Meta-analysis: IVIG bests anti-D on platelet count in pediatric ITP

For patients with pediatric immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), treatment with intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) is more likely to raise platelet count in the short-term, compared with anti-D immunoglobulins (anti-D), according the authors of a recent systematic review and meta-analysis.

Although findings from the meta-analysis support recommendations for first-line IVIG, not all studies reported bleeding symptoms, so the clinical effects of differing platelet responses remain unknown, reported lead author Bertrand Lioger, MD, of François-Rabelais University in Tours, France, and his colleagues.

“To date, no meta-analysis has compared the efficacy and safety of IVIG vs. anti-D,” the investigators wrote in The Journal of Pediatrics.

Each treatment approach has strengths and weaknesses, the investigators noted. Namely, IVIG is more expensive, while anti-D is more likely to cause adverse drugs reactions (ADRs), such as disseminated intravascular coagulation and hemolysis.

The present review evaluated 11 studies comparing the efficacy of IVIG with that of anti-D in 704 children with ITP. Platelet response and bleeding were the main efficacy outcomes. The investigators used response thresholds defined by each study because several did not use standardized levels. Other outcomes considered were mortality, disease course, splenectomy, and ADRs. The ADRs included serious adverse reactions, infusion reactions, transfusions, hemoglobin loss, and hemolysis.

In alignment with previous guidelines, anti-D therapy was most often given to RhD positive, nonsplenectomized children at a dose of 50-75 mcg/kg, whereas IVIG was dosed at 0.8-1 g/kg for 1 or 2 consecutive days.

Results showed that patients treated with IVIG were 15% more likely to have platelet counts greater than 20 × 10⁹/L within 24-72 hours, compared with those given anti-D. This disparity rose to 25% in favor of IVIG when using a threshold of 50 × 10⁹/L.

Treatment risk was lower and general symptoms were less common after treatment with anti-D infusion, compared with IVIG (24.6% vs. 31.4%), but this was only true for trials foregoing premedication. Anti-D was more often associated with hemolysis, making transfusion necessary for some patients.

Although platelet count is often used as a surrogate measure of bleeding risk, the investigators decided that a lack of bleeding data among the studies precluded an accurate determination of clinical superiority between the treatments.

“Severe hemolysis remains an important issue when using anti-D immunoglobulins and premedication reduces the incidence of general symptoms observed with IVIG,” the investigators wrote. “Our conclusions should, however, be cautiously considered due to the poor overall quality of included studies and to limited data about clinically relevant outcomes.”

The study was not supported by outside funding. The investigators reported financial relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Roche Pharma, Sanofi, and others.

SOURCE: Lioger B et al. J Pediatr. 2019;204:225-33.

For patients with pediatric immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), treatment with intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) is more likely to raise platelet count in the short-term, compared with anti-D immunoglobulins (anti-D), according the authors of a recent systematic review and meta-analysis.

Although findings from the meta-analysis support recommendations for first-line IVIG, not all studies reported bleeding symptoms, so the clinical effects of differing platelet responses remain unknown, reported lead author Bertrand Lioger, MD, of François-Rabelais University in Tours, France, and his colleagues.

“To date, no meta-analysis has compared the efficacy and safety of IVIG vs. anti-D,” the investigators wrote in The Journal of Pediatrics.

Each treatment approach has strengths and weaknesses, the investigators noted. Namely, IVIG is more expensive, while anti-D is more likely to cause adverse drugs reactions (ADRs), such as disseminated intravascular coagulation and hemolysis.

The present review evaluated 11 studies comparing the efficacy of IVIG with that of anti-D in 704 children with ITP. Platelet response and bleeding were the main efficacy outcomes. The investigators used response thresholds defined by each study because several did not use standardized levels. Other outcomes considered were mortality, disease course, splenectomy, and ADRs. The ADRs included serious adverse reactions, infusion reactions, transfusions, hemoglobin loss, and hemolysis.

In alignment with previous guidelines, anti-D therapy was most often given to RhD positive, nonsplenectomized children at a dose of 50-75 mcg/kg, whereas IVIG was dosed at 0.8-1 g/kg for 1 or 2 consecutive days.

Results showed that patients treated with IVIG were 15% more likely to have platelet counts greater than 20 × 10⁹/L within 24-72 hours, compared with those given anti-D. This disparity rose to 25% in favor of IVIG when using a threshold of 50 × 10⁹/L.

Treatment risk was lower and general symptoms were less common after treatment with anti-D infusion, compared with IVIG (24.6% vs. 31.4%), but this was only true for trials foregoing premedication. Anti-D was more often associated with hemolysis, making transfusion necessary for some patients.

Although platelet count is often used as a surrogate measure of bleeding risk, the investigators decided that a lack of bleeding data among the studies precluded an accurate determination of clinical superiority between the treatments.

“Severe hemolysis remains an important issue when using anti-D immunoglobulins and premedication reduces the incidence of general symptoms observed with IVIG,” the investigators wrote. “Our conclusions should, however, be cautiously considered due to the poor overall quality of included studies and to limited data about clinically relevant outcomes.”

The study was not supported by outside funding. The investigators reported financial relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Roche Pharma, Sanofi, and others.

SOURCE: Lioger B et al. J Pediatr. 2019;204:225-33.

For patients with pediatric immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), treatment with intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) is more likely to raise platelet count in the short-term, compared with anti-D immunoglobulins (anti-D), according the authors of a recent systematic review and meta-analysis.

Although findings from the meta-analysis support recommendations for first-line IVIG, not all studies reported bleeding symptoms, so the clinical effects of differing platelet responses remain unknown, reported lead author Bertrand Lioger, MD, of François-Rabelais University in Tours, France, and his colleagues.

“To date, no meta-analysis has compared the efficacy and safety of IVIG vs. anti-D,” the investigators wrote in The Journal of Pediatrics.

Each treatment approach has strengths and weaknesses, the investigators noted. Namely, IVIG is more expensive, while anti-D is more likely to cause adverse drugs reactions (ADRs), such as disseminated intravascular coagulation and hemolysis.

The present review evaluated 11 studies comparing the efficacy of IVIG with that of anti-D in 704 children with ITP. Platelet response and bleeding were the main efficacy outcomes. The investigators used response thresholds defined by each study because several did not use standardized levels. Other outcomes considered were mortality, disease course, splenectomy, and ADRs. The ADRs included serious adverse reactions, infusion reactions, transfusions, hemoglobin loss, and hemolysis.

In alignment with previous guidelines, anti-D therapy was most often given to RhD positive, nonsplenectomized children at a dose of 50-75 mcg/kg, whereas IVIG was dosed at 0.8-1 g/kg for 1 or 2 consecutive days.

Results showed that patients treated with IVIG were 15% more likely to have platelet counts greater than 20 × 10⁹/L within 24-72 hours, compared with those given anti-D. This disparity rose to 25% in favor of IVIG when using a threshold of 50 × 10⁹/L.

Treatment risk was lower and general symptoms were less common after treatment with anti-D infusion, compared with IVIG (24.6% vs. 31.4%), but this was only true for trials foregoing premedication. Anti-D was more often associated with hemolysis, making transfusion necessary for some patients.

Although platelet count is often used as a surrogate measure of bleeding risk, the investigators decided that a lack of bleeding data among the studies precluded an accurate determination of clinical superiority between the treatments.

“Severe hemolysis remains an important issue when using anti-D immunoglobulins and premedication reduces the incidence of general symptoms observed with IVIG,” the investigators wrote. “Our conclusions should, however, be cautiously considered due to the poor overall quality of included studies and to limited data about clinically relevant outcomes.”

The study was not supported by outside funding. The investigators reported financial relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Roche Pharma, Sanofi, and others.

SOURCE: Lioger B et al. J Pediatr. 2019;204:225-33.