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.

[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.

[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.