4.7 Article

Correlation of blood counts with vascular complications in essential thrombocythemia: analysis of the prospective PT1 cohort

期刊

BLOOD
卷 120, 期 7, 页码 1409-1411

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2012-04-424911

关键词

-

资金

  1. Cancer Research UK
  2. Leukemia & Lymphoma Society
  3. Leukemia and Lymphoma Research
  4. Kay Kendall Leukaemia Fund
  5. Cambridge National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre
  6. Wellcome Trust Senior Clinical Research Fellowship [WT088340MA]
  7. MRC [G0800784] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. Medical Research Council [G0800784, G0800784B] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Essential thrombocythemia, a myeloproliferative neoplasm, is associated with increased platelet count and risk of thrombosis or hemorrhage. Cytoreductive therapy aims to normalize platelet counts despite there being only a minimal association between platelet count and complication rates. Evidence is increasing for a correlation between WBC count and thrombosis, but prospective data are lacking. In the present study, we investigated the relationship between vascular complications and 21 887 longitudinal blood counts in a prospective, multicenter cohort of 776 essential thrombocythemia patients. After correction for confounding variables, no association was seen between blood counts at diagnosis and future complications. However, platelet count outside of the normal range during follow-up was associated with an immediate risk of major hemorrhage (P = .0005) but not thrombosis (P = .7). Elevated WBC count during follow-up was correlated with thrombosis (P = .05) and major hemorrhage (P = .01). These data imply that the aim of cytoreduction in essential thrombocythemia should be to keep the platelet count, and arguably the WBC count, within the normal range. This study is registered at the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trials Number Registry (www.isrctn.org) as number 72251782. (Blood. 2012;120(7):1409-1411)

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

4.7
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