MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4405049155 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-207623

Addressing Unmet Needs in the Management of Drug-Induced Secondary Erythrocytosis: Results from an International Physician Survey

2024· article· en· W4405049155 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Natasha Szuber, Lambert Busque, Harold J. Olney, Luigina Mollica, Shireen Sirhan

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensJewish General HospitalMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineReferralFamily medicineHematocritInternal medicineHematologyDrugIntensive care medicinePharmacology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Erythrocytosis is an increasingly common reason for hematology referral. JAK2-unmutated secondary erythrocytosis (SE) is more prevalent than polycythemia vera (PV), yet less extensively characterized. One of the fastest-rising causes of SE is medication use (25% of cases), frequently associated with testosterone therapy (TT), and recently described, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) (AJH, 2023). Data on risk factors for SE and thrombosis risk imputable to these drugs are scarce. Further, no data-driven therapeutic guidelines exist, making it challenging to manage these cases. The aim of this study was to assess prevalence of drug-induced SE in current practice, clinical perceptions and concerns regarding these entities, and management patterns. An online survey consisting of 8 questions was distributed via email to community and academic clinical hematologists. Between July 6-28, 2024, a total of 58 physicians completed the survey, including 49 (84%) from Canada, 8 (14%) from the United States, and 1 (2%) from Italy. The median number of SE cases respondents had evaluated over the past year was 10 (range 2-200), 30% of which (range 0-100%) were reportedly drug-induced. When queried about management of SGLT2i-mediated SE, the majority of physicians (39%) disclosed they continued therapy regardless of hemoglobin (Hb)/hematocrit (Hct) levels; 20.5% each responded they decreased SGLT2i dose or stopped therapy; 13% and 7% respectively replied they had not encountered this scenario, or didn't know how to manage it. When asked about specific Hb/Hct triggers that concerned them, the majority responded they either didn't have a trigger or used an individualized approach (30%); 28% and 24% replied Hct above 50-52% and 54-55% respectively. Additional responses included Hct 45%, 60%, and Hb 180-200 g/L (2-6% each). Factors that informed practice included: differential triggers for men/women, consideration of patient co-morbidities and risk/benefit ratio of pursuing SGLT2i, and presence of associated symptoms. Some physicians referenced guidelines from which they extrapolated to direct their approach: BJHaem, 2018 (Hct<55% for idiopathic erythrocytosis); endocrinology-based JCEM, 2018 (Hct<54%); others appropriated data from seminal studies in PV. When questioned about management of TT-induced erythrocytosis, 54% reported reducing TT dose, while 20% stopped therapy; 11% responded a combination thereof; 7.5% each either continued therapy or individualized their approach. The most common concerning Hb/Hct trigger while on TT therapy was 54-55%, followed by 50-52%, versus no trigger/individualized approach per 33%, 31% and 20% of respondents respectively. Other triggers included Hct >45%, 60%, or Hb from 180-200 (2-7% each). When asked if concerned about thrombosis in the setting of drug-induced SE, the vast majority replied “yes” (69%). Others either reported no concern (17%) or being equivocal/undecided (14%). Some nuanced their responses, specifying they were concerned in the setting of TT but not SGLT2i therapy. Others expressed concern, but specified this was less so than in cases of PV. A portion of respondents noted cardiovascular co-morbidities and degree of Hct/Hb elevation as being factors that influenced their level of apprehension. Finally, when asked if clinical practice guidelines for management of drug-induced SE would be helpful, 100% of respondents answered “yes.” Additional comments underscored the marked heterogeneity in clinical practice and “lack of clear consensus on management.” Others conveyed the importance of such guidelines being evidence-based, reiterating how “robust data on thrombosis risk in this setting are currently lacking.” A respondent relayed the value specifically, of “tools for shared decision-making concerning risks of Hct elevation vs benefit of continuation (of) both drug classes.” Categorically, respondents indicated management of drug-induced SE was a clear unmet need. Results from this broad-based survey with international contributions patently highlight the prevalence of drug-induced SE in practice (~30% of SE), the degree of heterogeneity in management, appreciable concern for thrombosis - especially when SE is TT-driven, and a critical unmet need for evidence-based management guidelines. Additional studies on mechanisms of drug-induced SE and associated thrombotic risk are effectively warranted.

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)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,007
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,015

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,011
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
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 Opus0,061
Tête enseignante GPT0,337
Écart entre enseignants0,275 · 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'étudeQualitatif
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
Publié2024
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and TreatmentTravaux en français237 207