Perioperative Eltrombopag or Intravenous Immune Globulin for Patients with Immune Thrombocytopenia: A Multicenter Randomized Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Patients with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) may require treatment to raise the platelet count before surgery. Intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) is commonly used for this purpose, but eltrombopag, an oral thrombopoietin receptor agonist, may be a good alternative. We compared perioperative eltrombopag or IVIG for the achievement of platelet count targets for major or minor surgery. Methods: We conducted a randomized, non-inferiority trial at 8 centers in Canada.ITP patients with a platelet count <100 x109/L or <50 x109/L before elective major or minor surgery, respectively, were assigned to receive daily oral eltrombopag starting 3 weeks preoperatively or IVIG 1 week preoperatively. Eltrombopag was discontinued 1 week after surgical hemostasis, and a repeat dose of IVIG was permitted up to 1 week after surgical hemostasis. The primary endpoint was the achievement of platelet count targets (90 x109/L for major surgery, or 45 x109/L for minor surgery) immediately before surgery and for 7 days after surgical hemostasis without rescue treatment. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were done using a one-sided test for the difference in rates of achieving perioperative platelet count targets with a non-inferiority margin of 10% at a significance level of 0.05. Patients were followed for 4 weeks postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were thrombosis, adverse events and treatment satisfaction as measured using a validated patient questionnaire. Results: From 2013 to 2019, 38 patients were assigned to received eltrombopag and 36 patients were assigned to receive IVIG before major (n= 31) or minor (n= 43) surgery. Five patients did not complete the study. By intention to treat, 30/38 (78.9%) patients on eltrombopag achieved perioperative platelet count targets compared with 22/36 (61.1%) on IVIG (absolute risk difference, 17.8%; one-sided lower limit of the 95% confidence interval, 0.4%; p=0.005 for non-inferiority). Results were similar in the per protocol analysis (absolute risk difference: 15.8%; one-sided lower limit of the 95% CI, -2.1%; p=0.009). Eltrombopag was superior to IVIG in the intention-to-treat analysis (p=0.047) but not in the per-protocol analysis (p =0.074). One patient developed pulmonary embolism 14 days after minor surgery (skin biopsy) and 7 days after stopping eltrombopag when the platelet count was 135 x109/L. Of 18 patients who underwent splenectomy on study, marked post-splenectomy thrombocytosis (platelets >1,000 x109/L) occurred in 2 (11.1%) patients, both of whom were on eltrombopag. Global treatment satisfaction scores were higher for eltrombopag. Conclusion: Eltrombopag is non-inferior and may be superior to IVIG for achieving target platelet counts perioperatively for patients with ITP. Post-operative thromboprophylaxis should be considered with eltrombopag. Funding Source:This was an investigator-initiated trial funded by Novartis. Disclosures Arnold: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Principia: Consultancy. Heddle:Novartis: Research Funding. Hsia:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria; Jansen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sholzberg:Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lin:Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Octapharma: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy. Larratt:Novartis: Honoraria. Amini:Amgen NL: Research Funding; Novartis NL: Research Funding. Schipperus:Novartis: Research Funding. Lim:Pfizer Canada: Consultancy, Honoraria; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: Eltrombopag is not licenced for perioperative treatment in patients with ITP.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».