-
Future Oncology (London, England) Apr 2023To review clinical evidence for current and emerging treatments for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are ineligible for first-line induction chemotherapy.... (Review)
Review
To review clinical evidence for current and emerging treatments for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are ineligible for first-line induction chemotherapy. A systematic literature review was performed (28 October 2021) to identify clinical outcomes including overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), relapse-free survival (RFS) and adverse events (AEs). Of 233 references that met prespecified criteria, 26 studies were included. Adding targeted therapies (venetoclax/ivosidenib) to hypomethylating agents (HMAs) yielded better OS hazard ratios (HRs) (0.44-0.66) and EFS HRs (0.33-0.63) compared with other agents. AEs were more frequent with combination therapies than control arms, except with ivosidenib plus azacitidine. Targeted therapy combined with a HMA shows the most promising results in this difficult-to-treat population.
Topics: Humans; Cytarabine; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute; Azacitidine; Combined Modality Therapy; Progression-Free Survival; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Induction Chemotherapy
PubMed: 37170899
DOI: 10.2217/fon-2022-1286 -
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 -
Cancers Nov 2021Irruption of decitabine and azacitidine has led to profound changes in the upfront management of older acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). However, they have not been... (Review)
Review
Irruption of decitabine and azacitidine has led to profound changes in the upfront management of older acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). However, they have not been directly compared in a randomised clinical trial. In addition, there are no studies comparing the optimal treatment schedule of each drug in AML. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of decitabine and azacitidine monotherapy in newly diagnosed AML was conducted. Randomised controlled trials and retrospective studies were included. A total of 2743 patients from 23 cohorts were analysed (10 cohorts of azacitidine and 13 of decitabine). Similar response rates were observed for azacitidine (38%, 95% CI: 30-47%) compared to decitabine (40%, 95% CI: 32-48%) ( = 0.825). Overall survival (OS) between azacitidine (10.04 months, 95% CI: 8.36-11.72) and decitabine (8.79 months, 95% CI: 7.62-9.96) was also similar ( = 0.386). Patients treated with azacitidine showed a lower median OS when azacitidine was administered for 5 days (6.28 months, 95% CI: 4.23-8.32) compared to the standard 7-day schedule (10.83 months, 95% CI: 9.07-12.59, = 0.002). Among patients treated with decitabine, response rates and OS were not significantly different between 5-day and 10-day decitabine regimens. Despite heterogeneity between studies, we found no differences in response rates and OS in AML patients treated with azacitidine or decitabine.
PubMed: 34830832
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13225677 -
Experimental Hematology & Oncology 2020The DNA hypomethylating agents (HMAs) decitabine and azacitidine have been widely used in the management of elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The DNA hypomethylating agents (HMAs) decitabine and azacitidine have been widely used in the management of elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, no direct clinical trials have been carried out to compare the two agents. A systematic review and network meta-analysis were performed to indirectly compare the efficacy and safety of decitabine and azacitidine in elderly AML patients.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library through May 14, 2019. Randomized controlled trials on elderly AML patients comparing the efficacy and safety between decitabine and azacitidine, or comparing one of HMAs to standard supportive care or placebo were selected. The major outcomes of interest were performed with methods of adjusted indirect comparison and the fixed effect model.
RESULTS
Only three RCTs including a total number of 1086 patients were identified. Direct comparisons showed that azacitidine significantly reduced mortality (RR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.97) while decitabine was not significantly associated with lower mortality (RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.92-1.02) compared to the conventional care regimen (CCR). In addition, for the indirect method, azacitidine significantly reduced mortality compared to decitabine (RR = 0.83 95% CI 0.77-0.90) and was more likely to improve complete response (CR) (RR = 1.66, 95% CI 1.17-2.35, low-certainty evidence). No statistical significance was found for the other studied outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared to CCR, decitabine and azacitidine can promote studied outcomes in elderly AML patients. Indirect evidence with low certainty was used to compare these two agents. The superiority of either agent cannot be confirmed, and head-to-head clinical trials are still required.
PubMed: 32190414
DOI: 10.1186/s40164-020-00160-8 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2017Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) is one of the most frequent haematologic malignancies of the elderly population and characterised by progenitor cell dysplasia with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) is one of the most frequent haematologic malignancies of the elderly population and characterised by progenitor cell dysplasia with ineffective haematopoiesis and a high rate of transformation to acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). Thrombocytopenia represents a common problem for patients with MDS. ranging from mild to serious bleeding events and death. To manage thrombocytopenia, the current standard treatment includes platelet transfusion, unfortunately leading to a range of side effects. Thrombopoietin (TPO) mimetics represent an alternative treatment option for MDS patients with thrombocytopenia. However, it remains unclear, whether TPO mimetics influence the increase of blast cells and therefore to premature progression to AML.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of thrombopoietin (TPO) mimetics for patients with MDS.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for randomised controlled trials in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (January 2000 to August 2017), trials registries (ISRCTN, EU clinical trials register and clinicaltrials.gov) and conference proceedings. We did not apply any language restrictions. Two review authors independently screened search results, disagreements were solved by discussion.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials comparing TPO mimetics with placebo, no further treatment or another TPO mimetic in patients with MDS of all risk groups, without gender, age or ethnicity restrictions. Additional chemotherapeutic treatment had to be equal in both arms.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials, disagreements were resolved by discussion. Risk ratio (RR) was used to analyse mortality during study, transformation to AML, incidence of bleeding events, transfusion requirement, all adverse events, adverse events >= grade 3, serious adverse events and platelet response. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) have been extracted as hazard ratios, but could not be pooled as results were reported in heterogenous ways. Health-related quality of life and duration of thrombocytopenia would have been analysed as standardised mean differences, but no trial reported these outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We did not identify any trial comparing one TPO mimetic versus another. We analysed six eligible trials involving 746 adult patients. All trials were reported as randomised and double-blind trials including male and female patients. Two trials compared TPO mimetics (romiplostim or eltrombopag) with placebo, one trial evaluated eltrombopag in addition to the hypomethylating agent azacitidine, two trials analysed romiplostim additionally to a hypomethylating agent (azacitidine or decitabine) and one trial evaluated romiplostim in addition to the immunomodulatory drug lenalidomide. There are more data on romiplostim (four included, completed, full-text trials) than on eltrombopag (two trials included: one full-text publication, one abstract publication). Due to small sample sizes and imbalances in baseline characteristics in three trials and premature termination of two studies, we judged the potential risk of bias of all included trials as high.Due to heterogenous reporting, we were not able to pool data for OS. Instead of that, we analysed mortality during study. There is little or no evidence for a difference in mortality during study for thrombopoietin mimetics compared to placebo (RR 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.27, N = 6 trials, 746 patients, low-quality evidence). It is unclear whether the use of TPO mimetics induces an acceleration of transformation to AML (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.77, N = 5 trials, 372 patients, very low-quality evidence).Thrombopoietin mimetics probably improve the incidence of all bleeding events (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99, N = 5 trials, 390 patients, moderate-quality evidence). This means that in the study population, 713 out of 1000 in the placebo arm will have a bleeding event, compared to 656 of 1000 (95% CI 613 to 699) in the TPO mimetics arm. There is little or no evidence for a difference that TPO mimetics significantly diminish the rate of transfusion requirement (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05, N = 4 trials, 358 patients, low-quality evidence). No studies were found that looked at quality of life or duration of thrombocytopenia.There is no evidence that patients given TPO mimetics suffer more all adverse events (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.07, N = 5 trials, 390 patients, moderate-quality evidence). There is uncertainty whether the number of serious adverse events decrease under therapy with TPO mimetics (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.46, N = 4 trials, 356 patients, very low-quality evidence).We identified one ongoing study and one study marked as completed (March 2015), but without publication of results for MDS patients (only results reported for AML and MDS patients together). Both studies evaluate MDS patients receiving eltrombopag in comparison to placebo.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
No trial evaluated one TPO mimetic versus another.Six trials including adult patients analysed one TPO mimetic versus placebo, sometimes combined with standard therapy in both arms. Given the uncertainty of the quality of evidence, meta-analyses show that there is little or no evidence for a difference in mortality during study and premature progress to AML. However, these assumptions have to be further explored. Treatment with TPO mimetics resulted in a lower number of MDS patients suffering from bleeding events.There is no evidence for a difference between study groups regarding transfusion requirement. Enlarged sample sizes and a longer follow-up of future trials should improve the estimate of safety and efficacy of TPO mimetics, moreover health-related quality of life should be evaluated. As two ongoing studies currently investigate eltrombopag (one already completed, but without published results), we are awaiting results for this drug.
Topics: Adult; Azacitidine; Benzoates; Blood Transfusion; Decitabine; Female; Hemorrhage; Humans; Hydrazines; Lenalidomide; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute; Male; Myelodysplastic Syndromes; Pyrazoles; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Fc; Recombinant Fusion Proteins; Thalidomide; Thrombocytopenia; Thrombopoietin
PubMed: 28962071
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009883.pub2 -
BMC Hematology 20185-Azacitidine administered as a 7-day dosing regimen (7-0-0) is approved in high risk IPSS myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) patients. Alternative regimens such as a 5-day...
BACKGROUND
5-Azacitidine administered as a 7-day dosing regimen (7-0-0) is approved in high risk IPSS myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) patients. Alternative regimens such as a 5-day (5-0-0) or 7-day with a weekend break (5-2-2) are commonly used. No randomized controlled trial has been done directly comparing all three dosing regimens. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacies of the 5-0-0, 5-2-2, and 7-0-0 regimens in MDS and AML.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational prospective and retrospective studies. The primary clinical outcomes were Objective Response Rate (ORR) defined as the sum of complete response (CR), partial response (PR), and hematological improvement (HI) as defined by the IWG 2006 criteria. A meta-analysis of simple proportions was conducted using a random effects model with weights defined according to Laird and Mosteller. Comparisons between groups were not attempted due to the heterogeneity of study designs.
RESULTS
The only RCT directly comparing alternative azacitidine regimens showed no difference in ORR between the 5-0-0 and 5-2-2 regimens. All other RCTs compared a dosing regimen to conventional care. The pooled proportion of ORR was 44.8% with 95% CI (42.8%, 45.5%) for 7-0-0, 41.2% with 95% CI (39.2%, 41.9%) for 5-0-0, and 45.8% with 95% CI (42.6%, 46.4%) for 5-2-2.
CONCLUSIONS
Indirect comparison of alternative azacitidine dosing regimens in MDS and AML shows a benefit for the 7-day regimen in attaining ORR. Additional RCTs are required to definitively address this comparison.
PubMed: 29435331
DOI: 10.1186/s12878-017-0094-8 -
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 -
Leukemia Research May 2021The hypomethylating agent azacitidine can prolong overall survival (OS) in patients with higher risk-myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS) compared to conventional... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review of higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes clinical trials to determine the benchmark of azacitidine and explore alternative endpoints for overall survival.
The hypomethylating agent azacitidine can prolong overall survival (OS) in patients with higher risk-myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS) compared to conventional regimens. However, outcomes differ largely between studies, making it challenging to determine the contribution of novel therapies added to azacitidine. Further, a discrepancy is seen between complete (CR) or partial (PR) response rates and OS improvement with azacitidine, making it challenging to rely on earlier endpoints than OS. We conducted a systematic literature search and study-level systematic review of 237 clinical studies to better understand outcomes for HR-MDS patients treated with azacitidine. Pooled marrow CR was 9% (N = 2654; 95% CI: 6-13 %), CR rate was 17 % (N = 6943; 95% CI: 15-20 %), and median OS (mOS) was 18.6 months (N = 2820; 95% CI: 15.3-21.9). A weak correlation to mOS was detected with CR rate (207 patient cohorts, Pearson's r = 0.315; P < 0.0005), and a much stronger correlation with median progression-free survival (mPFS) (r=0.88, P = 3 × 10). Six-months progression-free survival rates correlated with 1-year OS rates but were only infrequently reported (N = 41 patient cohorts) therefore not allowing a robust recommendation for a surrogate to the established OS endpoint. Larger patient numbers and patient-level data appear necessary, especially for designing future clinical trials using azacitidine combinations.
Topics: Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic; Azacitidine; Clinical Trials as Topic; Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Myelodysplastic Syndromes; Survival Rate
PubMed: 33705966
DOI: 10.1016/j.leukres.2021.106555 -
PloS One 2022Elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia not eligible for intensive antileukemic therapy are treated with less intensive therapies, uncertainty remains regarding... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Less intensive antileukemic therapies (monotherapy and/or combination) for older adults with acute myeloid leukemia who are not candidates for intensive antileukemic therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia not eligible for intensive antileukemic therapy are treated with less intensive therapies, uncertainty remains regarding their relative merits.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness and safety of less intensive antileukemic therapies for older adults with newly diagnosed AML not candidates for intensive therapies.
METHODS
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRS) comparing less intensive therapies in adults over 55 years with newly diagnosed AML. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to August 2021. We assessed risk of bias of RCTs with a modified Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and NRS with the Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions tool (ROBINS-I). We calculated pooled hazard ratios (HRs), risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects pairwise meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS
We included 27 studies (17 RCTs, 10 NRS; n = 5,698), which reported 9 comparisons. Patients were treated with azacitidine, decitabine, and low-dose cytarabine (LDAC), as monotherapies or in combination with other agents. Moderate certainty of evidence suggests no convincing difference in overall survival of patients who receive azacitidine monotherapy compared to LDAC monotherapy (HR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.31-1.53), fewer febrile neutropenia events occurred between azacitidine monotherapy to azacitidine combination (RR 0.45; 95% CI, 0.31-0.65), and, fewer neutropenia events occurred between LDAC monotherapy to decitabine monotherapy (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.44-0.86). All other comparisons and outcomes had low or very low certainty of evidence.
CONCLUSION
There is no convincing superiority in OS when comparing less intensive therapies. Azacitidine monotherapy is likely to have fewer adverse events than azacitidine combination (febrile neutropenia), and LDAC monotherapy is likely to have fewer adverse events than decitabine monotherapy (neutropenia).
Topics: Aged; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Humans; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute
PubMed: 35108310
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263240 -
Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia Feb 2023The global incidence of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) has been estimated as 0.06 to 0.26/100,000. Since their introduction, hypomethylating agents have played a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The global incidence of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) has been estimated as 0.06 to 0.26/100,000. Since their introduction, hypomethylating agents have played a central role in the treatment of MDS, with heterogeneous real-world outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We assessed and synthesized clinical outcomes of azacitidine (AZA) monotherapy in treatment-naïve patients with higher-risk MDS. A systematic literature review was conducted by searching MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies, both prospective and retrospective, reporting complete remission (CR), partial remission (PR), overall survival (OS), duration of response (DOR), time-to-response (TTR), and myelosuppressive adverse events (AEs) for patients treated with AZA monotherapy. Noncomparative meta-analyses were used to summarize effects.
RESULTS
The search identified 3250 abstracts, of which 34 publications describing 16 studies (5 RCTs, 3 prospective, and 8 retrospective observational) were included. Across all studies, pooled CR was 16%; PR was 6%; Median OS was 16.4 months; median DOR was 10.1 months; median TTR was 4.6 months. Proportions of grade 3/4 anemia and thrombocytopenia AEs were 10% and 30%.
CONCLUSIONS
The effectiveness and efficacy of AZA monotherapy-as measured by CR and median OS-was limited. These findings highlight a significant unmet medical need for effective treatments for patients with higher-risk MDS.
Topics: Humans; Azacitidine; Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic; Myelodysplastic Syndromes; Treatment Outcome; Remission Induction
PubMed: 36428152
DOI: 10.1016/j.clml.2022.11.002