1.
A multicenter, randomized phase III trial of hetrombopag: a novel thrombopoietin receptor agonist for the treatment of immune thrombocytopenia
Mei H, Liu X, Li Y, Zhou H, Feng Y, Gao G, Cheng P, Huang R, Yang L, Hu J, et al
Journal of hematology & oncology. 2021;14(1):37
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hetrombopag, a novel thrombopoietin receptor agonist, has been found in phase I studies to increase platelet counts and reduce bleeding risks in adults with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). This phase III study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of hetrombopag in ITP patients. METHODS Patients who had not responded to or had relapsed after previous treatment were treated with an initial dosage of once-daily 2.5 or 5 mg hetrombopag (defined as the HETROM-2.5 or HETROM-5 group) or with matching placebo in a randomized, double-blind, 10-week treatment period. Patients who received placebo and completed 10 weeks of treatment switched to receive eltrombopag, and patients treated with hetrombopag in the double-blind period continued hetrombopag during the following open-label 14-week treatment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of responders (defined as those achieving a platelet count of ≥ 50 × 10(9)/L) after 8 weeks of treatment. RESULTS The primary endpoint was achieved by significantly more patients in the HETROM-2.5 (58.9%; odds ratio [OR] 25.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 9.83-68.63; p < 0.0001) and HETROM-5 (64.3%; OR 32.81, 95% CI 12.39-86.87; p < 0.0001) group than in the Placebo group (5.9%). Hetrombopag was also superior to placebo in achieving a platelet response and in reducing the bleeding risk and use of rescue therapy throughout 8 weeks of treatment. The durable platelet response to hetrombopag was maintained throughout 24 weeks. The most common adverse events were upper respiratory tract infection (42.2%), urinary tract infection (17.1%), immune thrombocytopenic purpura (17.1%) and hematuria (15%) with 24-week hetrombopag treatment. CONCLUSIONS In ITP patients, hetrombopag is efficacious and well tolerated with a manageable safety profile. Trial registration Clinical trials.gov NCT03222843 , registered July 19, 2017, retrospectively registered.
2.
High-dose dexamethasone plus recombinant human thrombopoietin versus high-dose dexamethasone alone as frontline treatment for newly diagnosed adult primary immune thrombocytopenia:a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial
Yu Y, Wang M, Hou Y, Qin P, Zeng Q, Yu W, Guo X, Wang J, Wang X, Liu G, et al
American journal of hematology. 2020
Abstract
We conducted a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial to compare the efficacy and safety of high-dose dexamethasone (HD-DXM) plus recombinant human thrombopoietin (rhTPO) versus HD-DXM alone in newly diagnosed adult immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) patients. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned to receive DXM plus rhTPO or DXM monotherapy. Another 4-day course of DXM was repeated if response was not achieved by day 10 in both arms. One hundred patients in the HD-DXM plus rhTPO arm and 96 patients in the HD-DXM monotherapy arm were included in the full analysis set. HD-DXM plus rhTPO resulted in a higher incidence of initial response (89.0% vs. 66.7%, P < 0.001) and complete response (CR, 75.0% vs. 42.7%, P < 0.001) compared with HD-DXM monotherapy. Response rate at 6 months was also higher in the HD-DXM plus rhTPO arm than that in the HD-DXM monotherapy arm (51.0% vs. 36.5%, P = 0.02; sustained CR: 46.0% vs. 32.3%, P = 0.043). Throughout the follow-up period, the overall duration of response was greater in the HD-DXM plus rhTPO arm compared to the HD-DXM monotherapy arm (P = 0.04), as estimated by the Kaplan-Meier analysis. The study drugs were generally well tolerated. In conclusion, the combination of HD-DXM with rhTPO significantly improved the initial response and yielded favorable SR in newly diagnosed ITP patients, thus could be further validated as a frontline treatment for ITP. This study is registered as clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01734044. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
3.
Terlipressin versus norepinephrine as infusion in patients with septic shock: a multicentre, randomised, double-blinded trial
Liu ZM, Chen J, Kou Q, Lin Q, Huang X, Tang Z, Kang Y, Li K, Zhou L, Song Q, et al
Intensive Care Medicine. 2018;44((11):):1816-1825
Abstract
PURPOSE Recent clinical data suggest that terlipressin, a vasopressin analogue, may be more beneficial in septic shock patients than catecholamines. However, terlipressin's effect on mortality is unknown. We set out to ascertain the efficacy and safety of continuous terlipressin infusion compared with norepinephrine (NE) in patients with septic shock. METHODS In this multicentre, randomised, double-blinded trial, patients with septic shock recruited from 21 intensive care units in 11 provinces of China were randomised (1:1) to receive either terlipressin (20-160 microg/h with maximum infusion rate of 4 mg/day) or NE (4-30 microg/min) before open-label vasopressors. The primary endpoint was mortality 28 days after the start of infusion. Primary efficacy endpoint analysis and safety analysis were performed on the data from a modified intention-to-treat population. RESULTS Between 1 January 2013 and 28 February 2016, 617 patients were randomised (312 to the terlipressin group, 305 to the NE group). The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 526 (85.3%) patients (260 in the terlipressin group and 266 in the NE group). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality rate between the terlipressin group (40%) and the NE group (38%) (odds ratio 0.93 [95% CI 0.55-1.56]; p = 0.80). Change in SOFA score on day 7 was similar between the two groups: - 7 (IQR - 11 to 3) in the terlipressin group and - 6 (IQR - 10 to 5) in the NE group. There was no difference between the groups in the number of days alive and free of vasopressors. Overall, serious adverse events were more common in the terlipressin group than in the NE group (30% vs 12%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS In this multicentre, randomised, double-blinded trial, we observed no difference in mortality between terlipressin and NE infusion in patients with septic shock. Patients in the terlipressin group had a higher number of serious adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: ID NCT01697410.
4.
Clinical application of activated recombinant human factor VIIa in China
Ye X, Feng Y
ISTH Congress. 2007;: Abstract No. P-W-157.