1.
Avatrombopag and lusutrombopag for thrombocytopenia in people with chronic liver disease needing an elective procedure: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis
Armstrong N, Büyükkaramikli N, Penton H, Riemsma R, Wetzelaer P, Huertas Carrera V, Swift S, Drachen T, Raatz H, Ryder S, et al
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). 2020;24(51):1-220
Abstract
BACKGROUND There have been no licensed treatment options in the UK for treating thrombocytopenia in people with chronic liver disease requiring surgery. Established management largely involves platelet transfusion prior to the procedure or as rescue therapy for bleeding due to the procedure. OBJECTIVES To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two thrombopoietin receptor agonists, avatrombopag (Doptelet(®); Dova Pharmaceuticals, Durham, NC, USA) and lusutrombopag (Mulpleta(®); Shionogi Inc., London, UK), in addition to established clinical management compared with established clinical management (no thrombopoietin receptor agonist) in the licensed populations. DESIGN Systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING Secondary care. PARTICIPANTS Severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count of < 50,000/µl) in people with chronic liver disease requiring surgery. INTERVENTIONS Lusutrombopag 3 mg and avatrombopag (60 mg if the baseline platelet count is < 40,000/µl and 40 mg if it is 40,000-< 50,000/µl). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Risk of platelet transfusion and rescue therapy or risk of rescue therapy only. REVIEW METHODS Systematic review including meta-analysis. English-language and non-English-language articles were obtained from several databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, all searched from inception to 29 May 2019. ECONOMIC EVALUATION Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS From a comprehensive search retrieving 11,305 records, six studies were included. Analysis showed that avatrombopag and lusutrombopag were superior to no thrombopoietin receptor agonist in avoiding both platelet transfusion and rescue therapy or rescue therapy only, and mostly with a statistically significant difference (i.e. 95% confidence intervals not overlapping the point of no difference). However, only avatrombopag seemed to be superior to no thrombopoietin receptor agonist in reducing the risk of rescue therapy, although far fewer patients in the lusutrombopag trials than in the avatrombopag trials received rescue therapy. When assessing the cost-effectiveness of lusutrombopag and avatrombopag, it was found that, despite the success of these in avoiding platelet transfusions prior to surgery, the additional long-term gain in quality-adjusted life-years was very small. No thrombopoietin receptor agonist was clearly cheaper than both lusutrombopag and avatrombopag, as the cost savings from avoiding platelet transfusions were more than offset by the drug cost. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that, for all thresholds below £100,000, no thrombopoietin receptor agonist had 100% probability of being cost-effective. LIMITATIONS Some of the rescue therapy data for lusutrombopag were not available. There were inconsistencies in the avatrombopag data. From the cost-effectiveness point of view, there were several additional important gaps in the evidence required, including the lack of a price for avatrombopag. CONCLUSIONS Avatrombopag and lusutrombopag were superior to no thrombopoietin receptor agonist in avoiding both platelet transfusion and rescue therapy, but they were not cost-effective given the lack of benefit and increase in cost. FUTURE WORK A head-to-head trial is warranted. STUDY REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019125311. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 51. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
2.
Safety and effectiveness of intravenous iron sucrose versus standard oral iron therapy in pregnant women with moderate-to-severe anaemia in India: a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial
Neogi SB, Devasenapathy N, Singh R, Bhushan H, Shah D, Divakar H, Zodpey S, Malik S, Nanda S, Mittal P, et al
The Lancet. Global health. 2019;7(12):e1706-e1716
Abstract
BACKGROUND Intravenous iron sucrose is a promising therapy for increasing haemoglobin concentration; however, its effect on clinical outcomes in pregnancy is not yet established. We aimed to assess the safety and clinical effectiveness of intravenous iron sucrose (intervention) versus standard oral iron (control) therapy in the treatment of women with moderate-to-severe iron deficiency anaemia in pregnancy. METHODS We did a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial at four government medical colleges in India. Pregnant women, aged 18 years or older, at 20-28 weeks of gestation with a haemoglobin concentration of 5-8 g/dL, or at 29-32 weeks of gestation with a haemoglobin concentration of 5-9 g/dL, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous iron sucrose (dose was calculated using a formula based on bodyweight and haemoglobin deficit) or standard oral iron therapy (100 mg elemental iron twice daily). Logistic regression was used to compare the primary maternal composite outcome consisting of potentially life-threatening conditions during peripartum and postpartum periods (postpartum haemorrhage, the need for blood transfusion during and after delivery, puerperal sepsis, shock, prolonged hospital stay [>3 days following vaginal delivery and >7 days after lower segment caesarean section], and intensive care unit admission or referral to higher centres) adjusted for site and severity of anaemia. The primary outcome was analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population, which excluded participants who refused to participate after randomisation, those who were lost to follow-up, and those whose outcome data were missing. Safety was assessed in both modified intention-to-treat and as-treated populations. The data safety monitoring board recommended stopping the trial after the first interim analysis because of futility (conditional power 1.14% under the null effects, 3.0% under the continued effects, and 44.83% under hypothesised effects). This trial is registered with the Clinical Trial Registry of India, CTRI/2012/05/002626. FINDINGS Between Jan 31, 2014, and July 31, 2017, 2018 women were enrolled, and 999 were randomly assigned to the intravenous iron sucrose group and 1019 to the standard therapy group. The primary maternal composite outcome was reported in 89 (9%) of 958 patients in the intravenous iron sucrose group and in 95 (10%) of 976 patients in the standard therapy group (adjusted odds ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.70-1.29). 16 (2%) of 958 women in the intravenous iron sucrose group and 13 (1%) of 976 women in the standard therapy group had serious maternal adverse events. Serious fetal and neonatal adverse events were reported by 39 (4%) of 961 women in the intravenous iron sucrose group and 45 (5%) of 982 women in the standard therapy group. At 6 weeks post-randomisation, minor side-effects were reported by 117 (16%) of 737 women in the intravenous iron sucrose group versus 155 (21%) of 721 women in the standard therapy group. None of the serious adverse events was found to be related to the trial procedures or the interventions as per the causality assessment made by the trial investigators, ethics committees, and regulatory body. INTERPRETATION The study was stopped due to futility. There is insufficient evidence to show the effectiveness of intravenous iron sucrose in reducing clinical outcomes compared with standard oral iron therapy in pregnant women with moderate-to-severe anaemia. FUNDING WHO, India.