Dataset Information

A retrospective study comparing azacitidine with decitabine in Chinese patients with refractory anemia with excess blast based on two clinical trials in a single center.

ABSTRACT: The aim of the present study was to conduct a retrospective analysis of efficacy and safety profiles of azacitidine (AZA) versus. decitabine (DAC) in Chinese patients with intermediate or higher-risk MDS, which was based on two clinical trials in a single center. A total of 40 included MDS patients diagnosed with refractory anemia with excess blast (RAEB) were from two independent clinic trials. Patients in each trial received either AZA (n = 19) or DAC (n = 21) respectively, and the effectiveness as well as the safety profile of the two drugs were compared. Patients treated with AZA showed a comparative efficacy to DAC group with regard to the overall response rate (73.7% versus. 76.2%, P = 0.86), overall survival (median: 19.3 versus. 20.8 months, P = 0.56), progression-free survival (median: 12.3 versus. 9.3 months, P = 0.43) and leukemia-free survival (median: 22.8 versus. 26.6 months, P = 0.62). Patients treated with DAC showed slightly higher incidence of severe hematological adverse events during the whole treatment. Comparing hematological AEs in each observation interval, a trend of higher percentage of neutropenia, leukopenia and anemia as well as treatment delays were seen during the first 6 cycles in the DAC group.

SUBMITTER: Xu R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6684929 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHypomethylating 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.MethodsWe 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).ResultsOnly 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, I2 = 89%) whereas decitabine did not significantly reduce mortality (RR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.77-1.00, I2 = 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).ConclusionsAzacitidine 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.

Dataset Information

A retrospective study comparing azacitidine with decitabine in Chinese patients with refractory anemia with excess blast based on two clinical trials in a single center.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets