ArticleAnnals of hematology2026
Comparative thromboembolic risk of romiplostim versus eltrombopag in immune thrombocytopenia: a propensity score-matched cohort study.
Article in Annals of hematology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is associated with both bleeding and thrombotic complications. Thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs), particularly romiplostim and eltrombopag, are widely used as second-line therapy, yet comparative data on thromboembolic risk between these agents remain limited. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX federated research network, including adults with ITP who initiated romiplostim or eltrombopag between January 2010 and December 2025. ITP was defined using ICD-10 code D69.3. Patients with prior TPO-RA exposure, alternative thrombocytopenia etiologies, or thrombotic events within 1 year before treatment initiation were excluded. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed using demographics, comorbidities, prior therapies, concomitant medications, and laboratory variables. After matching, 3,055 patients remained in each group. Romiplostim was associated with a higher cumulative risk of any thromboembolism than eltrombopag at 30 days (7.2% vs. 5.7%; RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05-1.54), 90 days (10.7% vs. 7.9%; RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.16-1.59), 1 year (14.9% vs. 12.2%; RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07-1.39), and full follow-up (22.5% vs. 19.2%; RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.06-1.29). Portal vein thrombosis was more frequent with romiplostim at 1 year, although absolute event rates were low (RR 2.32, 95% CI 1.36-3.96). Mean platelet counts were similar at most time points. These findings suggest that romiplostim may be associated with higher cumulative thromboembolic risk than eltrombopag despite comparable platelet counts. Given the retrospective design and potential confounding, these results should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating.
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.