TY - JOUR
T1 - Less intensive antileukemic therapies (monotherapy and/or combination) for older adults with acute myeloid leukemia who are not candidates for intensive antileukemic therapy
T2 - A systematic review and metaanalysis
AU - Colunga-Lozano, Luis Enrique
AU - Nampo, Fernando Kenji
AU - Agarwal, Arnav
AU - Desai, Pinkal
AU - Litzow, Mark
AU - Sekeres, Mikkael A.
AU - Guyatt, Gordon H.
AU - Brignardello-Petersen, Romina
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Colunga-Lozano et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2022/2
Y1 - 2022/2
N2 - 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).
AB - 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).
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85124000068&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85124000068&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0263240
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0263240
M3 - Review article
C2 - 35108310
AN - SCOPUS:85124000068
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 17
JO - PLoS One
JF - PLoS One
IS - 2 February
M1 - e0263240
ER -