Transfusion Evidence Alert and Round-Up

On this page you can view articles from previous editions of the Transfusion Evidence Alert and Round-Up. You can also use the button on the left to sign up to receive future editions direct to your inbox.

The Transfusion Evidence Alert is a monthly overview of the top ten evidence-based publications in the field of transfusion medicine. The articles are selected for quality and relevance by clinical experts, supported by members of the Systematic Review Initiative.

The Transfusion Evidence Round-Up is a quarterly overview of the top 10 high quality studies about an internationally relevant subject in the field of transfusion medicine. The articles are selected by members from the International Society of Blood Transfusion and drawn from the Transfusion Evidence Library and, where relevant, Stem Cell Evidence.

Register here to receive the free monthly Transfusion Evidence Alert and the quarterly Round-Up direct to your email account each month.
Editor's Choice

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Thrombopoietin Receptor Agonists in Adults With Thrombocytopenia: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trial

Front Pharmacol. 2021 Jul 28;12:704093 doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.704093.
PICO Summary
POPULATION:

Adults with thrombocytopenia (20 studies, n= 2,207).

INTERVENTION:

Thrombopoietin receptor agonists: avatrombopag, lusutrombopag, eltrombopag, romiplostim, recombinant human thrombopoietin.

COMPARISON:

Placebo.

OUTCOME:

All preparations improved the point estimates of platelet response when compared with the placebo. Avatrombopag and lusutrombopag had the best platelet response compared to the placebo, the former had a non-significant advantage compared to the latter [odds ratio (OR)= 1.91 (95% confidence interval: 0.52, 7.05)]. The treatments were better than eltrombopag, romiplostim, rituximab, and rhTPO + rituximab, with corresponding ORs of 3.10 (1.01, 9.51), 9.96 (2.29, 43.29), 33.09 (8.76, 125.02), and 21.31 (3.78, 119.98) for avatrombopag and 1.62 (0.63, 4.17), 5.21 (1.54, 17.62), 17.34 (5.15, 58.36), and 11.16 (2.16, 57.62) for lusutrombopag. Regarding bleeding, the placebo group had the highest probability of bleeding, whereas lusutrombopag had the lowest risk of bleeding when compared to the placebo. Adverse events were slightly higher in patients receiving rituximab than in those receiving placebo or other treatments.

Abstract

Thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) play a crucial role in stimulating thrombopoiesis. However, conventional meta-analyses have shown inconsistent results regarding the efficacy of thrombopoietin receptor agonists versus placebo. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis to assess the effects of five TPO-RAs via indirect comparison. For this network meta-analysis, we considered randomized trials that included any of the following interventions: avatrombopag, lusutrombopag, eltrombopag, romiplostim, recombinant human thrombopoietin (rhTPO). We searched the Medline, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for randomized controlled clinical trials from inception to January 31, 2021. We use randomized controlled clinical trials of TPO-RAs for treatment of immune thrombocytopenia in adults. The primary outcome was the number of patients achieving platelet response which was defined as the achievement of a platelet count of more than 30 or 50 cells × 109/L in the absence of rescue therapy, and the secondary outcome was the therapy-related serious adverse events and incidence of bleeding episodes. To obtain the estimates of efficacy and safety outcomes, we performed a random-effects network meta-analysis. These estimates were presented as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. We use surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities to rank the comparative effects and safety of all drugs against the placebo. In total, 2,207 patients were analyzed in 20 clinical trials. All preparations improved the point estimates of platelet response when compared with the placebo. Avatrombopag and lusutrombopag had the best platelet response compared to the placebo, the former had a non-significant advantage compared to the latter [odds ratio (OR) = 1.91 (95% confidence interval: 0.52, 7.05)]. The treatments were better than eltrombopag, romiplostim, rituximab, and rhTPO + rituximab, with corresponding ORs of 3.10 (1.01, 9.51), 9.96 (2.29, 43.29), 33.09 (8.76, 125.02), and 21.31 (3.78, 119.98) for avatrombopag and 1.62 (0.63, 4.17), 5.21 (1.54, 17.62), 17.34 (5.15, 58.36), and 11.16 (2.16, 57.62) for lusutrombopag. Regarding bleeding, the placebo group had the highest probability of bleeding, whereas lusutrombopag had the lowest risk of bleeding when compared to the placebo. Adverse events were slightly higher in patients receiving rituximab than in those receiving placebo or other treatments. Overall, this meta-analysis showed that avatrombopag may yield the highest efficacy because it has the most favorable balance of benefits and acceptability.

Metadata
KEYWORDS: network meta-analysis; platelet; platelet response; thrombocytopenia; thrombopoietin receptor agonist
Study Details
Study Design: Systematic Review
Language: eng
Credits: Bibliographic data from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine