MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4389259281 · doi:10.1182/blood-2023-179448

Treatment of Critical Bleeding Events in Patients with Immune Thrombocytopenia: A Systematic Review

2023· review· en· W4389259281 sur OpenAlexaff
Emily Sirotich, Saifur Rahman Chowdhury, Gordon Guyatt, Daya Gill, Dimpy Modi, Laura M. Venier, Kerolos Eisa, Carolyn E Beck, Vicky R. Breakey, Kerstin de Wit, Stephen C. Porter, Kathryn E. Webert, Adam Cuker, Clare O'Connor, Jennifer MacWhirter - DiRaimo, Justin W. Yan, Charles F. Manski, John G. Kelton, Matthew Kang, Gail Strachan, Ziauddin Hassan, Barbara Pruitt, Menaka Pai, Rachael F. Grace, Dale Paynter, Jay Charness, Nichola Cooper, Steven Fein, Hasmik Nazaryan, Arnav Agarwal, Ishaq Siddiqui, Russell Leong, Sushmitha Pallapothu, Aaron Wen, Emily Xu, Bonnie Liu, Preksha Rathod, Henry Y. Kwon, Jared Dookie, Amirmohammad Shafiee, Rachel Couban, Donald M. Arnold

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2023
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePlatelet Disorders and Treatments
Établissements canadiensWestern UniversityUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoSaskatchewan Health AuthorityJoseph Brant HospitalMcMaster UniversityLondon Health Sciences CentreMcMaster Children's HospitalHospital for Sick ChildrenCanadian Blood Services
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineSplenectomyObservational studyRituximabPediatricsSystematic reviewGuidelineBleedRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineMEDLINESurgery

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Intracranial hemorrhage and other critical bleeds in adults and children with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) represents a medical emergency; however, evidence-based treatment protocols are lacking. To inform a clinical practice guideline, we performed a systematic review of treatments for critical bleeding in patients with ITP. Methods: We conducted literature searches in four electronic databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and PubMed. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, observational studies, case series, or case reports that enrolled patients with ITP who received one or more interventions for the management of critical bleeding and reported any outcome. We reported the worst critical bleed per patient. Where possible, we described the effects of each of the following interventions (alone or in combination with other treatments) on mortality, platelet count response, bleeding, and disability: IVIG, corticosteroids, platelet transfusions, urgent splenectomy, and TPO receptor agonists (TPO-RAs). We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. Results: Our initial screen yielded 14,134 studies, of which 42 were eligible (Table 1). These studies reported on 79 patients including 41 children (median age = 9 years), 19 adults (median age = 54 years), and 19 (24.1%) with age unknown. 34 (43%) were females, 23 were males, and 22 were sex unknown. The majority of critical bleeds were ICH (n=66); others were gastrointestinal bleeding (n=4), ocular bleeding (n= 1), and intraperitoneal bleeding (n=1). Either alone or in combination, patients received IVIG (n=40), corticosteroids (n=37), platelet transfusion (n=19), TPO-RA (n=7), and splenectomy (n=7). There were 35 unique combinations of treatments reported. The most common interventions were IVIG alone (n=18), corticosteroids+IVIG (n=11), corticosteroids+platelet transfusion (n=4), corticosteroids alone (n=4), and corticosteroids + IVIG + platelet transfusion (n= 3). Mortality was reported in all 42 studies (n=79), platelet count response (complete or minimal) was reported in 22 studies (n=33), bleeding resolution was reported in 17 studies (n=20), and disability, defined as neurological sequelae or altered mental state, was reported in 15 studies (n=32) (Table 2). Corticosteroids vs. no corticosteroids: 8/12 patients who received corticosteroids achieved complete platelet count response compared to 10/21 patients who did not receive corticosteroids (complete platelet count response: 66.7% vs. 47.6%).Disability was reported in 6/24 patients who received corticosteroids and 3/8 patients without corticosteroids (disability: 25% vs. 37.5%). IVIG vs. no IVIG: 7/40 patients who received IVIG died, and 11/39 patients who did not receive IVIG died (mortality: 17.5% vs. 28.2%). Platelet transfusion vs. no platelet transfusion: 7/8 patients treated with platelet transfusion achieved complete platelet count response compared to 11/25 patients not treated with platelet transfusion (complete platelet count response: 87.5% vs. 44%). Splenectomy vs. no splenectomy:4/5 patients treated with splenectomy achieved complete platelet count response compared to 14/28 patients without splenectomy (complete platelet count response: 80% vs. 50%). TPO-RA ( eltrombopag or romiplostim) vs. no TPO-RA: 3/7 patients who received TPO-RA died, and 15/72 patients who did not receive TPO-RA died (mortality: 42.9% vs. 20.8%). Inferences on mortality, bleeding resolution, platelet count responses, and disability were highly uncertain due to the very low quality of the evidence. Limitations of this review include potentially missing data on interventions prior to critical bleeds and reporting bias in primary studies. Conclusions: Studies reporting the effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of critical bleeding are lacking. Corticosteroids, IVIG, platelet transfusion, TPO-RA, and splenectomy often administered in combination have been used, but the quality of the evidence is very low.

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)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,008
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,028

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,027
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0080,007
Bibliométrie0,0080,008
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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 Opus0,042
Tête enseignante GPT0,341
Écart entre enseignants0,299 · 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'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

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
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetPlatelet Disorders and Treatments→Travaux en français237 207→