Publication:
Treatment efficacy for adult persistent immune thrombocytopenia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

dc.contributor.authorTeeraya Puavilaien_US
dc.contributor.authorKunlawat Thadaniponen_US
dc.contributor.authorSasivimol Rattanasirien_US
dc.contributor.authorAtiporn Ingsathiten_US
dc.contributor.authorMark McEvoyen_US
dc.contributor.authorJohn Attiaen_US
dc.contributor.authorAmmarin Thakkinstianen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of Newcastle, Faculty of Health and Medicineen_US
dc.contributor.otherFaculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol Universityen_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-01-27T10:37:06Z
dc.date.available2020-01-27T10:37:06Z
dc.date.issued2019-01-01en_US
dc.description.abstract© 2019 The Authors. British Journal of Haematology published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd Persistent immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) patients require second-line treatments, for which information on clinical outcomes are lacking. A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted. Only randomised controlled trials (RCT) of second-line drugs in adult persistent ITP patients with platelet response, platelet count, any bleeding or serious adverse events (SAE) outcome were eligible. Twelve RCTs (n = 1313) were included in NMA. For platelet response outcome, eltrombopag and romiplostin were the best relative to placebo; the former had a non-significant advantage [risk ratio (RR) = 1·10 (95% confidence interval: 0·46, 2·67)]. Both treatments were superior to rituximab and recombinant human thrombopoietin (rhTPO)+rituximab, with corresponding RRs of 4·56 (1·89, 10·96) and 4·18 (1·21, 14·49) for eltrombopag; 4·13 (1·56, 10·94) and 3·79 (1·02, 14·09) for romiplostim. For platelet count, romiplostim ranked highest, followed by eltrombopag, rhTPO+rituximab, and rituximab. For bleeding, rituximab had lowest risk, followed by eltrombopag and romiplostim. For SAEs, rhTPO+rituximab had highest risk, followed by rituximab, eltrombopag and romiplostim. From clustered ranking, romiplostim had the best balance between short-term efficacy and SAEs, followed by eltrombopag. In conclusion, romiplostim and eltrombopag may yield high efficacy and safety. Rituximab may not be beneficial due to lower efficacy and higher complications compared with the thrombopoietin receptor agonists. RCTs with long-term clinical outcomes are required.en_US
dc.identifier.citationBritish Journal of Haematology. (2019)en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/bjh.16161en_US
dc.identifier.issn13652141en_US
dc.identifier.issn00071048en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85070802922en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/52343
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85070802922&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleTreatment efficacy for adult persistent immune thrombocytopenia: a systematic review and network meta-analysisen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85070802922&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections