Table 2 Characteristics of included patients.

From: Eltrombopag versus romiplostim in treatment of children with persistent or chronic immune thrombocytopenia: a systematic review incorporating an indirect-comparison meta-analysis

Study ID

Participants(n): TPO-RA vs Control

Gender: Female/Male(n): TPO-RA vs Control

Age(years): TPO-RA vs Control

Duration of ITP(years): TPO-RA vs Control

Splenectomy status(yes/no)(n): TPO-RA vs Control

Baseline platelet count(109/L): TPO-RA vs Control

Previous ITP medication(n): TPO-RA vs Control

Bussel 2015

45(ELT) vs 22(PLA)

27/18 vs 13/9

9(8–10) vs 10(8–12)

6–12 months: 8/45 vs 2/22 ≥12 months: 37/45 vs 20/22

5/40 vs 0/22

15.5 ± 8.0 vs 12.4 ± 8.8 PC ≤ 15 × 109/L: 23/45 vs 11/22

≥2 agents: 38/45 vs 19/22

Grainger 2015

63(ELT) vs 29(PLA)

30/33 vs 14/15

9.4(8.2–10.5) vs 9.8(8.3–11.3)

3.4 ± 2.8 vs 4.4 ± 3.4

4/59 vs 0/29

PC ≤ 15 × 109/L: 38/63 vs 19/29

≥1 agents: 60/63 vs 28/29 ≥2 agents: 46/63 vs 26/29

Bussel 2011

17(ROM) vs 5(PLA)

4/13 vs 2/3

9(1–17) vs 11(2–14)

2.4(0.8–14.0) vs 4.1(0.6–8.6)

6/11 vs 2/3

13(2–27) vs 9(8–29)

≥1 agents: 16/17 vs 5/5

Tarantino 2016

42(ROM) vs 20(PLA)

24/18 vs 11/9

10(6–14) vs 7.5(6.5–13.5)

1.9(1.0–4.2) vs 2.2(1.5–3.7)

1/41 vs 1/19

17.8(7.5–24.5) vs 17.7(9.8–24.1)

≥1 agents: 42/42 vs 20/20 ≥2 agents: 34/42 vs 14/20

Elalfy 2011

12(ROM) vs 6(PLA)

2/10 vs 3/3

9.5(2.5–16) vs 7(4–15)

2.3(1.2–7.0) vs 3.0(1.5–6.5)

0/12 vs 0/6

10.5(2–20) vs 10.5(6–20)

NA

  1. ELT: Eltrombopag; ROM: Romiplostim; PLA: Placebo; PC: Platelet counts. NA: not applicable.
Back to article page