Hetrombopag for the management of chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia in patients with advanced solid tumors: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II study

Background

Chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (CIT) increases the risk of bleeding, necessitates chemotherapy dose reductions and delays, and negatively impacts prognosis.

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of hetrombopag for the management of CIT in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Design

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II study.

Methods

Patients with advanced solid tumors who experienced a chemotherapy delay of ⩾7 days due to thrombocytopenia (platelet count <75 × 109/L) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral hetrombopag at an initial dose of 7.5 mg once daily or a matching placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of treatment responders, defined as patients resuming chemotherapy within 14 days (platelet count ⩾100 × 109/L) and not requiring a chemotherapy dose reduction of ⩾15% or a delay of ⩾4 days or rescue therapy for two consecutive cycles.

Results

Between 9 October 2021 and 5 May 2022, 60 patients were randomized, with 59 receiving ⩾1 dose of assigned treatment (hetrombopag/placebo arm, n = 28/31). The proportion of treatment responders was significantly higher in the hetrombopag arm than in the placebo arm [60.7% (17/28) versus 12.9% (4/31); difference of proportion: 47.6% (95% confidence interval (CI): 26.0-69.3); odds ratio = 10.44 (95% CI: 2.82-38.65); p value (nominal) based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel: <0.001)]. During the double-blind treatment period, grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) occurred in 35.7% (10/28) of patients with hetrombopag and 38.7% (12/31) of patients on placebo. The most common grade 3 or higher AEs were decreased neutrophil count [35.7% (10/28) versus 35.5% (11/31)] and decreased white blood cell count [17.9% (5/28) versus 19.4% (6/31)]. Serious AEs were reported in 3.6% (1/28) of patients with hetrombopag and 9.7% (3/31) of patients with placebo.

Conclusion

Hetrombopag is an effective and well-tolerated alternative for managing CIT in patients with solid tumors.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03976882.

Systematic literature review and meta-analysis on use of Thrombopoietic agents for chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia

Background

Currently, there are no approved options to prevent or treat chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (CIT). We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on use of thrombopoietic agents for CIT.

Patients and methods

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and health technology assessments from January 1995 to March 2021 for studies evaluating thrombopoietic agents for CIT, including recombinant human thrombopoietin (rhTPO), megakaryocyte growth and development factor (MGDF), romiplostim, and eltrombopag. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted for efficacy and safety endpoints.

Results

We screened 1503 titles/abstracts, assessed 138 articles, and abstracted data from 39 publications (14 recombinant human thrombopoietin, 7 megakaryocyte growth and development factor, 9 romiplostim, 8 eltrombopag, and 1 romiplostim/eltrombopag). Random effects meta-analyses of data from multiple studies comparing thrombopoietic agents versus control (comparator, placebo, or no treatment) showed that thrombopoietic agents did not significantly improve chemotherapy dose delays and/or reductions (21.1% vs 40.4%, P = 0.364), grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (39.3% vs 34.8%; P = 0.789), platelet transfusions (16.7% vs 31.7%, P = 0.111), grade ≥ 2 bleeding (6.7% vs 16.5%; P = 0.250), or thrombosis (7.6% vs 12.5%; P = 0.131). However, among individual studies comparing thrombopoietic agents with placebo or no treatment, thrombopoietic agents positively improved outcomes in some studies, including significantly increasing mean peak platelet counts (186 x 10⁹/L with rhTPO vs 122 x 10⁹/L with no treatment; P < 0.05) in one study and significantly increasing platelet count at nadir (56 x 10⁹/L with rhTPO vs 28 x 10⁹/L with not treatment; P < 0.05) in another study. Safety findings included thrombosis (n = 23 studies) and bleeding (n = 11), with no evidence of increased thrombosis risk with thrombopoietic agents.

Conclusion

Our analyses generate the hypothesis that thrombopoietic agents may benefit patients with CIT. Further studies with well-characterized bleeding and platelet thresholds are warranted to explore the possible benefits of thrombopoietic agents for CIT.

Thrombopoietin receptor agonists for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia in patients with solid tumours

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (CIT) is defined as a peripheral platelet count less than 100×109/L, with or without bleeding in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. CIT is a significant medical problem during chemotherapy, and it carries the risk of sub-optimal overall survival and bleeding. Alternative interventions to platelet transfusion are limited. Different stages of preclinical and clinical studies have examined the thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) for CIT in patients with solid tumours.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of TPO-RAs to prevent and treat CIT in patients with solid tumours:(1) to prevent CIT in patients without thrombocytopenia before chemotherapy, (2) to prevent recurrence of CIT, and (3) to treat CIT in patients with thrombocytopenia during chemotherapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, to 28 September 2017), MEDLINE (from 1950 to 28 September 2017), as well as online registers of ongoing trials (Clinical Trials, Chinese Clinical Trial Register, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, WHO ICTRP Search Portal, International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, GlaxoSmithKline Clinical Study Register, and Amgen Clinical Trials) and conference proceedings (American Society of Hematology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Hematology Association, European Society of Medical Oncology, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, from 2002 up to September 2017) for studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TPO-RAs alone, or in combination with other drugs, to placebo, no treatment, other drugs, or another TPO-RAs for CIT in patients with solid tumours.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the results of the search strategies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and analysed data according to standard methodological methods expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six trials eligible for inclusion, of which two are ongoing, and one awaiting classification study. The three included trials were conducted at many different sites in Europe, America, and Asia. All of the three studies recruited adult and elder participants (no children were included) with solid tumours, and compared TPO-RAs with placebo. No studies compared TPO-RAs alone, or in combination with other drugs, to no treatment, or other drugs, or another TPO-RAs.We judged the overall risk of bias as high as we found a high risk for detection bias. We assessed the risk of bias arising from inadequate blinding of outcome assessors as high for number and severity of bleeding episodes (one of the primary outcomes).To prevent CIT: We included two trials (206 participants) comparing TPO-RAs (eltrombopag, multiple-dose oral administration with chemotherapy) with placebo. The use of TPO-RAs may make little or no difference to the all-cause mortality at 33 weeks of follow-up (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.45; one trial, 26 participants; low quality of evidence). There is not enough evidence to determine whether TPO-RAs reduce the number of patients with at least one bleeding episode of any severity (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.78; two trials, 206 participants; very low quality of evidence). There is not enough evidence to determine whether TPO-RAs reduce the number of patients with at least one severe/life-threatening bleeding episode (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.06; two trials, 206 participants; very low quality of evidence). No studies were found that looked at overall survival (one of the primary outcomes), the number of treatment cycles with at least one bleeding episode, the number of days on which bleeding occurred, the amount of bleeding, or quality of life.To prevent recurrence of CIT: We included one trial (62 participants) comparing TPO-RAs (romiplostim, single-dose subcutaneous administration with chemotherapy) with placebo. There is not enough evidence to determine whether TPO-RAs reduce the number of patients with at least one bleeding episode of any severity (RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.17 to 47.53; one trial, 62 participants; very low quality of evidence). There is not enough evidence to determine whether TPO-RAs reduce the number of patients with at least one severe/life-threatening bleeding episode (no severe/life-threatening bleeding episodes; one trial, 62 participants; very low quality of evidence). No studies were found that looked at overall survival (one of the primary outcomes), the number of treatment cycles with at least one bleeding episode, the number of days on which bleeding occurred, the amount of bleeding, or quality of life. We found one ongoing study (expected recruitment 74 participants), it is planned to give TPO-RAs (romiplostim, subcutaneous administration with chemotherapy) to participants, but to date this trial has not reported any outcomes.To treat CIT: We found one ongoing study (expected recruitment 83 participants), which is planned to give TPO-RAs (eltrombopag, seven days orally) to participants when their platelet counts are less than 75×109/L during chemotherapy. This trial was originally planned to complete in March 2017, however, the completion date has passed and no results are reported.The one awaiting classification study included patients without thrombocytopenia before chemotherapy (to prevent CIT), patients with thrombocytopenia during chemotherapy (to prevent recurrence of CIT), and other patients during chemotherapy (uncertain whether CIT had happened). There was no evidence for a difference in the number of patients with at least one bleeding episode of any severity (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.02; one trial, 75 participants). There was no evidence for a difference in the number of patients with at least one severe/life-threatening bleeding episode (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.03 to 6.77; one trial, 75 participants). This study did not address overall survival or quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No certain conclusions can be drawn due to the lack of strong evidence in the review. The available weak evidence did not support the use of TPO-RAs for preventing CIT or preventing recurrence of CIT in patients with solid tumours. There was no evidence to support the use of TPO-RAs for treating CIT in patients with solid tumours.

Clinical findings with the first generation of thrombopoietic agents

Thrombocytopenia is a common problem in hematology/oncology patients. In the past two decades a number of thrombopoietic growth factors and related cytokines have become available for clinical investigations. Unfortunately, most of the pleiotropic cytokines have been limited by their modest activity and toxicity profile. The discovery of thrombopoietin (TPO), a key regulator of platelet production, led to the clinical development of two recombinant versions of the molecule: full-length, recombinant human thrombopoietin (rhTPO), and truncated and pegylated, megakaryocyte growth and development factor (Peg-rHuMGDF). Both agents showed significant biologic activity in various clinical settings, including nonmyeloablative chemotherapy, mobilization of progenitors, platelet apheresis, and treatment of thrombocytopenia related to other conditions. Despite promising thrombopoietic activity, the clinical development of the first generation of recombinant TPOs was discontinued due to the neutralizing antibodies observed with PEG-rHuMGDF. This has led to the development of TPO agonists with no sequence homology to TPO, which can bind to the TPO receptors and activate signaling, leading to an increase in platelet production. The clinical experience with the first generation of thrombopoietic agents has provided insight into the biology and future directions for a second generation of thrombopoietic agents in various disorders of thrombocytopenia.