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
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
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 × 109/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.