MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2509834150 · doi:10.1542/gr.36-3-34

Romiplostim Therapy of Immune Thrombocytopenia

2016· article· en· W2509834150 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueAAP Grand Rounds · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePlatelet Disorders and Treatments
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRomiplostimMedicineThrombopoietin receptorImmune thrombocytopeniaThrombocytopenic purpuraPlaceboThrombopoietinPediatricsInternal medicinePlateletAlternative medicinePathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Source: Tarantino MD, Bussel JB, Blanchette VS, et al. Romiplostim in children with immune thrombocytopenia: a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The Lancet. 2016; 388(10039): 45; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00279-8Investigators from multiple institutions conducted a randomized, controlled trial to assess the safety and efficacy of romiplostim, a thrombopoietin receptor agonist that stimulates platelet production, in treating children with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). Study participants were children aged 1–17 years with primary ITP of at least 6 months’ duration and platelet counts <30,000/mL who were recruited from 27 sites in the United States, Canada, and Australia between 2012 and 2014. For the study, the children were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either weekly romiplostim or placebo for 24 weeks; weekly doses were increased from 1 μg/kg to 10 μg/kg with a target platelet count of 50,000/mL to 200,000/mL. The primary outcome was durable platelet response, defined as achievement of weekly platelet counts ≥50,0000/mL in 6 or more of the last 8 weeks of the study. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and serious adverse events. Outcomes were compared among participants in the 2 treatment groups.Data were analyzed on 62 children, including 42 randomized to receive romiplostim and 20 in the placebo group. Baseline characteristics in the 2 treatment groups were comparable. Overall, 52% of participants in the romiplostim group and 10% of those in the placebo group achieved a durable platelet response (P=.002). By age range, durable platelet response rates were 38% and 25% for those in the romiplostim and placebo groups, respectively, among study patients 1–5 years old; 56% and 11%, respectively, for those 6–11 years old; and 56% and 0%, respectively, for those 12–17 years old. The most commonly reported adverse events were contusion, epistaxis, headache, and upper respiratory tract infections. Serious adverse events were reported in 24% (10 patients) of those in the romiplostim group, compared with 5% (1 patient) in the placebo group, although most of these were not treatment related. One participant in the romiplostim group had a serious adverse event that was considered treatment related. This participant had headache and a platelet count of 1,462,000/mL, which resolved. There were no cases of thrombotic or thromboembolic events, and no patients withdrew due to adverse events.The authors conclude that romiplostim induced a high rate of platelet response in children with chronic ITP without significant safety issues.Dr. Hogan has disclosed no financial relationship relevant to this commentary. This commentary does not contain a discussion of an unapproved/investigative use of a commercial product/device.ITP is an acquired, immune-mediated destruction of normal platelets in the absence of other causes, resulting in a platelet count <100 × 103/uL.1,2 Approximately 1 in 20,000 children per year in the United States are diagnosed with acute ITP, which is self-resolving by 6 months in 75%–80% of children without significant complications. 1,2 Intracranial hemorrhage has been reported in up to 0.5% of children and severe epistaxis or gastrointestinal bleeding in 3%, commonly when platelet count is <10 to 20 × 103/uL.2In 2011, the American Society of Hematology established evidence-based guidelines recommending watchful waiting in children with no bleeding or mild symptoms (petechiae or bruising) even with platelet counts <10 × 103/uL.2 For children with bleeding, first-line pharmacotherapy (corticosteroid, intravenous immunoglobulin, and/or anti-D immunoglobulin) may temporarily increase the platelet count but does not appear to impact time to resolution of ITP nor risk of significant bleeding.2,3 Side effects of these medications, IV access, and hospitalization must be compared to their efficacy: a 50%–70% response rate defined as a platelet count ≥30 × 103/uL.2,3 Potential second-line therapies for persistent ITP (6–12 months’ duration) or chronic ITP (>12 months’ duration) with rituximab or splenectomy may have severe adverse effects, with 20%–60% response rates of varying duration.4 Spontaneous remission rates (without treatment) for chronic ITP range between 30%–40% up to 5 years from diagnosis.5In this phase III clinical trial, children diagnosed with persistent or chronic ITP and mean platelet counts <30 × 103/uL were randomized to treatment with romiplostim or placebo. Compared to 5 prior placebo-controlled studies with smaller pediatric cohorts, this treatment period was longer (6 months vs 2–3 months) and did not include randomization to another thrombopoietin receptor agonist, eltrombopag.6 Limitations of the study include no observations after 6 months of treatment5,6 and recall bias from self-report of baseline bleeding and other adverse effects. Possible confounding variables are inclusion of children with persistent ITP5 and the use of different concomitant baseline and rescue medications for platelets counts <20 × 103/uL.1,4In children with persistent or chronic ITP, weekly romiplostim seems well tolerated with a significant rise in platelet counts (≥50 × 103/uL for at least 6 weeks).

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,527
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,338

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,021
Tête enseignante GPT0,275
Écart entre enseignants0,254 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAAP Grand RoundsMême sujetPlatelet Disorders and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207