Dmitry Rogachev National Medical Research Center of Pediatric Hematology, Oncology, and Immunology, Moscow, Russia.
Pirogov Russian Clinical Children's Hospital, Moscow, Russia.
Blood Adv. 2023 Mar 28;7(6):953-962. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021006716.
We compared the efficacy and safety of eltrombopag (ELTR) combined with immunosuppressive therapy (IST) and IST alone in treatment-naïve children with severe (SAA) and very severe (vSAA) aplastic anemia. Ninety-eight pediatric patients were randomized to receive horse antithymocyte globulin (hATG) and cyclosporin A (CsA) with (n = 49) or without (n = 49) ELTR. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR) at 4 months. After 4 months, nonresponders were crossed over to the alternative group. In all patients, the ORR in ELTR + IST and IST groups was similar (65% vs 53%; P = .218); however, the complete response (CR) rate was significantly higher in the ELTR + IST group (31% vs 12%; P = .027). In severity subgroups, the ORR was 89% vs 57% (P = .028) in favor of IST + ELTR in SAA, but it did not differ in patients with vSAA (52% vs 50%; P = .902). At 6 months after the crossover, 61% of initial ELTR(-) patients achieved a response compared with 17% of initial ELTR(+) patients (P = .016). No significant difference in ELTR + IST and IST groups was observed in the 3-year overall survival (OS) (89% vs 91%; P = .673) or the 3-year event-free survival (EFS) (53% vs 41%; P = .326). There was no unexpected toxicity related to ELTR. Adding ELTR to standard IST was well tolerated and increased the CR rate. The greatest benefit from ELTR combined with IST was observed in patients with SAA but not in those with vSAA. The second course of IST resulted in a high ORR in initial ELTR(-) patients who added ELTR and had limited efficacy among patients who received ELTR upfront. This trial was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03413306.
我们比较了艾曲波帕(ELTR)联合免疫抑制治疗(IST)与 IST 单药治疗初治重型(SAA)和极重型(vSAA)再生障碍性贫血儿童的疗效和安全性。98 例儿科患者被随机分为接受马抗胸腺细胞球蛋白(hATG)和环孢素 A(CsA)联合(n=49)或不联合(n=49)ELTR 治疗。主要终点为 4 个月时的总缓解率(ORR)。4 个月后,无应答者交叉至另一组。在所有患者中,ELTR+IST 组和 IST 组的 ORR 相似(65%比 53%;P=0.218);然而,ELTR+IST 组完全缓解(CR)率显著更高(31%比 12%;P=0.027)。在严重程度亚组中,SAA 患者中 IST+ELTR 组的 ORR 为 89%比 57%(P=0.028),而 vSAA 患者的 ORR 无差异(52%比 50%;P=0.902)。交叉后 6 个月,初始 ELTR(-)患者中有 61%获得缓解,而初始 ELTR(+)患者中仅有 17%获得缓解(P=0.016)。ELTR+IST 组和 IST 组的 3 年总生存(OS)(89%比 91%;P=0.673)或 3 年无事件生存(EFS)(53%比 41%;P=0.326)均无显著差异。ELTR 无相关毒性作用。ELTR 联合标准 IST 治疗耐受性良好,并提高了 CR 率。ELTR 联合 IST 最大获益见于 SAA 患者,但在 vSAA 患者中无获益。初始 ELTR(-)患者接受 IST 二线治疗后 ORR 较高,而初始 ELTR(+)患者疗效有限。该试验在 ClinicalTrials.gov 上注册为 #NCT03413306。