4.7 Article

Efficacy and safety of thrombopoietin receptor agonists in patients with primary immune thrombocytopenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/srep39003

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81270642, 81070451]
  2. Beijing Natural Science Foundation [7162175]
  3. Hainan Social Development Special Funding [SF201306]
  4. Four Hundreds Program of Chinese PLA General Hospital [YS201451]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is an autoimmune disease characterized by increased platelet destruction and impaired platelet production. In this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) in primary ITP patients. Thirteen randomized controlled trials were included in this study, the pooled results of which demonstrated that TPO-RAs significantly increased platelet response (R) and durable response (DR) rates [risk ratio (RR): 2.77, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.01-3.82, P = 5.9 x 10(-10); RR: 7.52, 95% CI: 3.94-14.35, P = 9.2 x 10(-10); respectively] and that TPO-RAs significantly reduced the incidences of any or severe bleeding events (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.67-0.95, P = 0.013; RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.27-0.99, P = 0.048; respectively). Moreover, our results indicated that there was a significant reduction in the proportion of patients needing rescue medications in the TPO-RA groups compared with the control groups (RR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.42-0.59, P = 2.0 x 10(-15)) and that the rates of any or severe adverse events were similar between the TPO-RA and control regimens (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.92-1.10; RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.54-1.01; respectively). These findings demonstrate that TPO-RAs are an effective and safe second-line treatment option for primary ITP patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available