ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2021
Response to rituximab in children and adults with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP).
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Urinary metabolomics predicts early rituximab response in steroid-nonresponsive pediatric patients with primary immune thrombocytopenia.Annals of hematology · 2025Article
- Impact of Thrombopoietin Receptor Agonists on Pathophysiology of Pediatric Immune Thrombocytopenia.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
- Rituximab alleviates pediatric systemic lupus erythematosus associated refractory immune thrombocytopenia: a case-based review.Immunologic research · 2024Review
- Rituximab resistance in ITP and beyond.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
- Response to rituximab in children and adults with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP).Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRituximab is a monoclonal anti-CD20 antibody used as a second-line treatment for immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). As additional treatments for ITP emerge, identifying the most appropriate patients and optimal timing for rituximab are important but challenging without established predictors of response to therapy.
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to describe demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics of pediatric and adult patients with ITP to identify differences in evaluation before rituximab administration and correlates of platelet response.
methodsThis is a retrospective cohort study describing the characteristics of patients with ITP treated with rituximab from 2010 to 2020 at two academic tertiary care centers.
resultsA total of 64 patients met criteria for inclusion. Complete rituximab response (56%) was not significantly different between children (58%, n = 24) and adults (55%, n = 40). Response rate was similar in those with primary versus secondary ITP (53% vs 62%). Among patients treated with rituximab, Evans Syndrome was more common in children than adults (42% vs 18%). Immunologic labs assessed before rituximab varied by age and were more commonly evaluated in children (lymphocyte subsets 88% vs 22%). Immunologic markers, including antinuclear antibody, direct antiglobulin testing, immunoglobulin levels, and lymphocyte subsets, did not predict response to rituximab in pediatric or adult patients with ITP.
conclusionsPre-rituximab immunologic evaluation varied significantly between adults and children, which could represent institution-specific practice patterns or a more general practice difference. If the latter, underlying immunodeficiency in adults with ITP may be underrecognized. Standardized guidance for pre-rituximab immunologic evaluation is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.