4.6 Article

Efficacy and tolerability of old and new drugs used in the treatment of immune thrombocytopenia: Results from a long-term observation in clinical practice

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 13, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198184

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Many patients with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) may require special attention and long-term treatment. Little is known on the efficacy and tolerability of the drugs used in practice. Material and methods We retrospectively reviewed the results of therapy of 400 patients with chronic ITP. All Patients were treated at our institution between 1996-2016 under consideration of guidelines, general recommendations, and individual aspects, including gender, age, weight, comorbidity, patient's medical history and bleeding risk. Results Treatment was not required in 25% of patients (n = 100) during observation. In treated patients (n = 300), the rate of patients that responded and tolerated treatment with prednisolone was 59% (52/88), with azathioprine 32% (29/90), with eltrombopag 49% (31/63), with romiplostim 59% 27/45, with IVIG (intravenous immunoglobulines) 75% (94/126), with anti-D 37% (19/52) and with dexamethasone 60% (25/42) patients. Eighteen treated patients (6%) entered sustained remission after treatment with various drugs. Twenty-six patients underwent splenectomy (Splx) resulting in sustained remission in 15 cases (60%). Only two patients remained refractory to Splx and to all used drugs. Discussion None of the currently available drugs used in the treatment of ITP are invariably safe and effective. Responses, the duration of response, intolerability, and the course of disease are unpredictable. Although the treatment of ITP has considerably improved in the recent years, the currently available drugs may rarely cure affected patients. The need for safe and effective therapy in ITP is evident. Optimal treatment decisions for each patient remains a challenge in many cases.

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