Advances in ITP – Therapy and Quality of Life – A Patient Survey

Current guidelines recommend glucocorticoids and splenectomy as standard 1(st) and 2(nd) line treatments for chronic immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). We sought to find out how German ITP-patients are treated with respect to these guidelines. Members of a patient support association ≥18 years with a self-reported history of chronic ITP>12 months were surveyed with a web-based questionnaire. 122 questionnaires were evaluated. 70% of patients had chronic ITP for more than 5 years and 20% an average platelet count of ≤30·10(9)/L. 41% of the patients reported haematomas or petechiae more than once or twice and up to 12 times or more per year and 17% oropharyngeal and nasal bleeds. 11% had been admitted to hospital during the last 12 months. 88% had received or currently receive glucocorticoids, 27% were splenectomised. IVIG had been given to 55%, rituximab to 22%, anti-D to 12%, ciclosporin to 7%, while complementary and alternative medical treatments had been used by 36%. 50 women responded to questions concerning pregnancy. 14 (28%) had been advised not to become pregnant. 23 reported pregnancies and 10 (44%) required treatment for their ITP during pregnancy. Glucocorticoids are the most common therapy for chronic ITP but complementary and alternative treatments already come second and less than ⅓ of patients are splenectomised. This and the frequent use of complementary medicines suggests patients' dissatisfaction with conventional approaches. Many patients receive off-label therapies. There is a major need for adequate counselling and care for pregnant ITP-patients

Patient-reported treatment burden of chronic immune thrombocytopenia therapies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Chronic immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is a debilitating autoimmune disorder that causes a reduction in blood platelets and increased risk of bleeding. ITP is currently managed with various pharmacologic therapies and splenectomy.</p> <p>This study was conducted to assess patient perceived and reported treatment side effects, as well as the perceived burden or bother, and need to reduce or stop treatment, associated with these side effects among adult patients with chronic ITP.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A Web-enabled survey was administered to members of a US-based ITP patient support group. Patients reported demographic and clinical characteristics, ITP treatments' side effects for treatments received since diagnosed, level of bother (or distress), and need to reduce or stop treatment, associated with side effects. Current and past exposure was assessed for five specific treatment types: corticosteroids (CS), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), anti-D immunoglobulin (anti-D), rituximab (RT), and splenectomy (SPL), as well as for other patient-referenced therapies (captured as "other").</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The survey was completed by 589 patients; 78% female, 89% white, mean age 48 years (SD = 14.71), and 68% reported a typical low platelet count of < 50,000/μL. Current or past treatment with CS was reported by 92% (n = 542) of patients, 56% (n = 322) for IVIg, 36% (n = 209) for anti-D, 36% (n = 213) for RT, and 39% (n = 227) for SPL. A substantial proportion of CS-treated patients reported side effects (98%, <it>P </it>< 0.05), were highly bothered by their side effects (53.1%, <it>P </it>< 0.05), and reported the need to stop or reduce treatment due to side effects (37.8%, <it>P </it>< 0.05). Among patients reporting side effects of treatment, significant associations were noted for the number of side effects, aggregate bother of reported side effects, and the need to stop or reduce treatment (all <it>P </it>< 0.05).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Current ITP treatments, particularly corticosteroids, are associated with multiple bothersome side effects that may lead to patients stopping or reducing therapy. Open, informed and complete communication between clinician and patient regarding both the benefits and the side effects of ITP treatment may better prepare patients for their prescribed regimens.</p

The EHA Research Roadmap:Platelet Disorders

In 2016, the European Hematology Association (EHA) published the EHA Roadmap for European Hematology Research1 aiming to highlight achievements in the diagnostics and treatment of blood disorders, and to better inform European policy makers and other stakeholders about the urgent clinical and scientific needs and priorities in the field of hematology. Each section was coordinated by 1 to 2 section editors who were leading international experts in the field. In the 5 years that have followed, advances in the field of hematology have been plentiful. As such, EHA is pleased to present an updated Research Roadmap, now including 11 sections, each of which will be published separately. The updated EHA Research Roadmap identifies the most urgent priorities in hematology research and clinical science, therefore supporting a more informed, focused, and ideally a more funded future for European hematology research. The 11 EHA Research Roadmap sections include Normal Hematopoiesis; Malignant Lymphoid Diseases; Malignant Myeloid Diseases; Anemias and Related Diseases; Platelet Disorders; Blood Coagulation and Hemostatic Disorders; Transfusion Medicine; Infections in Hematology; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; CAR-T and Other Cellbased Immune Therapies; and Gene Therapy

Understanding the importance of using patient-reported outcome measures in patients with immune thrombocytopenia

Incorporating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) when studying patients with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is essential since treatment decisions are complex and using platelet count only partly explains disease burden. Since most symptoms are only experienced subjectively and are seldom captured during clinician-based evaluations, using self-report is crucial for early symptom detection. However, capturing the patient's illness experience necessitates using well-developed and validated instruments. This article provides insight on the importance of using PROs in ITP, summarizes the methodological steps to develop PRO instruments, and discusses challenges related to integrating PROs into research and clinical practice