Thi-Thanh Loan Nguyen1,2, Aurore Palmaro1,2, François Montastruc1,2,3,4, Maryse Lapeyre-Mestre1,2,3, Guillaume Moulis5,6,7. 1. INSERM, UMR 1027, Toulouse, France. 2. Université de Toulouse III, UMR 1027, Toulouse, France. 3. Service de Pharmacologie Médicale et Clinique, Faculté de Médecine, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse, Toulouse, France. 4. Centre Midi-Pyrénées de PharmacoVigilance, de Pharmacoépidémiologie et d'Informations sur le Médicament, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse, Pharmacopole Midi-Pyrénées, Toulouse, France. 5. INSERM, UMR 1027, Toulouse, France. guillaume.moulis@univ-tlse3.fr. 6. Université de Toulouse III, UMR 1027, Toulouse, France. guillaume.moulis@univ-tlse3.fr. 7. Service de Médecine Interne, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse, Toulouse, France. guillaume.moulis@univ-tlse3.fr.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Eltrombopag and romiplostim are thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) marketed for immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). Thrombotic events have been reported with both drugs. This study was aimed at assessing whether there is a signal for differential risks of thrombosis between these two TPO-RAs. METHODS: We carried out a disproportionality analysis in the World Health Organization global individual case safety report (ICSR) database (VigiBase(®)). We selected all ICSRs with exposure to a TPO-RA between January 2011 and December 2014. We searched for exposures to eltrombopag or romiplostim in thrombosis reports as compared with other ICSRs, and we calculated adjusted reporting odds ratios (aRORs). RESULTS: We identified 5850 ICSRs, including 764 cases of thrombosis. In multivariate analyses, there was a signal for an increased risk of thrombosis (venous or arterial; aROR 1.72, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.47-2.02), venous thrombosis (aROR 1.88, 95 % CI 1.53-2.31), arterial thrombosis (aROR 1.54, 95 % CI 1.18-2.00), ischaemic stroke (aROR 1.65, 95 % CI 1.13-2.42) and myocardial infarction (aROR 1.50, 95 % CI 1.05-2.13) with eltrombopag as compared with romiplostim. Restriction to ICSRs reported by physicians led to similar results. However, worldwide dispensing data for romiplostim and eltrombopag were not accessible, so the rates of thrombosis with both drugs were not normalized by the daily defined doses and the generalizability of the results is limited. CONCLUSION: This study suggests the presence of a signal for an increased risk of thrombosis with eltrombopag compared with romiplostim. These results must be confirmed and quantified by large aetiological pharmacoepidemiological studies.
INTRODUCTION: Eltrombopag and romiplostim are thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) marketed for immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). Thrombotic events have been reported with both drugs. This study was aimed at assessing whether there is a signal for differential risks of thrombosis between these two TPO-RAs. METHODS: We carried out a disproportionality analysis in the World Health Organization global individual case safety report (ICSR) database (VigiBase(®)). We selected all ICSRs with exposure to a TPO-RA between January 2011 and December 2014. We searched for exposures to eltrombopag or romiplostim in thrombosis reports as compared with other ICSRs, and we calculated adjusted reporting odds ratios (aRORs). RESULTS: We identified 5850 ICSRs, including 764 cases of thrombosis. In multivariate analyses, there was a signal for an increased risk of thrombosis (venous or arterial; aROR 1.72, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.47-2.02), venous thrombosis (aROR 1.88, 95 % CI 1.53-2.31), arterial thrombosis (aROR 1.54, 95 % CI 1.18-2.00), ischaemic stroke (aROR 1.65, 95 % CI 1.13-2.42) and myocardial infarction (aROR 1.50, 95 % CI 1.05-2.13) with eltrombopag as compared with romiplostim. Restriction to ICSRs reported by physicians led to similar results. However, worldwide dispensing data for romiplostim and eltrombopag were not accessible, so the rates of thrombosis with both drugs were not normalized by the daily defined doses and the generalizability of the results is limited. CONCLUSION: This study suggests the presence of a signal for an increased risk of thrombosis with eltrombopag compared with romiplostim. These results must be confirmed and quantified by large aetiological pharmacoepidemiological studies.
Authors: T B Gernsheimer; J N George; L M Aledort; M D Tarantino; U Sunkara; D Matthew Guo; J L Nichol Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2010-03-03 Impact factor: 5.824
Authors: José Ramón González-Porras; María Eva Mingot-Castellano; Marcio M Andrade; Rafael Alonso; Isabel Caparrós; María Carmen Arratibel; Fernando Fernández-Fuertes; Maria José Cortti; Cristina Pascual; Blanca Sánchez-González; Silvia Bernat; Miguel Angel Fuertes-Palacio; Juan Andrés Vázquez-Paganini; Pavel E Olivera; María Teresa Alvarez-Román; Isidro Jarque; Montserrat Cortés; Violeta Martínez-Robles; Francisco Javier Díaz-Gálvez; María Calbacho; Carmen Fernández-Miñano; Javier Garcia-Frade; Tomás José González-López Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2014-12-18 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Hussain R Yusuf; W Craig Hooper; Michele G Beckman; Qing C Zhang; James Tsai; Thomas L Ortel Journal: J Thromb Thrombolysis Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 2.300
Authors: Philip Yi Choi; Eileen Merriman; Ashwini Bennett; Anoop K Enjeti; Chee Wee Tan; Isaac Goncalves; Danny Hsu; Robert Bird Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2021-10-10 Impact factor: 12.776