4.6 Article

Understanding how older age drives decision-making and outcome in Immune Thrombocytopenia. A single centre study on 465 adult patients

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
Volume 184, Issue 3, Pages 424-430

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.15668

Keywords

ITP; immune thrombocytopenia; TPO-receptor agonists; toxicity; older age

Categories

Funding

  1. BolognAIL

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We analysed the impact of older age on the management of immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) in 465 adult patients diagnosed between 1995 and 2017 and followed at our institution for a minimum of 12 months. Over a follow-up of 4248 patient-years, front-line corticosteroids therapy was required in 334 patients (71 center dot 8%), mainly (85 center dot 3%) within 1 year from diagnosis. Need for first-, second- and third-line therapy was comparable in younger and older (age >= 65 years, n = 154) patients. Older patients presented more frequently with severe haemorrhages, started therapy with a higher platelet count and received lower dose front-line corticosteroids; thereafter, they were preferentially treated with mild immunosuppressive therapies/thrombopoietin-receptor agonists. Conversely, younger patients were more frequently treated with rituximab and splenectomy, achieving higher rates of complete responses. Incidence rates of >= grade 2 complications were: 2 center dot 87 (haemorrhages), 1 center dot 55 (infections) and 0 center dot 66 (thromboses) per 100 patient-years. Older age (P = 0 center dot 01) and active haemorrhages at diagnosis (P = 0 center dot 01) significantly predicted grade >= 2 haemorrhages during follow-up. Older age (P = 0 center dot 01), male gender (P = 0 center dot 01), and thrombopoietin receptor agonist use (P = 0 center dot 02) were significantly associated with a higher probability of thrombosis over time. Older age is a significant driver of diagnostic/therapeutic strategy in ITP resulting in different responses and complications rates.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available