Treatment of immune thrombocytopenia in Australian adults: A multicenter retrospective observational study.

Background: In Australia, prescribing restrictions limit access to internationally recommended second-line therapies such as rituximab and thrombopoietin agonists (TPO-A) (eltrombopag and romiplostim). Subsequent lines of therapy include an array of immunosuppressive and immune-modulating agents directed by drug availability and physician and patient preference. Objectives: The objective of the study was to describe the use of first and subsequent lines of treatment for adult immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) in Australia and to assess their effectiveness and tolerability. Patients/Methods: A retrospective review of medical records was conducted of 322 patients treated for ITP at eight participating centers in Australia between 2013 and 2020. Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics and frequency distribution using pivot tables, and comparisons between centers were assessed using paired t tests. Results: Mean age at diagnosis of ITP was 48.8 years (standard deviation [SD], 22.6) and 58.3% were women. Primary ITP was observed in 72% and secondary ITP in 28% of the patients; 95% of patients received first-line treatment with prednisolone (76%), dexamethasone (15%), or intravenous immunoglobulin (48%) alone or in combination. Individuals with secondary ITP were less steroid dependent (72% vs. 76%) and required less treatment with a second-line agent (47% vs. 58%) in the study sample. Over half (56%) of the cohort received treatment with one or more second-line agents. The mean number of second-line agents used for each patient was 1.9 (SD, 1.2). The most used second-line therapy was rituximab, followed by etrombopag and splenectomy. These also generated the highest rates of complete response (60.3%, 72.1%, and 71.8% respectively). The most unfavorable side effect profiles were seen in long-term corticosteroids and splenectomy. Conclusion: A wide range of "second-line" agents were used across centers with variable response rates and side effect profiles. Findings suggest greater effectiveness of rituximab and TPO-A, supporting their use earlier in the treatment course of patients with ITP across Australia.

Is it safe to expand the indications for split liver transplantation in adults? A single-center analysis of 155 in-situ splits.

INTRODUCTION: Split liver transplantation (SLT) enables two recipients to be transplanted using a single donor liver; typically, an adult and a child. Despite equivalent long-term outcomes to whole grafts in selected adults, the use of these grafts in high-risk adult recipients with high model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores (≥30), a poor pre-transplant clinical status (ICU or hospital-bound), acute liver failure or retransplantation remains controversial. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all deceased donor adult liver transplants performed between July 2002 and November 2019 at a single high-volume center and performed a propensity score-matched analysis. A subgroup analysis was performed to assess utility of these grafts for high-risk recipients. RESULTS: A total of 1090 adult liver transplants were performed, including 155 SLT (14%). Graft survival at 1-, 3- and 5-years were comparable between recipients of split and whole liver grafts (82%, 79% and 74% vs. 86%, 81% and 77%, respectively, log rank P = .537), as was patient survival at 1-, 3- and 5-years. Recipients of split grafts were more likely to have biliary complications and hepatic artery thrombosis, but equivalent long-term survival. Recipients with high MELD scores or a poor pre-transplant clinical status had similar patient and graft survival and complication profiles irrespective of whether they received split or whole grafts. CONCLUSIONS: SLT is an important method for addressing donor shortages and provides comparable long-term outcomes in adult recipients despite an increase in short-term complications. SLT use in high-risk recipients should be considered to allow for sickest-first allocation policies.

Research priorities to reduce the impact of COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused disruptions to the functioning of societies and their health systems. Prior to the pandemic, health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) were particularly stretched and vulnerable. The International Society of Global Health (ISoGH) sought to systematically identify priorities for health research that would have the potential to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in LMICs. Methods: The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method was used to identify COVID-19-related research priorities. All ISoGH members were invited to participate. Seventy-nine experts in clinical, translational, and population research contributed 192 research questions for consideration. Fifty-two experts then scored those questions based on five pre-defined criteria that were selected for this exercise: 1) feasibility and answerability; 2) potential for burden reduction; 3) potential for a paradigm shift; 4) potential for translation and implementation; and 5) impact on equity. Results: Among the top 10 research priorities, research questions related to vaccination were prominent: health care system access barriers to equitable uptake of COVID-19 vaccination (ranked 1st), determinants of vaccine hesitancy (4th), development and evaluation of effective interventions to decrease vaccine hesitancy (5th), and vaccination impacts on vulnerable population/s (6th). Health care delivery questions also ranked highly, including: effective strategies to manage COVID-19 globally and in LMICs (2nd) and integrating health care for COVID-19 with other essential health services in LMICs (3rd). Additionally, the assessment of COVID-19 patients' needs in rural areas of LMICs was ranked 7th, and studying the leading socioeconomic determinants and consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in LMICs using multi-faceted approaches was ranked 8th. The remaining questions in the top 10 were: clarifying paediatric case-fatality rates (CFR) in LMICs and identifying effective strategies for community engagement against COVID-19 in different LMIC contexts. Interpretation: Health policy and systems research to inform COVID-19 vaccine uptake and equitable access to care are urgently needed, especially for rural, vulnerable, and/or marginalised populations. This research should occur in parallel with studies that will identify approaches to minimise vaccine hesitancy and effectively integrate care for COVID-19 with other essential health services in LMICs. ISoGH calls on the funders of health research in LMICs to consider the urgency and priority of this research during the COVID-19 pandemic and support studies that could make a positive difference for the populations of LMICs.