Eltrombopag increases platelet numbers in thrombocytopenic patients with HCV infection and cirrhosis, allowing for effective antiviral therapy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Thrombocytopenia is common among patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis, limiting initiation and dose of peginterferon-alfa (PEG) and ribavirin (RBV) therapy. The phase 3 randomized, controlled studies, Eltrombopag to Initiate and Maintain Interferon Antiviral Treatment to Benefit Subjects with Hepatitis C-Related Liver Disease (ENABLE)-1 and ENABLE-2, investigated the ability of eltrombopag to increase the number of platelets in patients, thereby allowing them to receive initiation or maintenance therapy with PEG and RBV. METHODS: Patients with HCV infection and thrombocytopenia (platelet count <75,000/µL) who participated in ENABLE-1 (n = 715) or ENABLE-2 (n = 805), from approximately 150 centers in 23 countries, received open-label eltrombopag (25-100 mg/day) for 9 weeks or fewer. Patients whose platelet counts reached the predefined minimal threshold for the initiation of PEG and RBV therapy (95% from ENABLE-1 and 94% from ENABLE-2) entered the antiviral treatment phase, and were assigned randomly (2:1) to groups that received eltrombopag or placebo along with antiviral therapy (24 or 48 weeks, depending on HCV genotype). The primary end point was sustained virologic response (SVR) 24 weeks after completion of antiviral therapy. RESULTS: More patients who received eltrombopag than placebo achieved SVRs (ENABLE-1: eltrombopag, 23%; placebo, 14%; P = .0064; ENABLE-2: eltrombopag, 19%; placebo, 13%; P = .0202). PEG was administered at higher doses, with fewer dose reductions, in the eltrombopag groups of each study compared with the placebo groups. More patients who received eltrombopag than placebo maintained platelet counts of 50,000/µL or higher throughout antiviral treatment (ENABLE-1, 69% vs 15%; ENABLE-2, 81% vs 23%). Adverse events were similar between groups, with the exception of hepatic decompensation (both studies: eltrombopag, 10%; placebo, 5%) and thromboembolic events, which were more common in the eltrombopag group of ENABLE-2. CONCLUSIONS: Eltrombopag increases platelet numbers in thrombocytopenic patients with HCV and advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis, allowing otherwise ineligible or marginal patients to begin and maintain antiviral therapy, leading to significantly increased rates of SVR. Clinical trial no: NCT00516321, NCT00529568.

Results of a phase I dose escalation study of eltrombopag in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma receiving doxorubicin and ifosfamide.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this Phase I dose escalation study was to explore the safety and tolerability of eltrombopag, an oral, nonpeptide, thrombopoietin receptor agonist, in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) and thrombocytopenia due to treatment with doxorubicin and ifosfamide (AI) combination chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients aged 18 or older with histologically confirmed, locally advanced or metastatic STS were treated with 1 cycle of AI followed by AI with eltrombopag starting at Cycle 2, using 2 different dosing schedules. The study design included an eltrombopag dose escalation phase starting at 75 mg daily to determine the optimal biological dose (OBD). RESULTS: Eighteen patients were enrolled and 15 received at least 1 dose of chemotherapy; 3 patients withdrew prior to receiving eltrombopag. Seven, 4, and 1 patients received 75 mg, 100 mg, and 150 mg eltrombopag daily, respectively. No dose-limiting toxicities were reported. Due to slow recruitment, the study was closed prior to identifying an OBD. The most common hematologic adverse events (AEs) were thrombocytopenia (80%), neutropenia (73%), and anemia (67%). The most common nonhematologic AEs were fatigue (53%), alanine aminotransferase increased, constipation, and nausea (47% each). Eleven of 12 patients who received eltrombopag completed at least 2 chemotherapy cycles; all had increased platelet counts on Day 1 of Cycle 2 (cycle with eltrombopag) compared to Day 1 of Cycle 1 (cycle without eltrombopag). CONCLUSIONS: Although data are limited, safety data were consistent with the known toxicities of AI combination chemotherapy or the side effect profile of eltrombopag seen in other studies. Available data suggest a potential pre- and post-chemotherapy dosing scheme for eltrombopag when administered with AI chemotherapy, and support further investigation of eltrombopag treatment in patients with chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia.

A one-year study comparing the efficacy and safety of rosiglitazone and glibenclamide in the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: This study was designed to compare the efficacy of rosiglitazone and glibenclamide in individuals with type 2 diabetes over a 12-month period. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 598 patients were randomized to double-blind treatment for 52 weeks with rosiglitazone 4 mg/d (n=200), rosiglitazone 8 mg/d (n=191) or glibenclamide (n=207; dose adjusted up to 15 mg/d over the first 12 weeks according to clinical response). Changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting insulin and its precursor peptides, and lipids were measured and safety was evaluated. Significant reductions in HbA1c levels at 52 weeks compared with baseline were seen in all treatment groups (rosiglitazone 4 mg/d=-0.3%, P=0.0003; rosiglitazone 8 mg/d=-0.5%, P<0.0001; glibenclamide=-0.7%, P<0.0001). Mean FPG levels were also significantly reduced in all treatment groups (rosiglitazone 4 mg/d=-1.4 mmol/l; rosiglitazone 8 mg/d=-2.3 mmol/l; glibenclamide=-1.7 mmol/l; P<0.0001 vs. baseline for all treatments). Rosiglitazone therapy reduced plasma insulin, proinsulin, split proinsulin and free fatty acid levels compared with glibenclamide. Rosiglitazone improved insulin resistance while a worsening was seen with glibenclamide. Total:high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratios were reduced with glibenclamide and unchanged with rosiglitazone. All treatments were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of rosiglitazone 8 mg/d in improving glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes is comparable to that of glibenclamide. However, rosiglitazone reduced insulin resistance and proinsulin levels whereas glibenclamide use was associated with an increase in fasting insulin and proinsulin. This suggests that in the long term, rosiglitazone may protect the beta-cell whereas glibenclamide is likely to increase the burden.

A comparison of the effects of rosiglitazone and glyburide on cardiovascular function and glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: This open-label, active-controlled study investigated the cardiac safety and antihyperglycemic effect of rosiglitazone (RSG) in patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Of the 203 patients randomly assigned to RSG (4 mg b.i.d.) or glyburide (GLB) (titrated to achieve optimal glycemic control for the first 8 weeks only to limit the risk of hypoglycemia; mean 10.5 mg/day), 118 had an echocardiogram performed at week 52. Left ventricular (LV) mass index, ejection fraction, and left ventricular end-diastolic volume were assessed by M-mode echocardiography at baseline and weeks 12, 28, and 52; 24-h ambulatory blood pressure was assessed at baseline and at weeks 28 and 52. Glycemic control was assessed by measuring fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and HbA(1c). RESULTS: Neither treatment produced an increase in LV mass index that exceeded 1 SD. Ejection fraction did not change in either group. Both groups had clinically insignificant increases in LV end-diastolic volume. RSG, but not GLB, caused a statistically significant reduction in ambulatory diastolic blood pressure. Both treatments reduced HbA(1c) and FPG. CONCLUSIONS: A total of 52 weeks of therapy with RSG (4 mg b.i.d.) did not adversely affect cardiac structure or function in patients with type 2 diabetes and produced significant and sustained reductions in hyperglycemia. Decreases in ambulatory diastolic blood pressure with RSG were superior to those with GLB.