4.7 Article

Clinical heterogeneity and predictors of outcome in primary autoimmune hemolytic anemia: a GIMEMA study of 308 patients

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 124, Issue 19, Pages 2930-2936

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2014-06-583021

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Fondazione Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico [RC 2014]
  2. Ministry of Health [RF 2010, 141/RF-2010-2303934]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The clinical outcome, response to treatment, and occurrence of acute complications were retrospectively investigated in 308 primary autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) cases and correlated with serological characteristics and severity of anemia at onset. Patients had been followed up for a median of 33 months (range 12-372); 60% were warm AIHA, 27% cold hemagglutinin disease, 8% mixed, and 5% atypical (mostly direct antiglobulin test negative). The latter 2 categories more frequently showed a severe onset (hemoglobin [Hb] levels <= 6 g/dL) along with reticulocytopenia. The majority of warm AIHA patients received first-line steroid therapy only, whereas patients with mixed and atypical forms were more frequently treated with 2 or more therapy lines, including splenectomy, immunosuppressants, and rituximab. The cumulative incidence of relapse was increased in more severe cases (hazard ratio 3.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.44-6.57 for Hb <= 6 g/dL; P < .001). Thrombotic events were associated with Hb levels <= 6 g/dL at onset, intravascular hemolysis, and previous splenectomy. Predictors of a fatal outcome were severe infections, particularly in splenectomized cases, acute renal failure, Evans syndrome, and multitreatment (4 or more lines). The identification of severe and potentially fatal AIHA in a largely heterogeneous disease requires particular experienced attention by clinicians.

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