English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

In patients with immune thrombocytopenia who do not adequately respond to first‐line therapy, there is no clear consensus on which second‐line therapy to initiate and when. This situation leads to suboptimal approaches, including prolonged exposure to treatments that are not intended for long‐term use (eg, corticosteroids) and overuse of off‐label therapies (eg, rituximab) while approved, more efficacious options exist. These approaches may not only fail to address symptoms and burden of disease, but may also worsen health‐related quality of life. A better understanding of available second‐line treatments may ensure best use of therapeutic options and thereby optimize patient outcomes.

Transitioning patients with immune thrombocytopenia to second‐line therapy: Challenges and best practices