Clinical Benefits and Safety of FMS-Like Tyrosine Kinase 3 Inhibitors in Various Treatment Stages of Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Network Meta-Analysis

BackgroundGiven the controversial roles of FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 inhibitors (FLT3i) in various treatment stages of acute myeloid leukemia (AML), this study was designed to assess this problem and further explored which FLT3i worked more effectively.MethodsA systematic review, meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted by filtering PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Chinese databases. We included studies comparing therapeutic effects between FLT3i and non-FLT3i group in AML, particularly FLT3(+) patients, or demonstrating the efficiency of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) in FLT3(+) AML. Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was used for estimating complete remission (CR), early death and toxicity. Hazard ratio (HR) was used to assess overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), relapse-free survival (RFS) and cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR).ResultsAfter addressing all criteria, 39 studies were eventually analyzed. Better CR was accomplished by FLT3i in untreated AML (RR 0.88, p = 0.04) and refractory and relapsed FLT3(+) AML (rrAML) (RR 0.61, p < 0.01) compared to non-FLT3i arm, followed by improved survival (untreated AML: OS, HR 0.76; EFS, HR 0.67; RFS, HR 0.72; all p < 0.01; FLT3(+) rrAML: OS, HR 0.60, p < 0.01; RFS, HR 0.40, p = 0.01). In addition, allo-HSCT improved survival in FLT3(+) AML (OS, HR 0.53; EFS, HR 0.50; RFS, HR 0.57; CIR, HR 0.26; all p < 0.01), which was further prolonged by FLT3i administrated after allo-HSCT (OS, HR 0.45; RFS, HR 0.34; CIR, HR 0.32; all p < 0.01). Additionally, FLT3i consistently improved OS (p < 0.05) regardless of FLT3-ITD ratio, when compared to non-FLT3i group. Besides, FLT3i showed significantly increased risk of thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, anemia, skin- and cardiac-related adverse effects, increased alanine aminotransferase, and increased risk of cough and dyspnea (p < 0.05). In NMA, gilteritinib showed the highest probability for improved prognosis.ConclusionsFLT3i safely improved prognosis in induction/reinduction stage of FLT3(+) AML and further boosted survival benefits from allo-HSCT as maintenance therapy, suggesting better prognosis if FLT3i is combined before and after allo-HSCT. In NMA, gilteritinib potentially achieved the best prognosis, which should be identified in direct trials.

Download Full-text

Comparison Between Decitabine and Azacitidine for Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Frontiers in Pharmacology ◽

10.3389/fphar.2021.701690 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 ◽

Author(s):

Jiale Ma ◽

Zheng Ge

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Acute Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Complete Remission ◽

Myelodysplastic Syndrome ◽

Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Statistical Significance ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Acute Myeloid

Background: 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.Methods: 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.Results: Eight RCTs (n = 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.Conclusion: 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.

Download Full-text