4.6 Article

Phase 3 randomised study of avatrombopag, a novel thrombopoietin receptor agonist for the treatment of chronic immune thrombocytopenia

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
Volume 183, Issue 3, Pages 479-490

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.15573

Keywords

bleeding disorders; thrombocytopenia; thrombopoietin; platelet count; platelet disorders

Categories

Funding

  1. Eisai Inc.
  2. Dova Pharmaceuticals, Durham, NC, USA
  3. Good Publication Practice (GPP3)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Avatrombopag, an oral thrombopoietin receptor agonist, was compared with placebo in a 6-month, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group Phase 3 study, with an open-label extension phase, to assess the efficacy and safety of avatrombopag (20 mg/day) in adults with chronic immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) and a platelet count <30 x 10(9)/l (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01438840). The primary endpoint was the cumulative number of weeks of platelet response (platelet count >= 50 x 10(9)/l) without rescue therapy for bleeding; secondary endpoints included platelet response rate at day 8 and reductions in the use of concomitant medications. Amongst the 49 patients randomised, avatrombopag (N = 32) was superior to placebo (N = 17) in the median cumulative number of weeks of platelet response (12 center dot 4 vs. 0 center dot 0 weeks, respectively; P < 0 center dot 0001). At day 8, a greater platelet response rate was also observed for patients treated with avatrombopag compared with placebo (65 center dot 63% vs. 0 center dot 0%; P < 0 center dot 0001), and use of concomitant ITP medications was also reduced amongst patients receiving avatrombopag. The safety profile of avatrombopag was consistent with Phase 2 studies; the most common adverse events were headache and contusion. Overall, avatrombopag was well tolerated and efficacious for the treatment of chronic ITP.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available