Safety and efficacy of self‐administered romiplostim in patients with immune thrombocytopenia: Results of an integrated database of five clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Romiplostim self‐administration by patients or caregivers may offer time/cost savings to healthcare professionals (HCPs) and convenience for patients who avoid weekly clinic visits. We performed an integrated analysis of five clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of romiplostim self‐administration. Data were analyzed from adults with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) who received weekly romiplostim via self‐administration or from an HCP. Patients who achieved a stable romiplostim dose for ≥3 weeks (HCP group ≥5 weeks to provide an appropriate index date to enable comparisons with the self‐administration group) with platelet counts ≥50 × 109/L were eligible. In the self‐administration (n = 621) vs HCP (n = 133) groups, respectively, median age was 53 vs 58 years, median time since primary ITP diagnosis was 3.7 vs 2.5 years, and median baseline platelet count at ITP diagnosis was 19.0 vs 20.0 × 109/L. In the self‐administration and HCP‐dosed groups, median romiplostim treatment duration was 89 vs 52 weeks and median total number of doses was 81 vs 50, respectively. In the self‐administration and HCP groups, respectively: 95.0% and 100.0% of patients achieved ≥1 platelet response (defined as weekly platelet count ≥50 × 109/L without rescue medication in previous 4 weeks); the median percentage of weeks with a response was 94.5% and 95.9%; and rescue medication was used in 36.7% and 39.8% of patients. Self‐administration did not adversely affect safety; duration‐adjusted rates for all treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and bleeding TEAEs were numerically lower with self‐administration. Romiplostim self‐administration appears effective and well tolerated in eligible patients with ITP.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".