标题：Author Correction: Deciphering predictive factors for choice of thrombopoietin receptor agonist, treatment free responses, and thrombotic events in immune thrombocytopenia
摘要：Correction to:
Scientific Reports
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53209-y, published online 13 November 2019
The original version of this Article contained errors in Figures
1 and
2.
Figure 1
Probability of maintaining therapy free responses (TFR) upon TPO-RA discontinuation. Kaplan–Meier plot showing the estimated probability of TFR in patients who discontinue TPO-RA for reasons other than lack of efficacy and being followed for a minimum of 6 months (n = 41). Patients who died while on TPO-RA therapy were not included in the study. Solid black line represents patients that received only romiplostim (n = 23); solid grey line represents patients that received only eltrombopag (n = 12), and dashed black line represents patients that switched TPO-RA (n = 6). The number of patients that discontinue TPO therapy (“at risk”) and the cumulative loss of TFR events at time points are presented for each group below the figure.
Figure 2
Probability of achieving therapy free responses (TFR). Proportion of patients achieving TFR within the whole cohort (n = 121) included in the study (panel
a), and in those with chronic ITP (panel
b). TFR was defined as the ability of a patient to discontinue TPO-RA as platelet counts > 50 × 10
9/l for at least 6 months in the absence of any therapies meant to increase platelet counts. Patients who died while on TPO-RA therapy were not included in the study. Solid black line represents patients that received only romiplostim (Panel
a, n = 41; Panel
b, n = 29). Solid grey line represents patients that received only eltrombopag (Panel
a, n = 41; Panel
b, n = 24). Dashed black line represents patients that initiated romiplostim and switched to eltrombopag (Panel
a, n = 13; Panel
b, n = 8). Dashed grey line represents patients that initiated eltrombopag and switched to romiplostim (Panel
a, n = 26; Panel
b, n = 21). The number of patients under TPO therapy (“at risk”) and the cumulative TFR at time points are presented for each group below each figure.
In Figure
1, the y-axis label, “Proportion of patients that maintain TFR” was incorrectly given as “Patients that maintained TFR (%)”. In Figure
2, the y-axis label, “Proportion of patients that achieve TFR” was incorrectly given as “Patients that achieved TFR (%)”. The original Figures
1 and
2 and accompanying legends appear below.
The original Article has been corrected.
