TPO受体激动剂对比白细胞介素-11治疗血液肿瘤化疗后血小板减少症的单中心数据分析
CSTR:
作者:
作者单位:

作者简介:

通讯作者:

中图分类号:

R733;R558.2

基金项目:

四川省自然科学基金项目(2022NSFSC1416);


A single-center data analysis comparing thrombopoietin receptor agonists with interleukin-11 for chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia in hematologic malignancies
Author:
Affiliation:

Fund Project:

  • 摘要
  • |
  • 图/表
  • |
  • 访问统计
  • |
  • 参考文献
  • |
  • 相似文献
  • |
  • 引证文献
  • |
  • 资源附件
  • |
    摘要:

    目的:比较促血小板生成素受体激动剂(TPO-RAs)与重组人白细胞介素-11(rhIL-11)治疗血液肿瘤化疗所致血小板减少症(CIT)的疗效、安全性及药物经济学差异。方法:纳入87例血液肿瘤CIT患者为研究对象,按用药方案不同将患者分为TPO-RAs组(n=43)和rhIL-11组(n=44)。比较两组患者血小板恢复时间、应答率、不良事件发生情况及治疗成本。结果:两组患者血小板计数均随治疗时间增加(P<0.05),但组间无统计学差异(P>0.05)。治疗后各时间点两组血小板计数差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。TPO-RAs组血小板恢复至>50×109/L、>75×109/L及>100×109/L的达标率分别为83.7%、76.7%及60.5%,rhIL-11组分别为75.0%、65.9%及52.3%,两组达标率及中位恢复时间比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。多因素Cox回归分析显示,基线血小板水平是血小板恢复的独立影响因素(P<0.05),治疗组别未显示出与血小板恢复的统计学差异(P>0.05)。TPO-RAs组不良事件发生率低于rhIL-11组(P<0.05)。成本分析中,两组总成本无统计学差异(P>0.05),但艾曲泊帕亚组总成本在数值上最低。结论:TPO-RAs与rhIL-11治疗血液肿瘤CIT疗效相当,但TPO-RAs安全性更优。艾曲泊帕在成本数值上具有一定优势。基线血小板水平可作为评估恢复潜力的参考指标。

    Abstract:

    Objective: To compare the efficacy, safety, and pharmacoeconomic profiles of thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) versus recombinant human interleukin-11 (rhIL-11) in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (CIT) in patients with hematologic malignancies. Methods: A total of 87 patients with CIT secondary to hematologic malignancies were retrospectively enrolled and divided into a TPO-RAs group (n=43) and an rhIL-11 group (n=44) according to treatment regimen. Platelet recovery time, response rate, adverse events, and treatment costs were compared between the two groups. Results: Platelet counts increased with treatment time in both groups, and there was no statistically significant difference in the trend of change between the groups (P>0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in platelet counts between the two groups at each time point after treatment (P>0.05). The attainment rates of platelet count recovery to >50×10?/L, >75×10?/L, and >100×10?/L in the TPO-RAs group were 83.7%, 76.7%, and 60.5%, respectively, while those in the rhIL-11 group were 75.0%, 65.9%, and 52.3%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in attainment rate and median recovery time between the two groups (P>0.05). Multivariate Cox regression showed that baseline platelet level was an independent influencing factor for platelet recovery (P<0.05), while treatment group did not show statistical significance with platelet recovery (P>0.05). The incidence of adverse events in the TPO-RAs group was lower than that in the rhIL-11 group (P<0.05). In the cost analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in total cost between the two groups (P>0.05), but the total cost of the eltrombopag subgroup was the lowest in value. Conclusion: TPO-RAs and rhIL-11 demonstrate comparable efficacy in treating CIT in hematologic malignancies, whereas TPO-RAs offer a superior safety profile. Eltrombopag shows a numerical advantage in treatment cost. Baseline platelet level may serve as a reference indicator for assessing recovery potential.

    参考文献
    相似文献
    引证文献
引用本文

万九超;管圣文;徐秋萍;王萧雅;赵攀;. TPO受体激动剂对比白细胞介素-11治疗血液肿瘤化疗后血小板减少症的单中心数据分析[J].川北医学院学报,2026,41(9):1048-1053.

复制
分享
相关视频

文章指标
  • 点击次数:
  • 下载次数:
  • HTML阅读次数:
  • 引用次数:
历史
  • 收稿日期:
  • 最后修改日期:
  • 录用日期:
  • 在线发布日期: 2026-10-09
  • 出版日期:
文章二维码