BACKGROUND: Since pediatric immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is relatively infrequent, comparisons among clinical studies are critical but have previously been limited by differences in terminology. In 2009, an international working group (IWG) developed consensus criteria to enhance comparability in future studies in adults and children. METHODS: We performed a retrospective medical record review of all pediatric ITP patients seen at a single children's hospital with a first visit between 2003 and 2010 and applied both historical (criteria(Hist) ) and IWG (criteria(IWG) ) ITP criteria to available clinical data. RESULTS: Among the 505 patients seen for ITP over 7 years, 98% could be classified as "acute" or "chronic" ITP using the criteria(Hist) , while only 90.7% could be classified as "newly diagnosed," "persistent," or "chronic" ITP using the criteria(IWG) (P < 0.01). Only 33.7% met criteria(IWG) for severe ITP, whereas 77.4% met criteria(Hist) for severe ITP. A striking difference was that overall response to therapies was lower if the criteria(IWG) were used rather than the criteria(Hist) , particularly for IVIG (55.4% vs. 70%, P = 0.02) and rituximab (35.3% vs. 83.3% P = 0.05). Only 2 subjects (0.4%) met the criteria(IWG) for refractory ITP. CONCLUSIONS: Most ITP patients could easily be classified using the 2009 criteria(IWG) . Limitations to applying the criteria(IWG) included absence of treatment response durations, incomplete definition of pediatric "refractory ITP," and exclusion of secondary ITP. Nevertheless, the criteria(IWG) were more clinically relevant given the reliance on definitions based on bleeding and their ability to be applied prospectively. The utility of using the criteria(IWG) within prospective trials remains to be determined.
BACKGROUND: Since pediatric immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is relatively infrequent, comparisons among clinical studies are critical but have previously been limited by differences in terminology. In 2009, an international working group (IWG) developed consensus criteria to enhance comparability in future studies in adults and children. METHODS: We performed a retrospective medical record review of all pediatric ITP patients seen at a single children's hospital with a first visit between 2003 and 2010 and applied both historical (criteria(Hist) ) and IWG (criteria(IWG) ) ITP criteria to available clinical data. RESULTS: Among the 505 patients seen for ITP over 7 years, 98% could be classified as "acute" or "chronic" ITP using the criteria(Hist) , while only 90.7% could be classified as "newly diagnosed," "persistent," or "chronic" ITP using the criteria(IWG) (P < 0.01). Only 33.7% met criteria(IWG) for severe ITP, whereas 77.4% met criteria(Hist) for severe ITP. A striking difference was that overall response to therapies was lower if the criteria(IWG) were used rather than the criteria(Hist) , particularly for IVIG (55.4% vs. 70%, P = 0.02) and rituximab (35.3% vs. 83.3% P = 0.05). Only 2 subjects (0.4%) met the criteria(IWG) for refractory ITP. CONCLUSIONS: Most ITP patients could easily be classified using the 2009 criteria(IWG) . Limitations to applying the criteria(IWG) included absence of treatment response durations, incomplete definition of pediatric "refractory ITP," and exclusion of secondary ITP. Nevertheless, the criteria(IWG) were more clinically relevant given the reliance on definitions based on bleeding and their ability to be applied prospectively. The utility of using the criteria(IWG) within prospective trials remains to be determined.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Francesco Rodeghiero; Roberto Stasi; Terry Gernsheimer; Marc Michel; Drew Provan; Donald M Arnold; James B Bussel; Douglas B Cines; Beng H Chong; Nichola Cooper; Bertrand Godeau; Klaus Lechner; Maria Gabriella Mazzucconi; Robert McMillan; Miguel A Sanz; Paul Imbach; Victor Blanchette; Thomas Kühne; Marco Ruggeri; James N George Journal: Blood Date: 2008-11-12 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: J N George; S H Woolf; G E Raskob; J S Wasser; L M Aledort; P J Ballem; V S Blanchette; J B Bussel; D B Cines; J G Kelton; A E Lichtin; R McMillan; J A Okerbloom; D H Regan; I Warrier Journal: Blood Date: 1996-07-01 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: P Imbach; T Kühne; D Müller; W Berchtold; S Zimmerman; M Elalfy; G R Buchanan Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: D De Mattia; D Del Principe; G C Del Vecchio; M Jankovic; A Arrighini; P Giordano; A Menichelli; P Mori; M Zecca; A Pession Journal: Haematologica Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Deirdra R Terrell; Laura A Beebe; Sara K Vesely; Barbara R Neas; Jodi B Segal; James N George Journal: Am J Hematol Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 10.047