Immune thrombocytopenia nomenclature, consensus reports, and guidelines: what are the consequences for daily practice and clinical research?

New insights into the pathophysiology and the natural history of immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) and new therapeutical approaches have emerged in the last 10 years that have made necessary the update of previous guidelines. An important step towards the harmonization on both the definition of the disease and the phases of the disease, the objectives of treatment, and the criteria of response to be used in clinical trials has been first made possible throughout the International Working group on ITP. This important step has been followed by an international consensus report and the updated American Society of Hematology (ASH) guidelines focused on the investigation and management of ITP taking into account the data from the most recent clinical trials in the field. In this article, the consequences and translation that these guidelines may have or not on daily practice and on future clinical trials are discussed and the few controversies are pointed out. Whereas these guidelines are helpful for the investigation of ITP and for the harmonization of clinical trials, some area of uncertainties do remain for the best management of ITP and especially the choice of the best second-line strategy in persistent ITP is still far from being consensual.