-
Haematologica Oct 2017Treatment intensification to maximize disease control and reduced intensity approaches to minimize the risk of late sequelae have been evaluated in newly diagnosed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Secondary malignant neoplasms, progression-free survival and overall survival in patients treated for Hodgkin lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
Treatment intensification to maximize disease control and reduced intensity approaches to minimize the risk of late sequelae have been evaluated in newly diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma. The influence of these interventions on the risk of secondary malignant neoplasms, progression-free survival and overall survival is reported in the meta-analysis herein, based on individual patient data from 9498 patients treated within 16 randomized controlled trials for newly diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma between 1984 and 2007. Secondary malignant neoplasms were meta-analyzed using Peto's method as time-to-event outcomes. For progression-free and overall survival, hazard ratios derived from each trial using Cox regression were combined by inverse-variance weighting. Five study questions (combined-modality treatment chemotherapy alone; more extended involved-field radiotherapy; radiation at higher doses radiation at 20 Gy; more fewer cycles of the same chemotherapy protocol; standard-dose chemotherapy intensified chemotherapy) were investigated. After a median follow-up of 7.4 years, dose-intensified chemotherapy resulted in better progression-free survival rates (=0.007) as compared with standard-dose chemotherapy, but was associated with an increased risk of therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia/myelodysplastic syndromes (=0.0028). No progression-free or overall survival differences were observed between combined-modality treatment and chemotherapy alone, but more secondary malignant neoplasms were seen after combined-modality treatment (=0.010). For the remaining three study questions, outcomes and secondary malignancy rates did not differ significantly between treatment strategies. The results of this meta-analysis help to weigh up efficacy and secondary malignancy risk for the choice of first-line treatment for Hodgkin lymphoma patients. However, final conclusions regarding secondary solid tumors require longer follow-up.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Combined Modality Therapy; Disease-Free Survival; Follow-Up Studies; Hodgkin Disease; Humans; Neoplasms, Second Primary; Odds Ratio; Proportional Hazards Models; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28912173
DOI: 10.3324/haematol.2017.167478 -
PloS One 2016Lenalidomide could effectively induce red blood cell (RBC) transfusion independence (TI) in patients with lower-risk (Low/Intermediate-1) myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy and Safety of Lenalidomide for Treatment of Low-/Intermediate-1-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes with or without 5q Deletion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
Lenalidomide could effectively induce red blood cell (RBC) transfusion independence (TI) in patients with lower-risk (Low/Intermediate-1) myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) with or without 5q deletion. However whether lenalidomide ultimately improves the overall survival (OS) of lower-risk MDS patients and reduces the progression to AML remains controversial.
METHOD
A meta-analysis was conducted to examine the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide in the treatment of lower-risk MDS. Efficacy was assessed according to erythroid hematologic response (HI-E), cytogenetic response (CyR), OS and AML progression. Safety was evaluated based on the occurrence rates of grades 3-4 adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS
Seventeen studies were included consisting of a total of 2160 patients. The analysis indicated that the overall rate of HI-E was 58% with 95% confidence interval (CI) of 43-74%. The pooled estimates for the rates of CyR, complete CyR, and partial CyR were 44% (95% CI 19-68%), 21% (95% CI 13-30%) and 23% (95% CI 15-32%), respectively. The patients with 5q deletion had significantly higher rate of HI-E and CyR than those without 5q deletion (P = 0.002 and 0.001, respectively). The incidences of grades 3-4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, anemia, deep vein thrombosis, diarrhea, fatigue and rash were 51% (95% CI 30-73%), 31% (95% CI 20-42%), 9% (95% CI 5-13%), 7% (95% CI 2-12%), 3% (95% CI 2-5%), 3% (95% CI 1-5%), 2% (95% CI 1-4%) and 2% (95% CI 1-3%), respectively. Lenalidomide significantly improved OS (HR: 0.62, 95% CI 0.47-0.83, P = 0.001) and lowered the risk of AML progression in del(5q) patients (RR: 0.61, 95% CI 0.41-0.91, P = 0.014).
CONCLUSIONS
In spite of the AEs, lenalidomide could be effectively and safely used for the treatment of lower-risk MDS patients with or without 5q deletion.
Topics: Anemia, Macrocytic; Chromosome Deletion; Chromosomes, Human, Pair 5; Humans; Immunologic Factors; Lenalidomide; Myelodysplastic Syndromes; Thalidomide; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27824902
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165948 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2017Efficacy and the risk of severe late effects have to be well-balanced in treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Late adverse effects include secondary malignancies which... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Optimisation of chemotherapy and radiotherapy for untreated Hodgkin lymphoma patients with respect to second malignant neoplasms, overall and progression-free survival: individual participant data analysis.
BACKGROUND
Efficacy and the risk of severe late effects have to be well-balanced in treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Late adverse effects include secondary malignancies which often have a poor prognosis. To synthesise evidence on the risk of secondary malignancies after current treatment approaches comprising chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, we performed a meta-analysis based on individual patient data (IPD) from patients treated for newly diagnosed HL.
OBJECTIVES
We investigated several questions concerning possible changes in the risk of secondary malignancies when modifying chemotherapy or radiotherapy (omission of radiotherapy, reduction of the radiation field, reduction of the radiation dose, use of fewer chemotherapy cycles, intensification of chemotherapy). We also analysed whether these modifications affect progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL trials databases comprehensively in June 2010 for all randomised trials in HL since 1984. Key international trials registries were also searched. The search was updated in March 2015 without collecting further IPD (one further eligible study found) and again in July 2017 (no further eligible studies).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for untreated HL patients which enrolled at least 50 patients per arm, completed recruitment by 2007 and performed a treatment comparison relevant to our objectives.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Study groups submitted IPD, including age, sex, stage and the outcomes secondary malignant neoplasm (SMN), OS and PFS as time-to-event data. We meta-analysed these data using Petos method (SMN) and Cox regression with inverse-variance pooling (OS, PFS) for each of the five study questions, and performed subgroup and sensitivity analyses to assess the applicability and robustness of the results.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 21 eligible trials and obtained IPD for 16. For four studies no data were supplied despite repeated efforts, while one study was only identified in 2015 and IPD were not sought. For each study question, between three and six trials with between 1101 and 2996 participants in total and median follow-up between 6.7 and 10.8 years were analysed. All participants were adults and mainly under 60 years. Risk of bias was assessed as low for the majority of studies and outcomes. Chemotherapy alone versus same chemotherapy plus radiotherapy. Omitting additional radiotherapy probably reduces secondary malignancy incidence (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.82, low quality of evidence), corresponding to an estimated reduction of eight-year SMN risk from 8% to 4%. This decrease was particularly true for secondary acute leukemias. However, we had insufficient evidence to determine whether OS rates differ between patients treated with chemotherapy alone versus combined-modality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.11, moderate quality of evidence). There was a slightly higher rate of PFS with combined modality, but our confidence in the results was limited by high levels of statistical heterogeneity between studies (HR 1.31, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.73, moderate quality of evidence). Chemotherapy plus involved-field radiation versus same chemotherapy plus extended-field radiation (early stages) . There is insufficient evidence to determine whether smaller radiation field reduces SMN risk (Peto OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.16, low quality of evidence), OS (HR 0.89, 95% C: 0.70 to 1.12, high quality of evidence) or PFS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21, high quality of evidence). Chemotherapy plus lower-dose radiation versus same chemotherapy plus higher-dose radiation (early stages). There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of lower-radiation dose on SMN risk (Peto OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.50, low quality of evidence), OS (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.28, high quality of evidence) or PFS (HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.48, high quality of evidence). Fewer versus more courses of chemotherapy (each with or without radiotherapy; early stages). Fewer chemotherapy courses probably has little or no effect on SMN risk (Peto OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.62), OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.73 to1.34) or PFS (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.45).Outcomes had a moderate (SMN) or high (OS, PFS) quality of evidence. Dose-intensified versus ABVD-like chemotherapy (with or without radiotherapy in each case). In the mainly advanced-stage patients who were treated with intensified chemotherapy, the rate of secondary malignancies was low. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of chemotherapy intensification (Peto OR 1.37, CI 0.89 to 2.10, low quality of evidence). The rate of secondary acute leukemias (and for younger patients, all secondary malignancies) was probably higher than among those who had treatment with standard-dose ABVD-like protocols. In contrast, the intensified chemotherapy protocols probably improved PFS (eight-year PFS 75% versus 69% for ABVD-like treatment, HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.7 to 0.95, moderate quality of evidence). Evidence suggesting improved survival with intensified chemotherapy was not conclusive (HR: 0.85, CI 0.70 to 1.04), although escalated-dose BEACOPP appeared to lengthen survival compared to ABVD-like chemotherapy (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.79, moderate quality of evidence).Generally, we could draw valid conclusions only in terms of secondary haematological malignancies, which usually occur less than 10 years after initial treatment, while follow-up within the present analysis was too short to record all solid tumours.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The risk of secondary acute myeloid leukaemia and myelodysplastic syndrome (AML/MDS) is increased but efficacy is improved among patients treated with intensified chemotherapy protocols. Treatment decisions must be tailored for individual patients. Consolidating radiotherapy is associated with an increased rate of secondary malignancies; therefore it appears important to define which patients can safely be treated without radiotherapy after chemotherapy, both for early and advanced stages. For early stages, treatment optimisation methods such as use of fewer chemotherapy cycles and reduced field or reduced-dose radiotherapy did not appear to markedly affect efficacy or secondary malignancy risk. Due to the limited amount of long-term follow-up in this meta-analysis, further long-term investigations of late events are needed, particularly with respect to secondary solid tumours. Since many older studies have been included, possible improvement of radiotherapy techniques must be considered when interpreting these results.
Topics: Adult; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bleomycin; Chemoradiotherapy; Dacarbazine; Disease-Free Survival; Doxorubicin; Hodgkin Disease; Humans; Leukemia, Radiation-Induced; Middle Aged; Myelodysplastic Syndromes; Neoplasms, Second Primary; Radiotherapy; Radiotherapy Dosage; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vinblastine
PubMed: 28901021
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008814.pub2 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2021The hypomethylating agents (HMAs) azacitidine (AZA) and decitabine (DAC) have been widely used in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and higher-risk...
Comparison Between Decitabine and Azacitidine for Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
The hypomethylating agents (HMAs) azacitidine (AZA) and decitabine (DAC) have been widely used in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (HR-MDS). However, few direct clinical trials have been carried out to compare the efficacy and adverse events (AEs) between these two agents. The clinical choice between them is controversial. A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to compare the efficacy, safety, and survival of DAC and AZA in AML and HR-MDS patients. We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library through March 15, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on AML or HR-MDS patients comparing the efficacy and safety between DAC and AZA or comparing one of HMAs to conventional care regimens (CCR) were selected. Eight RCTs ( = 2,184) were identified in the NMA. Four trials compared AZA to CCR, and four compared DAC to CCR. Direct comparisons indicated that, compared to CCR, both AZA and DAC were associated with higher overall response (OR) rate (AZA vs. CCR: relative risk (RR) = 1.48, 95% CI 1.05-2.1; DAC vs. CCR: RR = 2.14, 95% CI 1.21-3.79) and longer overall survival (OS) (AZA vs. CCR: HR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.50-0.82; DAC vs. CCR: HR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.72-0.98), and AZA showed higher rate of complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi) (HR = 2.52, 95% CI 1.27-5). For the indirect method, DAC showed a higher complete remission (CR) rate than AZA in patients with both AML (RR = 2.28, 95% CI 1.12-4.65) and MDS (RR = 7.57, 95% CI 1.26-45.54). Additionally, DAC significantly increased the risk of 3/4 grade anemia (RR = 1.61, 95% CI: 1.03-2.51), febrile neutropenia (RR = 4.03, 95% CI: 1.41-11.52), and leukopenia (RR = 3.43, 95% CI 1.64-7.16) compared with AZA. No statistical significance was found for the other studied outcomes. Compared to CCR, both AZA and DAC can promote outcomes in patients with AML and HR-MDS. DAC showed higher efficacy especially CR rate than AZA (low-certainty evidence), while AZA experienced lower frequent grade 3/4 cytopenia than patients receiving DAC treatment.
PubMed: 34483903
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.701690 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2020Dysplasia and proliferation are histological properties that can be used to diagnose and categorize myeloid tumors in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and...
Comparison and Implications of Mutational Profiles of Myelodysplastic Syndromes, Myeloproliferative Neoplasms, and Myelodysplastic/Myeloproliferative Neoplasms: A Meta-Analysis.
Dysplasia and proliferation are histological properties that can be used to diagnose and categorize myeloid tumors in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN). However, these conditions are not exclusive, and overlap between them leads to another classification, MDS/MPN. As well as phenotype continuity, these three conditions may have genetic relationships that have not yet been identified. This study aimed to obtain their mutational profiles by meta-analysis and explore possible similarities and differences. We reviewed screening studies of gene mutations, published from January 2000 to March 2020, from PubMed and Web of Science. Fifty-three articles were eligible for the meta-analysis, and at most 9,809 cases were involved for any gene. The top mutant genes and their pooled mutation rates were as follows: (20.2% [95% CI 11.6-30.5%]) in MDS, (39.2% [95% CI 21.7-52.0%]) in MDS/MPN, and (67.9% [95% CI 64.1-71.6%]) in MPN. Subgroup analysis revealed that leukemic transformation-related genes were more commonly mutated in high-risk MDS (MDS with multilineage dysplasia and MDS with excess blasts) than that in other MDS entities. Thirteen genes including , and had significantly higher mutation frequencies in primary myelofibrosis (PMF) compared with essential thrombocythemia and polycythemia vera; this difference distinguished PMF from MPN and likened it to MDS. Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia and atypical chronic myeloid leukemia were similar entities but showed several mutational differences. A heat map demonstrated that juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia and MDS/MPN with ring sideroblasts and thrombocytosis were two distinct entities, whereas MDS/MPN-unclassifiable was closest to high-risk MDS. Such genetic closeness or difference reflected features in the pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatment, and progression of these conditions, and could inspire future genetic studies.
PubMed: 33117717
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.579221 -
Systematic Reviews Sep 2018Hypomethylating agents (HMA), azacitidine, and decitabine are frequently used in the management of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). However, there are no clinical trials... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Hypomethylating agents (HMA), azacitidine, and decitabine are frequently used in the management of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). However, there are no clinical trials that have directly compared these agents. We conducted a systematic review and indirectly compared the efficacy of azacitidine to decitabine in MDS.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus) through June 28, 2018, without language or time restrictions. Studies were screened by two independent reviewers, and differences were resolved by consensus. The fixed effect model and adjusted indirect comparison methods were used to pool relative risks (RR) of major outcomes of interest (mortality, response rate, quality of life, hematologic improvement, hospitalization, leukemia transformation, transfusion independence).
RESULTS
Only four trials met the eligibility criteria. Two trials compared azacitidine to the best supportive care (BSC) and included 549 patients, and the other two compared decitabine to BSC and included 403 patients. The risk of bias was unclear overall. Compared to BSC, azacitidine was significantly associated with lower mortality (RR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.74-0.94, I = 89%) whereas decitabine did not significantly reduce mortality (RR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.77-1.00, I = 53%). Both drugs were associated with higher partial and complete response compared to BSC. Indirect comparisons were not statistically significant for all the studied outcomes, except for complete response where azacitidine was less likely to induce complete response compared to decitabine (RR = 0.11, 95% CI = 0.01-0.86, very low-certainty evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
Azacitidine and decitabine are both associated with improved outcomes compared to BSC. The available indirect evidence comparing the two agents warrants very low certainty and cannot reliably confirm the superiority of either agent. Head-to-head trials are needed. In the meantime, the choice of agent should be driven by patient preferences, adverse effects, drug availability, and cost.
Topics: Humans; Azacitidine; Blood Transfusion; Decitabine; Mortality; Myelodysplastic Syndromes; Network Meta-Analysis; Quality of Life
PubMed: 30227896
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-018-0805-7 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2021Reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) before allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) has been reported to have the same overall survival (OS) as...
Reduced Intensity Conditioning Followed by Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Is a Good Choice for Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Myelodysplastic Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
BACKGROUND
Reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) before allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) has been reported to have the same overall survival (OS) as myeloablative conditioning (MAC) for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in complete remission (CR) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). However, results from different studies are conflicting. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis guided by PRISMA 2009 to confirm the efficacy and safety of RIC vs. MAC for AML in CR and MDS.
METHODS
We search PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane central, clinical trial registries and related websites, major conference proceedings, and field-related journals from January 1, 1980, to July 1, 2020, for studies comparing RIC with MAC before the first allo-HSCT in patients with AML in CR or MDS. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. OS was the primary endpoint and generic inverse variance method was used to combine hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI.
RESULTS
We retrieved 7,770 records. Six RCTs with 1,413 participants (711 in RIC, 702 in MAC) were included. RIC had the same OS (HR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.64-1.4, = 0.80) and cumulative incidence of relapse as MAC (HR = 1.18, 95% CI 0.88-1.59, = 0.28). Furthermore, RIC significantly reduced non-relapse mortality more than total body irradiation/busulfan-based MAC (HR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.36-0.80, = 0.002) and had similar long-term OS and graft failure as MAC.
CONCLUSION
RIC conditioning regimens are recommended as an adequate option of preparative treatment before allo-HSCT for patients with AML in CR or MDS.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=185436.
PubMed: 34692485
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.708727 -
Advances in Therapy Jun 2023Hemolysis in paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) is complement-mediated due to the lack of complement inhibitors in the hemopoietic cell membranes, making...
INTRODUCTION
Hemolysis in paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) is complement-mediated due to the lack of complement inhibitors in the hemopoietic cell membranes, making complement inhibition the best approach to manage PNH. Three complement inhibitors are approved by the European Medicines Agency as targeted therapy for PNH: eculizumab and ravulizumab, two humanized monoclonal antibodies targeting the same complement 5 (C5) epitope, approved in 2007 and 2019, respectively, and the more recently approved cyclic peptide, the complement 3 (C3) inhibitor pegcetacoplan. Although national and international PNH treatment guidelines exist, they do not take into consideration the latest clinical trial evidence. Given the lack of evidence-based data for some clinical situations encountered in real life, we identified specific populations of patients who may benefit from switching to proximal C3 from terminal C5 inhibition.
METHODS
The expert recommendations presented here were created using a Delphi-like process by a group of expert PNH specialists across Central Europe. Based on an initial advisory board meeting discussion, recommendations were prepared and reviewed as part of a Delphi survey to test agreement.
RESULTS
Using a systematic approach, literature databases were searched for relevant studies, and 50 articles were reviewed by the experts and included as supporting evidence.
CONCLUSION
Implementation of these recommendations uniformly across healthcare institutions will promote the best use of complement inhibition in managing PNH, and has the potential to positively impact patient outcomes in Central Europe and worldwide.
Topics: Humans; Hemoglobinuria, Paroxysmal; Expert Testimony; Complement Inactivating Agents; Complement C3; Complement C5; Europe
PubMed: 37072660
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-023-02510-4 -
Clinical Epigenetics 2016Aberrant DNA methylation has been identified as a key molecular event regulating the pathogenesis of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS); myeloid neoplasms with an inherent... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
Aberrant DNA methylation has been identified as a key molecular event regulating the pathogenesis of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS); myeloid neoplasms with an inherent risk of transformation to acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Based on the above findings, DNA hypomethylating agents (HMA) have been widely used to treat AML and MDS, especially in elderly patients and in those who are not eligible for allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT). Our goal was to determine if there is any therapeutic advantage of HMA vs. conventional care regimens (CCR) and indirectly compare the efficacy of azacitidine and decitabine in this patient population.
METHODS
Eligible studies were limited to randomized controlled trials comparing HMA to CCR in adult patients with AML or MDS.
RESULTS
Overall survival (OS) rate was 33.2 vs. 21.4 % (RR 0.83, 95 % CI 0.71-0.98) and overall response rate (ORR) 23.7 vs. 13.4 % (RR 0.87, 95 % CI 0.81-0.93) for HMA and CCR, respectively. In subgroup analyses, only azacitidine treatment showed OS improvement (RR 0.75, 95 % CI 0.64-0.98) and not decitabine. Cytogenetic risk or bone marrow blast count did not have independent prognostic impact.
CONCLUSION
Collectively, these results demonstrate that HMA have superior outcomes compared to CCR and suggest that azacitidine in comparison to decitabine, may be more effective.
Topics: Aged; Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic; Azacitidine; DNA Methylation; Decitabine; Epigenesis, Genetic; Female; Humans; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute; Male; Myelodysplastic Syndromes; Prognosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Rate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27307795
DOI: 10.1186/s13148-016-0233-2 -
British Journal of Haematology Dec 2014Thrombocytopenia is common (40-65%) and potentially serious in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). A systematic review was conducted to determine the safety and efficacy of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Thrombocytopenia is common (40-65%) and potentially serious in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). A systematic review was conducted to determine the safety and efficacy of adding a thrombopoietin-receptor (THPO-R) agonist to standard MDS treatment. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched. We included randomized controlled trials comparing a THPO-R agonist to placebo. A meta-analysis of the effects was performed. Endpoints included bleeding and platelet transfusion rates, risk of progression to acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) and mortality. Three hundred and eighty four patients from five trials were included, four using romiplostim and one using eltrombopag. Overall, the relative risk (RR) of bleeding with romiplostim versus placebo was 0·84 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0·57-1·24]. However, compared to placebo, romiplostim significantly decreased the exposure-adjusted bleeding rate (RR 0·92; 95% CI: 0·86-0·99), as well as the exposure-adjusted platelet transfusion rate (RR 0·69; 95% CI: 0·53-0·88). The RR of AML progression with romiplostim was 1·36 (95% CI: 0·54-3·40), however the outcome data were judged as higher risk of bias. Romiplostim is promising in its ability to decrease patient-important outcomes: bleeding and platelet transfusion need. Although the risk of AML progression was not increased, due to unclear risk of bias in the data, this safety concern is difficult to assess. Therefore, romiplostim cannot yet be routinely recommended. Early eltrombopag data is promising.
Topics: Female; Hemorrhage; Humans; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute; MEDLINE; Male; Myelodysplastic Syndromes; Platelet Transfusion; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Fc; Receptors, Thrombopoietin; Recombinant Fusion Proteins; Risk Factors; Thrombopoietin
PubMed: 25155450
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.13088