Efficacy and Safety of Recombinant Thrombopoietin Combined with Immunosuppressive Therapy for Primary Treatment of Severe Aplastic Anemia: A Single-Center, Open-Label, Randomized, Clinical Trial

Abstract

Standard immunosuppressive therapy (IST) combined with eltrombopag is the first-line treatment regimen for severe aplastic anemia patients who are ineligible for allo-hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). However, there was no second-generation TPO receptor agonist available in China before 2019, and only a first-generation TPO preparation was available for clinical treatment. Although rhTPO and eltrombopag act on different receptor binding sites, the differentiation pathways are similar, so rhTPO can theoretically also stimulate hematopoietic stem cells and promote hematopoietic recovery in AA. In 2015, we used rhTPO combined with IST as the first-line treatment for SAA. The results showed that the OR and quality of response in the rhTPO group were significantly higher than those in the control group. Multivariate analysis showed that the application of rhTPO was an independent prognostic factor affecting the efficacy of IST. Based on these results, we performed a single-center, randomized, open-label, parallel-controlled clinical trial to assess the hematologic response rate and long-term safety 3, 6, and 12 months after treatment. The study was conducted between 2015 and 2019 with 188 patients with primary SAA who were randomly assigned to the control or rhTPO group (95 with IST alone and 93 with rhTPO). For rhTPO, 15000 IU was administered subcutaneously starting on day 14 after p-ATG administration and then once every other day for a total of 14 injections. The median age of the 93 patients in the rhTPO group was 33 years (range 16-67). These included 58 patients with SAA and 35 patients with very severe aplastic anemia (VSAA), which were comparable to the control group. There were no significant differences in baseline clinical parameters between groups. No significant differences were observed in the overall hematologic response rates at 3, 6, and 12 months between the rhTPO and control groups (3 months: 40.9% vs 41.1%, P = 0.979; 6 months: 52.7% vs 52.6%, P = 0.994; 12 months: 65.6% vs 63.2%, P = 0.782, respectively). The median time of platelet transfusion independent was 49 (0-376) days in the rh-TPO group and 47 (0-195) days in the control group, which was not different between the two groups ( P = 0.757). The median time of RBC transfusion independence was 47 (5-404) days and 49 (0-295) days, respectively ( P = 0.592). The median follow-up time was 64 (1.3-86.2) months. The 5-year overall survival was 86.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 77.2-92.0%) in the rh-TPO group and 84.1% (95% CI, 74.5-90.3%, P = 0.898) in the control group. The 5-year event-free survival was 51.7% (95% CI, 41.0-61.5%) and 54.1% (95% CI, 43.5-63.6%, P = 0.947) in the two groups, respectively. No significant differences were observed in the relapse rate and clonal evolution rate between the two groups (11.5% vs. 11.7%, 4.3% vs.3.2%, repectively). Subcutaneous rhTPO injection was well tolerated by patients, with no significant adverse effects other than mild localized pain at the injection site. The patients in the rhTPO group did not have concomitant thrombotic or embolic complications; moreover, reticulo-fibrillary or collagen fibrillary hyperplasia in bone marrow was not detected in any patients at three and six months after IST. Ten patients had anti-TPO antibodies at the end of TPO treatment, with no positive anti-TPO antibodies. In conclusion, our study is the only prospective randomized controlled clinical trial in China of rhTPO combined with IST for the treatment of SAA, with no difference in the hematologic response rate of the 28-day rhTPO combination regimen compared to standard IST; however, we did confirm the safety of rhTPO at this dose. Further clinical studies are required to determine the most effective dosage and duration of rhTPO treatment.