ArticleBritish journal of haematology2024
When is the use of intravenous immunoglobulin appropriate in immune thrombocytopenia?
Article in British journal of haematology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Case Report: rapid exacerbation of autoimmune hemolysis and severe immune - mediated thrombocytopenia induced by piperacillin - tazobactam.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Thromboelastography-Guided Laparoscopic Splenectomy in a Patient With Immune Thrombocytopenia and Recent Drug-Eluting Stent Placement: A Case Report.Case reports in anesthesiology · 2026Article
- From C481 Resistance Evasion to Platelet Preservation: Rilzabrutinib Redefines ITP Targeted Therapy.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025Review
- When is the use of intravenous immunoglobulin appropriate in immune thrombocytopenia?British journal of haematology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) is the gold standard treatment for severe cases of immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). However, its cost, limited duration of efficacy and market supply tension have led French guidelines to reserve IVIg for ITP patients with formal contra-indications to corticosteroids, with French bleeding score ('Khellaf score') > 8, and corticosteroid-resistant patients either with Khellaf score ≤ 8 or in preparation for an invasive procedure or during pregnancy. We studied the prescribing practices of IVIg for ITP in real-life conditions and assessed their compliance with French guidelines. A monocentric retrospective study was conducted between 2016 and 2020 among 114 patients hospitalized in our unit, for a total of 208 IVIg treatments. In 37% of cases, the Khellaf score was >8, validating IVIg prescription according to French guidelines. In the remaining cases, reasons noted for use of IVIg included corticosteroid resistance (33.7%), preparation for an invasive procedure (8.5%), context of pregnancy (6.6%) and contra-indication to corticosteroids (3.3%). After analysis, IVIg prescription was considered valid according to current French guidelines in 84.4% of cases. Non-compliant IVIg prescription was more frequent in younger patients (p = 0.027). Concomitant anti-coagulation was also noted as an argument for IVIg prescription outside of the current French guidelines.
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.