Institute of Transfusion Medicine, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Department of Cardiology and Pneumology, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Blood Transfus. 2018 May;16(3):307-312. doi: 10.2450/2017.0258-16. Epub 2017 Jan 25.
There is evidence that the thrombopoietin-receptor agonists romiplostim and eltrombopag may have different therapeutic values and adverse reaction profiles. Here we present new data and provide a review of all studies dealing with switching between these two drugs.
A total of 89 patients (38 males and 51 females, aged between 14-87 years) were treated with eltrombopag and/or romiplostim between 2007 and 2016 at our institution. Eltrombopag was switched to romiplostim or vice versa in 32 patients. In addition, all published data concerning patients treated sequentially with different thrombopoietin-receptor agonists were identified via a computer-assisted search and summarised in this article.
Thirty-two of 89 patients treated with a thrombopoietin-receptor agonist in our institution were given both eltrombopag and romiplostim sequentially. Therapy was switched to the alternate thrombopoietin-receptor agonist 36 times, due to inefficacy (n=21), adverse reactions (n=14), and a patient's preference (n=1). In addition, data from 126 patients who have been treated with both agonists have been published by other groups. In total eltrombopag was replaced by romiplostim in 56 cases due to poor or no response or to adverse reactions. Forty-five patients responded to treatment with romiplostim, 11 patients shared cross-resistance and nine had adverse reactions to romiplostim. In contrast, romiplostim was replaced by eltrombopag in 106 cases. Seventy-eight patients responded to eltrombopag, 27 shared cross-resistance and 19 had adverse reactions to eltrombopag.
Eltrombopag and romiplostim often share bidirectional cross-resistance and/or adverse reactions. Both drugs appear to cause more adverse reactions than have been previously reported.
有证据表明,血小板生成素受体激动剂罗米司亭和艾曲波帕可能具有不同的治疗价值和不良反应谱。在这里,我们提供新的数据,并对所有涉及这两种药物转换的研究进行综述。
我们机构在 2007 年至 2016 年期间共治疗了 89 例患者(38 名男性和 51 名女性,年龄 14-87 岁),他们使用了艾曲波帕和/或罗米司亭。32 例患者将艾曲波帕转换为罗米司亭,或反之。此外,通过计算机辅助搜索,我们还确定了所有关于先后使用不同血小板生成素受体激动剂治疗的患者的已发表数据,并在本文中进行了总结。
在我们机构接受血小板生成素受体激动剂治疗的 89 例患者中,有 32 例先后使用了艾曲波帕和罗米司亭。由于无效(n=21)、不良反应(n=14)和患者的偏好(n=1),共进行了 36 次药物转换。此外,其他小组已发表了 126 例先后使用过这两种激动剂的患者的数据。共有 56 例因反应不佳或无反应或不良反应而将艾曲波帕更换为罗米司亭。45 例患者对罗米司亭治疗有反应,11 例患者对罗米司亭有交叉耐药性,9 例患者对罗米司亭有不良反应。相反,106 例患者将罗米司亭更换为艾曲波帕。78 例患者对艾曲波帕有反应,27 例患者对艾曲波帕有交叉耐药性,19 例患者对艾曲波帕有不良反应。
艾曲波帕和罗米司亭常具有双向交叉耐药性和/或不良反应。这两种药物似乎比以前报道的产生更多的不良反应。