Bussel, James B.

Background: Since publication of the American Society of Hematology 2019 Guidelines for Immune Thrombocytopenia (ITP), new clinical trials have been completed and new treatments have become available. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are a focused update of the 2019 ASH ITP guidelines, centering on treatment of adults with primary ITP. Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel including two patient representatives that was balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The University of Oklahoma supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews (up to July 19, 2025). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients and identification of areas with new data or where application of new methods would be of benefit. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks and the GRADE framework for multiple comparisons, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. Results: The panel agreed on recommendations in adults with primary ITP regarding initial therapy and second-line treatment in patients who failed first-line corticosteroids. The panel also issued good practice statements on thrombopoietic agent switching and splenectomy. Conclusions: Novel recommendations of these guidelines include: (1) initial therapy with a combination of rituximab plus corticosteroids or a thrombopoietic agent plus corticosteroids rather than corticosteroids alone (conditional recommendation) and (2) a thrombopoietic agent (strong recommendation) or rituximab (conditional recommendation) for patients who failed first-line corticosteroids.

AbstractBackgroundImmune thrombocytopenia (ITP) and Evans syndrome (ES) are manifestations of immune dysregulation. Genetic variants in immune‐related genes have been identified in patients with ITP and especially ES. We aimed to explore familial autoimmunity in patients with ITP and ES to understand possible contributions to chronicity.ProcedureWe assessed family history in two ways: via patient report for ITP and ES and by population‐based analysis using the Utah Population Database (UPDB) for ITP. A total of 266 patients with ITP and 21 patients with ES were identified via chart review, and 252 of the 266 patients with ITP were also identified in the UPDB.ResultsChart review showed familial autoimmunity in 29/182 (15.9%) and 25/84 (29.8%) of patients with newly diagnosed+persistent (nd+p) ITP and chronic ITP (cITP), respectively, (p = .009). The UPDB analysis revealed that autoimmunity in relatives of patients with nd+pITP was higher than in relatives of controls (odds ratio [OR]: 1.69 [1.19–2.41], p = .004), but was not significantly increased in relatives of patients with cITP (OR 1.10 [0.63–1.92], p = .734). Incomplete family history in medical records likely contributed to the observed discrepancy.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that familial autoimmunity may have a stronger association with the development of ITP rather than its duration. Twelve (57.1%) patients with ES reported autoimmunity in their relatives. UPDB analysis was omitted due to the small number of patients with ES. The use of population databases offers a unique opportunity to assess familial health and may provide clues about contributors to immune dysregulation features within families.