1.
Effectiveness of therapeutic heparin versus prophylactic heparin on death, mechanical ventilation, or intensive care unit admission in moderately ill patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital: RAPID randomised clinical trial
Sholzberg M, Tang GH, Rahhal H, AlHamzah M, Kreuziger LB, Áinle FN, Alomran F, Alayed K, Alsheef M, AlSumait F, et al
BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 2021;375:n2400
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effects of therapeutic heparin compared with prophylactic heparin among moderately ill patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital wards. DESIGN Randomised controlled, adaptive, open label clinical trial. SETTING 28 hospitals in Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and US. PARTICIPANTS 465 adults admitted to hospital wards with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels were recruited between 29 May 2020 and 12 April 2021 and were randomly assigned to therapeutic dose heparin (n=228) or prophylactic dose heparin (n=237). INTERVENTIONS Therapeutic dose or prophylactic dose heparin (low molecular weight or unfractionated heparin), to be continued until hospital discharge, day 28, or death. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was a composite of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or admission to an intensive care unit, assessed up to 28 days. The secondary outcomes included all cause death, the composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation, and venous thromboembolism. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. Outcomes were blindly adjudicated. RESULTS The mean age of participants was 60 years; 264 (56.8%) were men and the mean body mass index was 30.3 kg/m(2). At 28 days, the primary composite outcome had occurred in 37/228 patients (16.2%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 52/237 (21.9%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (odds ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 1.10; P=0.12). Deaths occurred in four patients (1.8%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 18 patients (7.6%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.22, 0.07 to 0.65; P=0.006). The composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation occurred in 23 patients (10.1%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 38 (16.0%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.59, 0.34 to 1.02; P=0.06). Venous thromboembolism occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and six (2.5%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.34, 0.07 to 1.71; P=0.19). Major bleeding occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and four (1.7%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.52, 0.09 to 2.85; P=0.69). CONCLUSIONS In moderately ill patients with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels admitted to hospital wards, therapeutic heparin was not significantly associated with a reduction in the primary outcome but the odds of death at 28 days was decreased. The risk of major bleeding appeared low in this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04362085.
2.
Perioperative oral eltrombopag versus intravenous immunoglobulin in patients with immune thrombocytopenia: a non-inferiority, multicentre, randomised trial
Arnold DM, Heddle NM, Cook RJ, Hsia C, Blostein M, Jamula E, Sholzberg M, Lin Y, Kassis J, Larratt L, et al
The Lancet. Haematology. 2020;7(9):e640-e648
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patients with immune thrombocytopenia are at risk of bleeding during surgery, and intravenous immunoglobulin is commonly used to increase the platelet count. We aimed to establish whether perioperative eltrombopag was non-inferior to intravenous immunoglobulin. METHODS We did a randomised, open-label trial in eight academic hospitals in Canada. Patients were aged at least 18 years, with primary or secondary immune thrombocytopenia and platelet counts less than 100 × 10(9) cells per L before major surgery or less than 50 × 10(9) cells per L before minor surgery. Previous intravenous immunoglobulin within 2 weeks or thrombopoietin receptor agonists within 4 weeks before randomisation were not permitted. Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral daily eltrombopag 50 mg from 21 days preoperatively to postoperative day 7 or intravenous immunoglobulin 1 g/kg or 2 g/kg 7 days before surgery. Eltrombopag dose adjustments were allowed weekly based on platelet counts. The randomisation sequence was generated by a computerised random number generator, concealed and stratified by centre and surgery type (major or minor). The central study statistician was masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was achievement of perioperative platelet count targets (90 × 10(9) cells per L before major surgery or 45 × 10(9) cells per L before minor surgery) without rescue treatment. We did intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses using an absolute non-inferiority margin of -10%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01621204. FINDINGS Between June 5, 2013, and March 7, 2019, 92 patients with immune thrombocytopenia were screened, of whom 74 (80%) were randomly assigned: 38 to eltrombopag and 36 to intravenous immunoglobulin. Median follow-up was 50 days (IQR 49-55). By intention-to-treat analysis, perioperative platelet targets were achieved for 30 (79%) of 38 patients assigned to eltrombopag and 22 (61%) of 36 patients assigned to intravenous immunoglobulin (absolute risk difference 17·8%, one-sided lower limit of the 95% CI 0·4%; p(non-inferiority)=0·005). In the per-protocol analysis, perioperative platelet targets were achieved for 29 (78%) of 37 patients in the eltrombopag group and 20 (63%) of 32 in the intravenous immunoglobulin group (absolute risk difference 15·9%, one-sided lower limit of the 95% CI -2·1%; p(non-inferiority)=0·009). Two serious adverse events occurred in the eltrombopag group: one treatment-related pulmonary embolism and one vertigo. Five serious adverse events occurred in the intravenous immunoglobulin group (atrial fibrillation, pancreatitis, vulvar pain, chest tube malfunction and conversion to open splenectomy); all were related to complications of surgery. No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION Eltrombopag is an effective alternative to intravenous immunoglobulin for perioperative treatment of immune thrombocytopenia. However, treatment with eltrombopag might increase risk of thrombosis. The decision to choose one treatment over the other will depend on patient preference, resource limitations, cost, and individual risk profiles. FUNDING GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis.
3.
Fostamatinib is an effective second-line therapy in patients with immune thrombocytopenia
Boccia R, Cooper N, Ghanima W, Boxer MA, Hill QA, Sholzberg M, Tarantino MD, Todd LK, Tong S, Bussel JB
British journal of haematology. 2020;190(6):933-938
Abstract
Fostamatinib demonstrated efficacy in phase 3 trials of adults with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). Post hoc analysis compared patients who received fostamatinib as second-line therapy (after steroids ± immunoglobulins) versus third-or-later-line therapy (after ≥2 prior lines of therapy including a second-line agent). Platelet responses ≥50 000/µl were observed in 25/32 (78%) second-line and 54/113 (48%) third-or-later-line patients. Bleeding events were less frequent in second-line (28%) versus third-or-later-line (45%) patients. Responses once achieved tended to be durable in both groups. The safety profile was similar in both groups. In this post hoc analysis, fostamatinib was more effective as second-line than third-or-later-line therapy for ITP.
4.
Peri-Operative Eltrombopag or Immune Globulin for Patients with Immune Thrombocytopaenia (The Bridging ITP Trial): Methods and Rationale
Arnold DM, Jamula E, Heddle NM, Cook RJ, Hsia C, Sholzberg M, Lin Y, Kassis J, Blostein M, Larratt L, et al
Thrombosis and haemostasis. 2019
Abstract
BACKGROUND The Bridging ITP Trial is an open-label randomized trial designed to compare the oral thrombopoietin receptor agonist eltrombopag and intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) for patients with immune thrombocytopaenia (ITP) who require an increase in platelet count before elective surgery. Here, we report the study methods and rationale. METHODS We designed a multi-centre, non-inferiority randomized trial comparing daily oral eltrombopag starting 3 weeks pre-operatively, and IVIG administered 1 week pre-operatively for patients with ITP requiring a platelet count increase prior to surgery. Starting dose of eltrombopag is 50 mg daily with a weekly pre-operative dose titration schedule, and treatment is continued for 1 week after surgical haemostasis is achieved. IVIG is administered at a dose of 1 to 2 g/kg 1 week pre-operatively with the allowance for a second dose within 1 week after surgical haemostasis. The objective of the study is to demonstrate non-inferiority of eltrombopag for the primary endpoint of achieving the pre-operative platelet count threshold (50 x 10(9)/L for minor surgery; or 100 x 10(9)/L for major surgery) and sustaining platelet count levels above the threshold for 1 week after surgical haemostasis is achieved, without the use of rescue treatment. Secondary endpoints include thrombosis, bleeding and patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION The Bridging ITP Trial will evaluate the efficacy and safety of eltrombopag as an alternative to IVIG in the peri-operative setting for patients with ITP. The protocol was designed to provide a management strategy that can be applied in clinical practice. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER NCT01621204.