NHS Blood and Transplant/Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom; Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; NHSBT/MRC Clinical Studies Unit, NHS Blood and Transplant, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Transfusion. 2014 Oct;54(10):2385-93. doi: 10.1111/trf.12646. Epub 2014 Apr 14.
A recent randomized trial compared a policy of no prophylaxis with a policy of prophylactic platelet (PLT) transfusions at counts of fewer than 10 × 10(9) /L in patients with hematologic malignancies. The results suggested the effectiveness of prophylactic PLT transfusions may vary according to patient diagnosis and treatment plan.
This article presents full subgroup analyses and compares treatment effects between autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (autoHSCT; n = 421) and chemotherapy/allogeneic HSCT (chemo/alloHSCT; n = 179) patients.
Prespecified subgroup analysis found that the reduction in proportion of patients experiencing WHO Grade 2 to 4 bleeds (main trial outcome) seen in the prophylaxis arm was of greater magnitude in chemo/alloHSCT than autoHSCT patients (interaction p = 0.04). Analysis of secondary outcomes showed a shorter time to first bleeding episode with no prophylaxis in the chemo/alloHSCT group (hazard ratio, 1.84; 95% confidence interval CI, 1.21-2.79; p = 0.004) compared to the autoHSCT group (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.85-1.48; p = 0.4; interaction p = 0.08). The increased number of days with Grade 2 to 4 bleeds with a no-prophylaxis policy was similar in chemo/alloHSCT (rate ratio, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.10-3.26) and in autoHSCT patients (rate ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.04-1.97). Both subgroups showed significant reductions in PLT transfusions with a no-prophylaxis strategy.
There is evidence that the effectiveness of prophylactic PLT transfusions may differ between subgroups, with chemo/alloHSCT patients receiving prophylactic PLT transfusions appearing to show a greater reduction in bleeding outcomes compared to patients following a no-prophylaxis policy.
最近一项随机试验比较了血液病患者血小板计数<10×10(9)/L 时不进行预防性血小板输注与进行预防性血小板输注的策略。结果表明,预防性血小板输注的有效性可能因患者诊断和治疗计划而异。
本文对全亚组分析进行了介绍,并比较了自体造血干细胞移植(autoHSCT;n=421)和化疗/异基因 HSCT(chemo/alloHSCT;n=179)患者之间的治疗效果。
预设的亚组分析发现,在预防性治疗组中,WHO 2 至 4 级出血(主要试验结果)的患者比例减少,在化疗/异基因 HSCT 患者中比在 autoHSCT 患者中更为显著(交互作用 p=0.04)。次要结局分析显示,在化疗/异基因 HSCT 组中不进行预防性治疗,首次出血发作的时间更短(无风险比,1.84;95%置信区间 CI,1.21-2.79;p=0.004),与 autoHSCT 组相比(无风险比,1.12;95%置信区间 CI,0.85-1.48;p=0.4;交互作用 p=0.08)。在化疗/异基因 HSCT 组中,不进行预防性治疗时 2 至 4 级出血的天数增加(发生率比,1.89;95%置信区间 CI,1.10-3.26),与 autoHSCT 患者相似(发生率比,1.43;95%置信区间 CI,1.04-1.97)。两个亚组均显示不进行预防性治疗策略时血小板输注显著减少。
有证据表明,预防性血小板输注的有效性在亚组之间可能存在差异,与接受预防性血小板输注的化疗/异基因 HSCT 患者相比,采用不进行预防性治疗策略的患者出血结局的改善更为显著。