兽研尊敬的编辑：
我们怀着极大的兴趣阅读了美国兽医内科学院关于犬猫免疫性血小板减少症（ITP）治疗的共识声明。1该声明为兽医ITP的循证管理提供了重要且极具价值的框架。在审阅猫血栓生成素受体激动剂部分所引用的文献时，我们发现了一条需要澄清的具体引文。尽管该问题不影响共识声明的主要建议，但此澄清可能有助于读者更准确地追溯支持该引述内容的实验证据。
在治疗共识声明中，关于猫血栓生成素受体激动剂的证据总结指出：“艾曲泊帕在猫中不太可能有效”，并引用参考文献93。1参考文献93对应的是Erickson-Miller等人的研究，2该研究描述了非肽类血栓生成素受体激动剂SB 394725的发现与表征。尽管该研究提供了关于此类小分子血栓生成素受体激动剂物种特异性的相关证据，但所评估的化合物为SB 394725，与艾曲泊帕（SB-497115）并非同一化合物。
SB-497115的直接猫实验证据反而出现在Erickson-Miller等人更早的一篇会议摘要中。3在该研究中，SB-497115诱导的信号在人血小板和黑猩猩血小板中被检测到，但在猫血小板中未检测到。3SB-497115随后在临床上被开发为艾曲泊帕。4因此，共识声明中关于艾曲泊帕在猫中不太可能有效的结论与现有实验证据完全一致；然而，所引用的参考文献并未评估声明中所提及的具体化合物。我们谨建议将该陈述所附的引文替换为或补充以包含SB-497115直接猫数据的早期报告。此澄清将使读者能够更直接地追溯这一猫特异性结论所依据的实验证据。
查看英文原文▾
Dear Editor,
We read with great interest the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine consensus statement on the treatment of immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) in dogs and cats.1 The statement provides an important and highly valuable framework for evidence-based management of veterinary ITP. While reviewing the literature cited in the section on thrombopoietin receptor agonists in cats, we identified a specific citation that warrants clarification. Although this issue does not affect the principal recommendations of the consensus statement, this clarification may help readers more accurately trace the experimental evidence supporting the cited statement.
In the treatment consensus statement, the evidence summary for thrombopoietin receptor agonists in cats states, “Eltrombopag is unlikely to be effective in cats,” citing reference 93.1 Reference 93 corresponds to the study by Erickson-Miller et al.2 describing the discovery and characterization of the nonpeptidyl thrombopoietin receptor agonist SB 394725. Although that study provides relevant evidence regarding the species specificity of this class of small-molecule thrombopoietin receptor agonists, the compound evaluated was SB 394725, which is a different compound from eltrombopag (SB-497115).
Direct feline experimental evidence for SB-497115 appears instead in an earlier conference abstract by Erickson-Miller et al.3 In that study, SB-497115-induced signaling was detected in human and chimpanzee platelets, but not in feline platelets.3 SB-497115 was subsequently developed clinically as eltrombopag.4 Therefore, the conclusion in the consensus statement that eltrombopag is unlikely to be effective in cats is entirely consistent with the available experimental evidence; however, the cited reference does not evaluate the specific compound named in the statement. We respectfully suggest that the citation accompanying this statement be replaced with, or supplemented by, the earlier report containing direct feline data for SB-497115. This clarification would allow readers to more directly trace the experimental evidence underlying this feline-specific conclusion.