MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4389229432 · doi:10.1182/blood-2023-188527

The Lack of Tolerable Treatments Options That Can Induce Durable Responses without Fear of Relapse after Discontinuation Represents a Significant Unmet Need for Patients (Pts) with Immune Thrombocytopenia (ITP): Results from the ITP World Impact Survey (I-WISh) 2.0

2023· article· en· W4389229432 sur OpenAlexaff
James B. Bussel, Nichola Cooper, Waleed Ghanima, Drew Provan, Yoshiaki Tomiyama, Ming Hou, Donald M. Arnold, Cristina Santoro, Francesco Zaja, Barbara Lovrenčič, Mervyn Morgan, Leron Lahav, Michal Winograd, Jennifer MacWhirter - DiRaimo, Tom Bailey, Moyra Aziz, Roberto Abi Rached, Caroline Kruse

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePlatelet Disorders and Treatments
Établissements canadiensMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineImmune thrombocytopeniaDiscontinuationRituximabQuality of life (healthcare)RomiplostimEltrombopagSplenectomyInternal medicinePediatricsThrombopoietinLymphomaPlatelet

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: ITP is an acquired autoimmune disease characterized by transient or persistent thrombocytopenia. ITP substantially impairs pts' quality of life (QoL), including daily activities, social interactions, work and emotional wellbeing, with fatigue being the most common symptom reported by pts. Corticosteroids are the standard first-line treatment for ITP, while thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs), rituximab and fostamatinib are recommended for later lines; however, these treatments have limited sustained efficacy and may be associated with short- and long-term side effects that impact QoL. Aim: To assess pt and physician (MD) perceptions of current ITP treatment and treatment goals using data from I-WISh 2.0. Methods: I-WISh 2.0 was developed using findings from I-WISh 1.0 and surveyed 1018 pts with ITP aged >18 years and 431 MDs who managed ≥3 pts with ITP. I-WISh 2.0 was conducted from February to July 2022 in 15 countries. The surveys, developed by a steering committee (supported by Novartis) comprising expert ITP MDs and pt advocates, included questionnaires about prescribed ITP treatments, their impact on QoL and treatment satisfaction and goals. Results: Of 1018 pts (median age: 46 years), 67% were female and 48% reported ≥1 comorbidity. 97% (956/987) of pts had received ≥1 treatment for ITP and 12% (126/1018) had a splenectomy; 80% (811/1018) were receiving ITP treatment at survey completion and median time on most recent treatment was 30 weeks (n=608). Corticosteroids and TPO-RAs were the most common first- and second-line treatments prescribed by MDs, respectively (Figure 1); MDs estimated that 15% of their pts have opted against receiving ITP treatment (n=431). 73% of MDs (313/431) considered their pts' perception of medications when making treatment decisions. Pts reported a significant burden due to their current ITP medication: 34% (202/597) experienced daily disruption, 37% (214/576) were bothered by needing to plan meals, and 22% (204/939) had difficulty keeping up with daily medications. 19% (172/897) of pts were dissatisfied with their treatment's platelet level control, and 18% (155/843) disagreed that their medication effectively controlled their symptoms. Pts worried about their treatment's short- (48%; 400/833) and long-term (62%; 527/844) side effects. 38% (162/431) of MDs were neutral toward current ITP treatment options and 9% (37/431) were dissatisfied. Of the 37 dissatisfied MDs, limited options (68%), inability to achieve deep/stable remission (54%), lack of efficacy (43%) and inability to reach treatment goals (43%) were the most common reasons. 32% (327/1016) and 13% (127/1016) of pts believed they were not or did not know if they were in sustained remission, respectively. A treatment offering a sustained remission or cure for ITP was an important goal for 82% (823/1007) of pts. Of treatment goals mentioned in their top 3, the most common were healthy blood counts (56%), improving QoL (44%) and increasing energy levels (43%) for pts (n=1018), and reducing spontaneous bleeds (79%), healthy blood counts (60%) and improving QoL (52%) for MDs (n=431). Limiting time on treatment would substantially affect the treatment preference of 66% (668/1009) of pts. 38% (294/775) of pts did not want to take their ITP treatment for the foreseeable future; however, 67% (680/1013) were concerned about relapse if they stopped. Immunosuppression due to ITP treatment worried 414/787 (53%) pts, with 679/1007 (67%) considering it important when discussing treatment decisions. MDs considered corticosteroids and other immunosuppressants to have the most negative impact on fatigue (Figure 2), yet only 12% (52/431) strongly agreed they aimed to limit immunosuppressive effects. Conclusions: Pts with ITP are dissatisfied with current treatment options because of a perceived lack of efficacy, the burden of short- and long-term side effects, and the need for daily, life-long administration. Additionally, some commonly prescribed treatments for ITP are associated with fatigue. Pts and MDs would like new ITP treatments to offer a sustained period of remission or cure, and pts wish to be able to discontinue them without fear of relapse. There is an unmet need for well-tolerated therapies with disease-modifying potential that can safely achieve these goals.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,016

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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 Opus0,053
Tête enseignante GPT0,314
Écart entre enseignants0,262 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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

Citations2
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetPlatelet Disorders and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207