MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A Retrospective Single-Centre Cohort Study Comparing Lower-Dose Intravenous Immune Globulin (IVIg) (1 g/kg) to Higher-Dose Ivig (2 g/kg) in Adult Immune Thrombocytopenia

2012· article· en· W2592546469 on OpenAlexaff
Mikhyla J. Richards, Sophie Wang, Ribeka Kim, Kate Chipperfield, David Pi, Luke Y. C. Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPlatelet Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDosingImmune thrombocytopeniaPlateletRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineCohortPediatricsGuidelineAntibodyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 3324 Background Intravenous immune globulin (IVIg) is a standard first line treatment for immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). The optimal total dose for adults is not clear, and historically, many centers have used a total dose of 2 g/kg. However, the most recent evidence-based guidelines from ASH recommend an initial dose of 1g/kg, with an additional dose in cases with lack of response (Neunert et al, Blood, 2011). Based on this guideline, our tertiary care centre decreased the initial dose of IVIg in adults with severe ITP from 2 g/kg to 1 g/kg in June 2011. Rationale To date, there is no robust level I or II evidence to indicate the optimal dosing of IVIg in adult ITP. The objective of this study is to examine the effect of the change to 1 g/kg on clinical and laboratory outcomes at our centre. Methods All patients ≥18 years who received IVIg for ITP at our centre between April 2007 and June 2012 were identified. Patients who had received IVIg treatment within a year prior to the current course of therapy or treatment with concurrent platelet transfusions were excluded. Patients who received more than one treatment during the study period were included only once in the first episode in our analysis. The primary outcome was overall response, defined as a doubling of platelets within 7 days from before IVIg treatment to a minimum of ≥ 30 ×109/L. Secondary outcomes included peak platelet count achieved, average length of hospital stay, relapse, and requirement of rescue therapy within 30 days. Relapse was defined as loss of response (platelets < 30 × 109/L, bleeding or need for rescue therapy) after initial achievement of response within 90 days. Rescue therapy included subsequent platelet transfusion, steroids, repeat IVIg, anti-D, rituximab or splenectomy. Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared between the 2 g/kg and the 1g/kg group using Chi-squared analysis for categorical variables and 2-sided t-tests for continuous variables. Results 75 patients were identified, of which 59 met the inclusion criteria. 45 of the included patients had been treated with higher dose IVIg (average of 2.01 g/kg) and 16 received a lower dose (average of 0.92 g/kg). The baseline characteristics between the two groups including age, gender, weight, secondary causes of ITP (drug-related: 13.3% vs. 0%, p = 0.295; viral-related: 17.8% vs. 25%, p = 0.798; autoimmune disease: 17.8% vs.6.3%, p = 0.482; hematological disorder: 6.7% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.595; other: 2.2% vs. 6.3% p = 0.979), duration of IVIg treatment (2.3 ± 0.13 days vs. 1.1± 0.06 days), and initial platelet count in both groups were similar at diagnosis. No significant differences were observed between patients in the higher-dose group and those in the lower-dose group with respect to: overall response rate (93% vs. 81%, p=0.18), peak platelet count (173 ± 19×109/L vs. 146 ± 39×109/L p=0.37), average length of hospital stay (3.6 ± 0.4 days vs. 4.5 ± 1.9 days p=0.47), relapse (60.0% vs. 43.8% p=0.38), and requirement of rescue therapy within 30 days (37.8% vs. 43.8% low-dose p=0.77). Furthermore, there were no significant differences observed in the probability of maintained response between the two groups. Conclusion These results suggest that adult patients diagnosed with ITP can be treated with an initial IVIg dose of 1g/kg with comparable outcomes to 2g/kg. A sufficiently powered randomized controlled trial is necessary to confirm these findings. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicPlatelet Disorders and Treatments→French-language works237,207→