Signal for Thrombosis with Eltrombopag and Romiplostim: A Disproportionality Analysis of Spontaneous Reports Within VigiBase

Introduction Eltrombopag and romiplostim are thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) marketed for immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). Thrombotic events have been reported with both drugs. This study was aimed at assessing whether there is a signal for differential risks of thrombosis between these two...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Drug safety 2015-12, Vol.38 (12), p.1179-1186
Hauptverfasser: Nguyen, Thi-Thanh Loan, Palmaro, Aurore, Montastruc, François, Lapeyre-Mestre, Maryse, Moulis, Guillaume
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Introduction Eltrombopag and romiplostim are thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) marketed for immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). Thrombotic events have been reported with both drugs. This study was aimed at assessing whether there is a signal for differential risks of thrombosis between these two TPO-RAs. Methods We carried out a disproportionality analysis in the World Health Organization global individual case safety report (ICSR) database (VigiBase ® ). We selected all ICSRs with exposure to a TPO-RA between January 2011 and December 2014. We searched for exposures to eltrombopag or romiplostim in thrombosis reports as compared with other ICSRs, and we calculated adjusted reporting odds ratios (aRORs). Results We identified 5850 ICSRs, including 764 cases of thrombosis. In multivariate analyses, there was a signal for an increased risk of thrombosis (venous or arterial; aROR 1.72, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.47–2.02), venous thrombosis (aROR 1.88, 95 % CI 1.53–2.31), arterial thrombosis (aROR 1.54, 95 % CI 1.18–2.00), ischaemic stroke (aROR 1.65, 95 % CI 1.13–2.42) and myocardial infarction (aROR 1.50, 95 % CI 1.05–2.13) with eltrombopag as compared with romiplostim. Restriction to ICSRs reported by physicians led to similar results. However, worldwide dispensing data for romiplostim and eltrombopag were not accessible, so the rates of thrombosis with both drugs were not normalized by the daily defined doses and the generalizability of the results is limited. Conclusion This study suggests the presence of a signal for an increased risk of thrombosis with eltrombopag compared with romiplostim. These results must be confirmed and quantified by large aetiological pharmacoepidemiological studies.
ISSN:0114-5916
1179-1942
DOI:10.1007/s40264-015-0337-1