Splenectomy vs. rituximab as a second-line therapy in immune thrombocytopenic purpura: a single center experience
Immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) is a common hematological disease treated primarily by corticosteroids. The aim of the present study was to compare response rate between patients, underwent splenectomy vs. rituximab as second-line therapy. Adult patients diagnosed with ITP who did not respond to corticosteroids or relapsed during the period 1990–2014 were included in a quasi-experimental study. Categorical variables were compared using Fisher exact test. Response to treatment was compared using logistic regression. Data were analyzed using SAS V9.2. One-hundred and forty-three patients with ITP were identified through medical records. Of 62 patients treated, 30 (48.38%) required second-line therapy. 19 (63%) patients received rituximab, and 11 (37%) underwent splenectomy. Platelets at diagnosis were not different between study groups (p = 0.062). Splenectomy group patients were younger (p = 0.011). Response to second-line therapy showed no significant difference between two groups (OR 2.03, 95% CI (0.21–22.09), p = 0.549). Results did not show a statistically significant difference in platelet counts over time between treatment groups (p = 0.101). When used exclusively as a second-line therapy for steroid-refractory ITP, the response rate was not statistically different between rituximab and splenectomy. However, further large studies are needed to assess the response rates for these treatment modalities as a second-line therapy.
KeywordsITP Second-line therapy Immune thrombocytopenic purpura Rituximab Splenectomy
The authors would like to thank Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics at King Abdullah International Medical Research Center (KAIMRC), Riyadh for conducting the data analysis.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
- 6.Provan D, Stasi R, Newland A, Blanchette VS, Bolton-Maggs P, Bussel JB, et al. International consensus report on the investigation and management of primary immune thrombocytopenia. Blood 2010;115:168–86. doi: 10.1182/blood-2009-06-225565 (published ahead of print October 21, 2009).
- 7.The ASH 2011 Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Immune Thrombocytopenia; 2011. American Society of Hematology. http://www.hematology.org/Practice/Guidelines/6584.aspx. Cited 2013 June 2011.
- 13.Aleem A, Alaskar AS, Algahtani F, Rather M, Almahayni MH, Al-Momen A. Rituximab in immune thrombocytopenia: transient responses, low rate of sustained remissions and poor response to further therapy in refractory patients. Int J Hematol. 2010;92(2):283–8. doi: 10.1007/s12185-010-0635-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Peñalver FJ, Jiménez-Yuste V, Almagro M, Alvarez-Larran A, Rodriguez L, Casado M, et al. Multi-institutional Retrospective Spanish Study Group on the use of rituximab in refractory ITP. Rituximab in the management of chronic immune thrombocytopenic purpura: an effective and safe therapeutic alternative in refractory patients. Ann Hematol. 2006;85(6):400–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Fda.gov. Hematology/oncology (cancer) approvals and safety notifications: previous news items; 2015. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/InformationOnDrugs/ApprovedDrugs/ucm279177.htm. Cited 6 July 2015.