Key result
Lusutrombopag was superior to placebo for avoiding preprocedure platelet transfusion and rescue therapy for bleeding in patients with chronic liver disease (64.8% vs 29.0%; P<0.0001).
Why the study?
Thrombocytopenia may increase bleeding risk and impact the timing and outcome of invasive procedures in patients with chronic liver disease.
Does lusutrombopag reduce the need for platelet transfusions and rescue therapy for bleeding in adults with chronic liver disease and thrombocytopenia undergoing invasive procedures?
RCT (n=215)
double-blind
randomized
Yes
Does lusutrombopag reduce the need for platelet transfusions and rescue therapy for bleeding in adults with chronic liver disease and thrombocytopenia undergoing invasive procedures?
Absolute Risk Reduction: 36.7 (95% CI 24.9–48.5)
Absolute Event Rate: 64.8% vs 29%
Absolute Risk Reduction: 36.7%
p-value: p=<0.0001
Lusutrombopag significantly reduces the need for preprocedure platelet transfusions and rescue therapy for bleeding in patients with chronic liver disease and thrombocytopenia undergoing invasive procedures.
This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Thrombocytopenia may be associated with increased bleeding risk impacting timing and outcome of invasive procedures in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD). Lusutrombopag, a small‐molecule, thrombopoietin (TPO) receptor agonist, was evaluated as a treatment to raise platelet counts (PCs) in patients with thrombocytopenia and CLD undergoing invasive procedures. L‐PLUS 2 was a global, phase 3, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study. Adults with CLD and baseline PCs < 50 × 10 9 /L were randomized to receive once‐daily lusutrombopag 3 mg or placebo ≤ 7 days before an invasive procedure scheduled 2‐7 days after the last dose. The primary endpoint was avoidance of preprocedure platelet transfusion and avoidance of rescue therapy for bleeding. A key secondary endpoint was number of days PCs were ≥ 50 × 10 9 /L throughout the study. Safety analysis was performed on patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study occurred between June 15, 2015, and April 19, 2017, with a total of 215 randomized patients (lusutrombopag, 108; placebo, 107); 64.8% (70/108) of patients in the lusutrombopag group versus 29.0% (31/107) in the placebo group met the primary endpoint ( P < 0.0001; difference of proportion 95% confidence interval [CI], 36.7 [24.9, 48.5]). The median duration of PCs ≥ 50 × 10 9 /L was 19.2 days with lusutrombopag (without platelet transfusion) compared with 0.0 in the placebo group (with platelet transfusion) ( P = 0.0001). Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity, and rates were similar in the lusutrombopag and placebo groups (47.7% and 48.6%, respectively). Conclusion: Lusutrombopag was superior to placebo for reducing the need for platelet transfusions and achieved durable PC response in patients with thrombocytopenia and CLD undergoing invasive procedures, with a safety profile similar to placebo.
Provides a transfusion-sparing option for thrombocytopenia in chronic liver disease; extends evidence for TPO receptor agonists in procedural settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peck‐Radosavljevic et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in Thrombocytopenia in patients with chronic liver disease (n=215). Lusutrombopag vs. Placebo was evaluated on Avoidance of preprocedure platelet transfusion and avoidance of rescue therapy for bleeding (Difference of proportion 36.7, 95% CI 24.9-48.5, p=<0.0001). Lusutrombopag was superior to placebo for avoiding preprocedure platelet transfusion and rescue therapy for bleeding in patients with chronic liver disease (64.8% vs 29.0%; P<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: