MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Time to Splenectomy Failure in Patients with Recurrent or Refractory Chronic Immune Thrombocytopenic Purpura.

2009· article· en· W2586116509 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory Cheng, Terry Gernsheimer, Harold J. Olney, James B. Bussel, Palvi Shah, Andrés Brainsky, Kelly M. Grotzinger, Manuel Aivado

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPlatelet Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSplenectomyMedicineThrombocytopenic purpuraConcomitantEltrombopagSurgeryRefractory (planetary science)DiscontinuationInternal medicinePlateletImmune thrombocytopeniaSpleen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 3522 Poster Board III-459 INTRODUCTION Splenectomy has been perceived as a potentially curative treatment for patients with chronic immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP). Historical data demonstrate that the risk of relapse is between 33% and 50% in patients with long-term follow-up (Fabris, Br J Haematol, 2001; Schwartz, Am J Hematol, 2003). No clear pattern of time to relapse after splenectomy has been described which complicates the decision making process for physicians who are considering this irreversible therapeutic option. Splenectomized patients are at risk for: early and late surgical complications (Kojouri, Blood, 2004; Portielje, Blood, 2001); infections secondary to impaired immunity (BCSH 1996; Moffett, JAAPA, 2009; Oren 2008); thrombotic and/or cardiovascular disease (Schilling, J Thromb Haemost, 2008; Fontana, Thromb Res, 2008); and pulmonary hypertension (Schilling, J Thromb Haemost, 2008; Bonderman, Circulation, 2007). Splenectomy requires preoperative vaccinations, general anesthesia with antibiotic prophylaxis, and subsequent long-term vigilance with early antibiotic treatments. These factors not only impact the utilization of medical resources but also, due to clinically problematic outcomes, may lead to a requirement for additional treatments. OBJECTIVE: To describe the time from splenectomy to splenectomy failure among patients with chronic ITP enrolled in the eltrombopag clinical program. METHODS: Date of splenectomy and prior medications for ITP were reviewed in patients enrolled in 5 clinical trials using eltrombopag. Splenectomy was considered to have failed upon administration of the first treatment for ITP after surgery or when patients were not able to taper or interrupt concomitant ITP treatments in the 30 days following splenectomy. Of the 495 patients enrolled in the ITP program, 192 (39%) were splenectomized and 185 patients were evaluable for this analysis. The analysis does not describe overall effectiveness of splenectomy as the patient population is limited to splenectomy failure patients who required additional treatment for their ITP. RESULTS: Fifty-one percent of patients required ITP medications within 1 year of splenectomy (Figure 1). Five years after splenectomy, 27% of patients still had a response; this percentage decreased to 18% after 10 years. CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis demonstrates that success of splenectomy appears to diminish over time. In patients requiring further ITP treatment, most splenectomized patients who relapse do so within 5 years. The treatment of chronic ITP has advanced as more data on the safety and efficacy of new medications like the thrombopoietin receptor agonists have become available. As physicians and patients become more familiar with the risks and benefits of all treatments, options other than splenectomy may be preferred for certain patients. Disclosures: Cheng: GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Gernsheimer:GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Olney:GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bussel:Genzyme: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Cangene: Research Funding; Amgen: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Immunomedics: Research Funding; Ligand: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Eisai, Inc: Research Funding; Sysmex: Research Funding; Scienta: Speakers Bureau; Shionogi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shah:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment. Brainsky:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment. Grotzinger:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment. Aivado:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicPlatelet Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207