4.5 Article

Efficacy and safety of dapsone as a second-line treatment in non-splenectomized adults with immune thrombocytopenic purpura

期刊

PLATELETS
卷 19, 期 7, 页码 489-495

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/09537100802315110

关键词

ITP; dapsone; splenectomy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In adults with immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), steroids are usually proposed as first-line therapy, but long-term complete responses are obtained in no more than 20% of patients. For the remaining patients, splenectomy is considered the treatment of choice, with reported cure rates from 60-70%. However, the inherent risks of surgery and sepsis after splenectomy without a guarantee of success justify the search for strategies aimed to avoid splenectomy. Here we retrospectively evaluated the results of dapsone treatment in ITP patients that failed first-line therapy with steroids. These patients received dapsone 100 mg/day for a minimum of 30 days before splenectomy was considered. Efficacy was defined as a sustained rise in platelet counts (50 109/l) clearly attributed to dapsone treatment. Among 52 steroid-dependent or refractory patients, dapsone resulted in sustained increases in platelet counts in 44.2% of patients, after a median follow-up of 21.10 months after treatment initiation. The long-term efficacy of dapsone in this setting is further corroborated by the observation that none of the responding patients required splenectomy in the follow-up, compared to 69.0% of the non-responding patients. Dapsone-related adverse events were mild and promptly reversed by treatment withdrawal. The results of our retrospective analysis suggest that dapsone is a safe and effective second-line agent for steroid-dependent or refractory ITP patients. Because of its well-known safety profile and low cost compared to other potential second-line treatments for ITP, a trial course of dapsone should be viewed as an attractive option before splenectomy in steroid-dependent of refractory adult ITP patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据