European journal of medical research · 2025
Comparative efficacy and safety in low-intensity treatment for acute myeloid leukemia in older patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорСравнительное исследованиеNetwork Meta-AnalysisНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Li Wenze, Kang Sijing, Jiao Yu, Yue Pengjie, Dong Weilin, Ge Rui, Wang Ziyi, Yan Xiaojing
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is the most common acute leukemia in adults, with a median age at diagnosis of 68 years. The outcomes in older or unfit AML patients on intensive chemotherapy are poor, and thus, it is necessary to explore alternative strategies. In recent years, non-intensive therapies have transformed the standard of care for this population. Despite the increasing number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and cohort studies in this area, the optimal treatment approach remains unclear.
METHODS: We sourced four databases, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science, until July 07, 2024, to identify all Phase II/III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies evaluating low-intensity treatments for older AML patients. Overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), complete remission (CR), complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi), overall response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs) graded ≥ 3 were analyzed using a Bayesian fixed-effects network meta-analysis (NMA).
RESULTS: A total of 4920 patients across 26 trials were included. In terms of improving OS, AZA + VEN, LDAC + glasdegib, and LDAC + VEN (SUCRA = 0.936, 0.898, and 0.718, respectively) were the most effective treatments. For CR, ORR, and CRi, AZA + VEN ranked highest among all therapies (SUCRA = 0.836, 0.911, and 0.829, respectively).
CONCLUSION: This systematic review and network meta-analysis suggest that AZA + VEN is superior to the current standard of care, particularly in improving OS, CR, ORR, and CRi. LDAC + glasdegib also demonstrated promising efficacy and warrants further investigation.
METHODS: We sourced four databases, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science, until July 07, 2024, to identify all Phase II/III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies evaluating low-intensity treatments for older AML patients. Overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), complete remission (CR), complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi), overall response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs) graded ≥ 3 were analyzed using a Bayesian fixed-effects network meta-analysis (NMA).
RESULTS: A total of 4920 patients across 26 trials were included. In terms of improving OS, AZA + VEN, LDAC + glasdegib, and LDAC + VEN (SUCRA = 0.936, 0.898, and 0.718, respectively) were the most effective treatments. For CR, ORR, and CRi, AZA + VEN ranked highest among all therapies (SUCRA = 0.836, 0.911, and 0.829, respectively).
CONCLUSION: This systematic review and network meta-analysis suggest that AZA + VEN is superior to the current standard of care, particularly in improving OS, CR, ORR, and CRi. LDAC + glasdegib also demonstrated promising efficacy and warrants further investigation.