Diagnosis and management of Evans syndrome in adults: first consensus recommendations.

Evans syndrome is a rare disease marked by a severe clinical course, high relapse rate, infectious and thrombotic complications, and sometimes fatal outcome. Management is highly heterogeneous. There are several case reports but few large retrospective studies and no prospective or randomised trials. Here, we report the results of the first consensus-based expert recommendations aimed at harmonising the diagnosis and management of Evans syndrome in adults. After reviewing the literature, we used a fuzzy Delphi consensus method, with two rounds of a 42-item questionnaire that were scored by a panel of 13 international experts from five countries using a 7-point Likert scale. Panellists were selected by the core panel on the basis of their personal experience and previous publications on Evans syndrome and immune cytopenias; they met virtually throughout 2023. The panellists recommended extensive clinical and laboratory diagnostic tests, including bone marrow evaluation and CT scan, and an aggressive front-line therapy with prednisone (with or without intravenous immunoglobulins), with different treatment durations and tapering for immune thrombocytopenia and autoimmune haemolytic anaemias (AIHAs). Rituximab was strongly recommended as first-line treatment in cold-type AIHA and as second-line treatment in warm-type AIHA and patients with immune thrombocytopenia and antiphospholipid antibodies, previous thrombotic events, or associated lymphoproliferative diseases. However, rituximab was discouraged for patients with immunodeficiency or severe infections, with the same applying to splenectomy. Thrombopoietin receptor agonists were recommended for chronic immune thrombocytopenia and in the case of previous grade 4 infection. Fostamatinib was recommended as third-line or further-line treatment and suggested as second-line therapy for patients with previous thrombotic events. Immunosuppressive agents have been moved to third-line or further-line treatment. The panellists recommended the use of recombinant erythropoietin in AIHA in the case of inadequate reticulocyte counts, use of the complement inhibitor sutimlimab for relapsed cold AIHA, and the combination of rituximab plus bendamustine in Evans syndrome secondary to lymphoproliferative disorders. Finally, recommendations were given for supportive therapy, platelet or red blood cell transfusions, and thrombotic and antibiotic prophylaxis. These consensus-based recommendations should facilitate best practice for diagnosis and management of Evans syndrome in clinical practice.

Characteristics and management of primary and other immune thrombocytopenias: Spanish registry study.

BACKGROUND: The natural history and its modulation by treatments administered for immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) in the clinical practice remains unknown. In addition, little information is available on the characteristics and management of ITP in Spain. METHODS: We conducted an observational, multicenter, registry in 70 Hematology Services from Spain between 2009 and 2011, which included children from 2 months of age and adults with primary ITP or another ITP diagnosed within the last 6 months (platelet count [PC] < 100 × 109/l). Patients were followed-up at 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: 484 patients were included (median [Q1, Q3] age 52 [29,74] years, 87.6% adults), 56% women, 10.5% with secondary ITP. Median (Q1, Q3) PC at diagnosis was 12 × 109/l (4, 32); 72% of patients had bleeding symptoms (62% cutaneous bleeding, 29% oral cavity bleeding, 18% epistaxis). 81% of patients with primary ITP received first-line treatment, mainly with corticosteroids (>6 weeks in 59% of cases), either alone (41%) or associated with intravenous immunoglobulin (33%). The response (≥30 × 109/L) to first-line treatment was 92%. A total of 19% of patients received second-line treatment and 6% additional treatments. At 12 months, 74% of primary ITP patients maintained a PC ≥ 100 × 109/L in absence of treatment (10% still had hemorrhagic manifestations). CONCLUSIONS: Characteristics of Spanish ITP patients are comparable to those from other countries. Although a high response rate to first-line treatments is observed, at 1 year, the disease persists in around one quarter of patients. Overall therapeutic management in Spain conforms to current recommendations, except for an excessive duration of corticosteroids therapy.

Coste por paciente con respuesta a romiplostim y rituximab en el tratamiento de la trombocitopenia inmune primaria en España / Cost-per-responder analysis comparing romiplostim to rituximab in the treatment of adult primary immune thrombocytopenia in Spain

Fundamento y objetivo: Romiplostim, agonista del receptor de la trombopoyetina, está aprobado para el tratamiento de segunda línea en pacientes con trombocitopenia inmune primaria (PTI). El tratamiento con rituximab no es infrecuente, aunque esta indicación no esté recogida en la ficha técnica. Este análisis compara el coste por paciente respondedor a romiplostim frente a rituximab en España. Materiales y método: Se ha diseñado un modelo para estimar el coste de 6 meses de tratamiento por paciente que responde (recuento plaquetario ≥ 50 × 109/l). Este modelo toma las referencias conforme a los datos publicados más sólidos. Los pacientes tratados con romiplostim recibieron inyecciones semanales; los pacientes tratados con rituximab recibieron 4 infusiones intravenosas semanales. Los precios se obtuvieron de las listas de reembolso españolas. Los pacientes sin respuesta incurrieron en gastos por el tratamiento de episodios relacionados con sangrado (ERS), tal como se notificó en los ensayos clínicos. La utilización de recursos médicos y la práctica clínica se basaron en las guías de tratamiento españolas y fueron validadas por expertos locales. Resultados: Las tasas de respuesta para romiplostim y rituximab fueron del 83 y 62,5%, y el coste medio por paciente fue de 16.289 Euros y 13.459 Euros, respectivamente. Con rituximab el coste por paciente respondedor fue un 10% superior (21.535 Euros) comparado con romiplostim (19.625 Euros). Romiplostim redujo el coste de administración de fármacos, el uso de inmunoglobulina intravenosa y los costes relacionados con ERS comparado con rituximab. Conclusiones: Romiplostim representaría una opción terapéutica eficiente en comparación con rituximab para el tratamiento de pacientes adultos con PTI crónica en el Sistema Nacional de Salud español (AU)

Background and objective: Romiplostim, a thrombopoietin-receptor agonist, is approved for second-line use in idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) patients where surgery is contraindicated. Anti-CD20 rituximab, an immunosuppressant, is currently used off-label. This analysis compared the cost per responder for romiplostim versus rituximab in Spain. Materials and method: A decision analytic model was constructed to estimate the 6-month cost per responding patient (achieving a platelet count ≥ 50 × 109/l) according to the most robust published data. A systematic literature review was performed to extract response rates from phase 3 randomized controlled trials. Romiplostim patients received weekly injections; rituximab patients received 4 weekly intravenous infusions. Medical resource costs were obtained from Spanish reimbursement lists. Treatment non-responders incurred bleeding-related event (BRE) management costs as reported in clinical trials. Medical resource utilization and clinical practice were based on Spanish treatment guidelines and validated by local clinical experts. Results: The literature review identified phase 3 romiplostim trials with a response rate of 83%. Due to a lack of phase 3 controlled rituximab trials, a systematic review of studies was selected as the best source, reporting a response rate of 62.5%. The mean cost per patient for romiplostim was 16,289 Euros and 13,459 Euros for rituximab. Rituximab resulted in a 10% higher cost per responder (21,535 Euros versus 19,625 Euros for romiplostim). Romiplostim use reduced drug administration, intravenous immunoglobulin, and bleeding-related costs compared to rituximab. Conclusions: Due to its high level of efficacy leading to lower BRE costs, romiplostim represents an efficient use of resources for adult ITP patients in the Spanish Healthcare System (AU)

[Cost-per-responder analysis comparing romiplostim to rituximab in the treatment of adult primary immune thrombocytopenia in Spain]. / Coste por paciente con respuesta a romiplostim y rituximab en el tratamiento de la trombocitopenia inmune primaria en España.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Romiplostim, a thrombopoietin-receptor agonist, is approved for second-line use in idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) patients where surgery is contraindicated. Anti-CD20 rituximab, an immunosuppressant, is currently used off-label. This analysis compared the cost per responder for romiplostim versus rituximab in Spain. MATERIALS AND METHOD: A decision analytic model was constructed to estimate the 6-month cost per responding patient (achieving a platelet count≥50×10(9)/l) according to the most robust published data. A systematic literature review was performed to extract response rates from phase 3 randomized controlled trials. Romiplostim patients received weekly injections; rituximab patients received 4 weekly intravenous infusions. Medical resource costs were obtained from Spanish reimbursement lists. Treatment non-responders incurred bleeding-related event (BRE) management costs as reported in clinical trials. Medical resource utilization and clinical practice were based on Spanish treatment guidelines and validated by local clinical experts. RESULTS: The literature review identified phase 3 romiplostim trials with a response rate of 83%. Due to a lack of phase 3 controlled rituximab trials, a systematic review of studies was selected as the best source, reporting a response rate of 62.5%. The mean cost per patient for romiplostim was €16,289 and €13,459 for rituximab. Rituximab resulted in a 10% higher cost per responder (€21,535 versus €19,625 for romiplostim). Romiplostim use reduced drug administration, intravenous immunoglobulin, and bleeding-related costs compared to rituximab. CONCLUSIONS: Due to its high level of efficacy leading to lower BRE costs, romiplostim represents an efficient use of resources for adult ITP patients in the Spanish Healthcare System.

Diagnóstico, tratamiento y seguimiento de la trombocitopenia inmune primaria / Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and monitoring of primary immune thrombocytopenia

El documento de consenso sobre el diagnóstico, tratamiento y seguimiento de la trombocitopenia inmune primaria fue elaborado en 2010 por especialistas con reconocida experiencia en esta enfermedad bajo el auspicio de la Sociedad Española de Hematología y Hemoterapia y la Sociedad Española de Hematología y Oncología Pediátricas, con el fin de adaptar a España las recomendaciones de los documentos de consenso internacional recientemente publicados. La decisión de iniciar tratamiento se basa en las manifestaciones hemorrágicas y en la cifra de plaquetas (<20×109/L). El tratamiento de primera línea son los glucocorticoides, aunque durante un plazo limitado de 4-6 semanas, reservándose la adición de inmunoglobulinas intravenosas para pacientes con hemorragia grave. La esplenectomía es el tratamiento de segunda línea más eficaz. Para los pacientes refractarios a la esplenectomía y para aquellos con contraindicación o rechazo, los nuevos agentes trombopoyéticos son los fármacos de elección por su eficacia y excelente perfil de seguridad. El resto de las opciones terapéuticas presentan tasa de respuesta y duración muy variables, y carecen de estudios controlados que permitan establecer recomendaciones claras. El seguimiento debe individualizarse, aunque, como mínimo, en pacientes sin tratamiento activo, se recomienda un hemograma cada 3-6 meses, y programas de educación al paciente para que consulte en caso de hemorragia, cirugía o procedimiento invasor y gestación. En una considerable proporción de la población pediátrica la enfermedad tiene tendencia a la remisión espontánea. Los glucocorticoides a altas dosis en pauta corta y las inmunoglobulinas intravenosas son el tratamiento de elección. Los tratamientos de segunda línea y los posteriores deben controlarse en centros especializados

The consensus document on the diagnosis, treatment and monitoring of primary immune thrombocytopenia was developed in 2010 by specialists with recognized expertise in this disease under the auspices of the Spanish Society of Hematology and Hemotherapy and the Spanish Society of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, with the aim to adapt to Spain the recommendations of the recently published international consensus documents. The decision to start treatment is based on bleeding manifestations and platelet count (<20×109/L). The first-line treatment is corticosteroids, albeit for a limited period of 4-6 weeks. The addition of intravenous immunoglobulin is reserved to patients with severe bleeding. Splenectomy is the most effective second-line treatment. For patients refractory to splenectomy and those with contraindications or patient refusal, the new thrombopoietic agents are the drugs of choice due to their efficacy and excellent safety profile. The other treatment options have highly variable response rates, and the absence of controlled studies does not allow to establish clear recommendations. Monitoring should be individualized. In patients without active treatment, blood counts are recommended every 3-6 months, and the patient should be instructed to consult in case of bleeding, surgery or invasive procedure and pregnancy. In most of the pediatric population, the disease tends to spontaneous remission. High-dose corticosteroids in short course and intravenous immunoglobulin are the treatment of choice. Second- and further-line treatments should be monitored in specialized centers (AU)

[Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and monitoring of primary immune thrombocytopenia]. / Diagnóstico, tratamiento y seguimiento de la trombocitopenia inmune primaria.

The consensus document on the diagnosis, treatment and monitoring of primary immune thrombocytopenia was developed in 2010 by specialists with recognized expertise in this disease under the auspices of the Spanish Society of Hematology and Hemotherapy and the Spanish Society of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, with the aim to adapt to Spain the recommendations of the recently published international consensus documents. The decision to start treatment is based on bleeding manifestations and platelet count (<20×10(9)/L). The first-line treatment is corticosteroids, albeit for a limited period of 4-6 weeks. The addition of intravenous immunoglobulin is reserved to patients with severe bleeding. Splenectomy is the most effective second-line treatment. For patients refractory to splenectomy and those with contraindications or patient refusal, the new thrombopoietic agents are the drugs of choice due to their efficacy and excellent safety profile. The other treatment options have highly variable response rates, and the absence of controlled studies does not allow to establish clear recommendations. Monitoring should be individualized. In patients without active treatment, blood counts are recommended every 3-6 months, and the patient should be instructed to consult in case of bleeding, surgery or invasive procedure and pregnancy. In most of the pediatric population, the disease tends to spontaneous remission. High-dose corticosteroids in short course and intravenous immunoglobulin are the treatment of choice. Second- and further-line treatments should be monitored in specialized centers.