Romiplostim Treatment in Adults with Immune Thrombocytopenia of Varying Duration and Severity.

Romiplostim is recommended for the second- and third-line treatment of primary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). We conducted a large, single-arm study (clinicaltrials.gov; NCT00508820) with broad entry criteria to evaluate the safety of romiplostim in adult ITP. Patients (n = 407) with ITP lasting 0.03-57.14 years and low platelet counts (median 14.0 × 10 9 /l) or uncontrolled bleeding received romiplostim for up to 4 years. The rates of treatment-related, serious adverse events, serious hemorrhage events, thromboembolic events and fatal events were similar to those reported in previous romiplostim trials (0.2, 0.4, 0.2 and 0.1/100 patient-weeks, respectively). Bone marrow reticulin was observed in 4 patients, but biopsies were not routinely performed so the true incidence of this event cannot be determined. Type I collagen (nonserious, unrelated) was reported in 1 patient who likely had myelodysplastic syndrome. No new class of adverse events was reported. Platelet responses were achieved by >90% of the patients, typically within 1-2 weeks of the initiation of romiplostim treatment. From week 8, median platelet counts were >100 × 10 9 /l; 47% of the patients received rescue medications (the use decreased over time). This study confirms and extends the tolerability/efficacy findings of previous romiplostim clinical studies. It was performed on a large ITP population, which is likely more representative of clinical practice.

Romiplostim and eltrombopag for immune thrombocytopenia: methods for indirect comparison.

OBJECTIVES: Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) causes increased platelet destruction and suboptimal platelet production, increasing risk of bleeding. This analysis uses a Bayesian metaregression model to indirectly compare effectiveness of the thrombopoietin mimetics romiplostim and eltrombopag for increasing platelet counts, and contrasts the results with those of non-Bayesian approaches. METHODS: Ten databases were searched during 2010. Placebo-controlled trials of 24 weeks' duration were included. An indirect comparison was undertaken using Bayesian metaregression, which includes all trials in a single model. This was compared with previous analyses in which data for each intervention were combined using simple pooling, logistic regression or meta-analysis, followed by indirect comparison of pooled values using the Bucher method. RESULTS: Two trials of romiplostim and one of eltrombopag were included. The indirect evidence suggests romiplostim significantly improves overall platelet response compared with eltrombopag. Bayesian metaregression gave an odds ratio (OR) for eltrombopag versus romiplostim of 0.11 (95 percent credible interval 0.02-0.66); p values and Bayesian posterior probabilities ranged from 0.01 to 0.05 for all analyses. There was no significant difference in durable platelet response in any of the analyses, although the direction of effect favored romiplostim (OR = 0.15; 95 percent credible interval, 0.01-1.88); p values and Bayesian posterior probabilities ranged from 0.08 to 0.40 across analyses. Results were relatively consistent between analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Bayesian metaregression generated similar results to other indirect comparison methods, and may be considered the most robust as it incorporates all data in a single model and accounts appropriately for parameter uncertainty.

Effectiveness of low doses of paroxetine controlled release in the treatment of major depressive disorder.

CONTEXT: Paroxetine controlled release (CR) is approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in the dosage range of 25 to 62.5 mg daily. However, lower daily doses (12.5 mg and 25 mg) of this formulation have not been investigated in the treatment of MDD. If the 12.5-mg and 25-mg doses are found to be efficacious, these lower doses may well convey a superior tolerability profile for paroxetine CR in the treatment of MDD. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the antidepressant efficacy and tolerability profile of daily doses of paroxetine CR 12.5 mg and 25 mg versus placebo in the treatment of MDD. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted in 40 clinical investigation centers in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 447 adult (> or = 18 years of age) outpatients who met DSM-IV criteria for MDD and with a baseline 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score of at least 20 comprised the intent-to-treat study population (mean age = 38.8 years; 58.4% female; 75.6% white). INTERVENTION: Eligible patients completing a 1-week single-blind placebo run-in period were randomly assigned to receive once-a-day study medication (paroxetine CR 12.5 mg [N = 156], paroxetine CR 25 mg [N = 154], or placebo [N = 149]) in an 8-week, double-blind, parallel cell comparison. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline to study endpoint (week 8) as measured by the HAM-D. Secondary efficacy measures included change from baseline to study endpoint as assessed by both the depressed mood item on the HAM-D and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) Severity of Illness scale (CGI-S). The proportion of patients considered at study endpoint to be in response (CGI-Improvement score of 1 or 2) or in remission (HAM-D < or = 7) in the 3 treatment groups was also compared. Quality of life was assessed by the change from baseline in total score of the short form of the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q). Safety observations were made by assessing the proportion of patients who had adverse experiences, including laboratory and electrocardiographic abnormalities, during the treatment period. RESULTS: The primary efficacy analysis revealed that both the 12.5-mg and the 25-mg paroxetine CR treatment groups were associated with significant therapeutic effects (change in HAM-D score) from baseline to study endpoint (LOCF: p = .038, 95% CI = -3.38 to -0.09 and p = .005, 95% CI = -4.06 to -0.74, respectively). Results from the Wilcoxon rank sum test of the depressed mood item of the HAM-D (p = .011, 95% CI = -0.57 to -0.07) demonstrated significant efficacy in the 25-mg treatment group but not in the 12.5-mg group. However, LOCF analysis of the CGI-S revealed significant therapeutic effects for both the 12.5-mg (p = .018, 95% CI = -0.61 to -0.06) and 25-mg (p < .001, 95% CI = -0.78 to -0.22) treatment groups. Significantly more patients in the 25-mg paroxetine CR-treated group than in the placebo-treated group met criteria for response (CGI-Improvement score of 1 or 2, p = .035, OR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.04 to 2.73) as well as for remission (HAM-D score