4.1 Article

Evaluation of bleeding-related episodes in patients with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) receiving romiplostim or medical standard of care

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY
Volume 96, Issue 1, Pages 26-33

Publisher

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s12185-012-1088-8

Keywords

Thrombocytopenia; Bleeding; Platelets; Thrombopoietin

Categories

Funding

  1. Amgen Inc
  2. Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA
  3. Amgen
  4. GlaxoSmithKline
  5. Nycomed
  6. Novo
  7. Bayer
  8. Baxter
  9. GSK
  10. Roche

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Romiplostim increases platelet counts and reduces the risk of bleeding in patients with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). This post hoc analysis compared the effect of romiplostim versus medical standard of care (SOC) on clinically relevant bleeding-related episodes (BREs) in a 52-week open-label study of patients with ITP. BREs were defined as actual bleeding events and/or use of rescue medication. Nonsplenectomized adult patients with ITP were randomized to receive weekly subcutaneous injections of romiplostim (n = 157) or SOC (n = 77). The rate of all BREs (per 100 patient-weeks) was lower in patients treated with romiplostim (3.1) than in those treated with SOC (9.4); the relative rate (romiplostim/SOC) was 0.33 (95 % CI 0.27-0.40). The rate of BREs associated with immunoglobulin (Ig) rescue medication was also lower for romiplostim (0.2) than SOC (4.8); the relative rate (romiplostim/SOC) was 0.05 (95 % CI 0.03-0.08). BRE rates were lower in patients with platelet counts a parts per thousand yen50 x 10(9)/L, and patients treated with romiplostim spent more time with platelet counts a parts per thousand yen50 x 10(9)/L than did patients treated with SOC. Bleeding-related hospitalizations were rare in both groups. Thus, romiplostim treatment provided greater reductions in all BREs, as well as BREs involving Ig rescue medications, than did SOC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available