4.6 Article

Epidemiology and management of primary immune thrombocytopenia: A nationwide population-based study in Korea

期刊

THROMBOSIS RESEARCH
卷 155, 期 -, 页码 86-91

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2017.05.010

关键词

Immune thrombocytopenia; Population-based study; Incidence; Treatment

资金

  1. Seoul National University Bundang Hospital [02-2016-037]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The epidemiology of immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is not well characterized in an Asian population. Materials and methods: From July 2010 to June 2014, ITP patients were identified using the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database. Results: The overall incidence rate of ITP was 5.3 per 100,000 person-years (95% CI: 5.1-5.5). The overall incidence rate ratios of children under 15 years old to adults and females to males were 3.8 (95% CI: 3.7-3.9) and 1.3 (95% CI: 1.2-1.4), respectively. Of the total 10,814 patients, 3388 patients (31%) needed treatment for ITP; of these, 54% continued treatment for more than three months. First-line therapy consisted of corticosteroids (CS) in 42%, immunoglobulin (IVIg) in 35%, CS with IVIg in 19%, and other immunosuppressive agents (ISA) in 4%. Among treated patients, 75% of adults and 33% of children continued treatment for more than three months. After three months, the most frequently used drug was CS alone in 63% of patients. Only 104 patients underwent splenectomy; of these, 51% received salvage treatment after a median of one month after surgery (range: 0-27). The proportion of patients who received platelet transfusions of 12 units or more per month for at least two consecutive months was significantly higher among patients treated for more than three months compared with patients who completed treatment within three months. Conclusions: This population-based study is the first to describe the incidence of ITP and its treatment reality for patients in Korea. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据