- or deferiprone-treated patients with thalassemia major. Blood. 2006;107: 3733–3737. pmid:16373663
- 37. Gallant T, Freedman MH, Vellend H, Francombe WH. Yersinia sepsis in patients with iron overload treated with deferoxamine. N Engl J Med. 1986;314: 1643.
- 38. Derin S, Erdogan S, Sahan M, Azik MF, Derin H, Topal Y, et al. Olfactory dysfunction in beta-thalassemia major patients treated with iron-chelating agents. Ear Nose Throat J. 2017;96: E8–8E12.
- 39. Porter JB, Jaswon MS, Huehns ER, East CA, Hazell JW. Desferrioxamine ototoxicity: evaluation of risk factors in thalassaemic patients and guidelines for safe dosage. Br J Haematol. 1989;73: 403–409. pmid:2605127
- 40. Hamilton JL, Imran UM, Abbina S, Kalathottukaren MT, Lai BF, Hatef A, et al. In vivo efficacy, toxicity and biodistribution of ultra-long circulating desferrioxamine based polymeric iron chelator. Biomaterials. 2016;102: 58–71. pmid:27322959