2020MedicineOpen access

The efficacy and safety of daunorubicin versus idarubicin combined with cytarabine for induction therapy in acute myeloid leukemia

Hanyu Wang, Xueting Xiao, Qirong Xiao, Yanhong Lu, Yong Wu

Open full text 28 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the efficacy and safety of daunorubicin combined with cytarabine comparing with idarubicin combined with cytarabine as a standard induction therapy for acute Myeloid leukemia by a meta-analysis. METHODS: The randomized controlled trials included were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library. We evaluated and cross-checked the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing daunorubicin combined with cytarabine (DA) and idarubicin combined with cytarabine (IA) by two reviewers independently according to Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviewers of Interventions. The data of meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 12.0 software. RESULTS: A total of 6 studies containing 3140 patients were included. The primary outcomes were complete remission (CR), CR in one course (CR1), CR in two courses (CR2), overall survival (OS), and relapse rate. The secondary outcomes included adverse events and cytogenetic risk in subgroup analyses. IA showed a statistically significant in CR (RR = 1.05; 95%CI = 1.00-1.09, P = .03) and CR1 (RR = 1.11; 95%CI = 1.04-1.18, P = .003), but not in CR2 (RR = 0.97; 95%CI = 0.77-1.24, P = .83), and relapse rate (RR = 1.08; 95%CI = 0.98-1.43, P = .08). In high dose daunorubicin group, OS was significantly improved with IA compared to DA (HR = 0.89, 95%CI = 0.8-1.0, P = .041, I = 0). At grade 3/4 adverse events, the difference between IA and DA was not statistically significant (infection, P = .28; cardiac toxicity, P = .15; bleeding, P = .29). In the subgroup analysis, the genotypes of the IA and DA groups were not statistically significant for comparison of CR between the two groups (P = .07). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis showed that IA had a better efficacy in the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia than DA, even with increased doses of DA. The OS of a standard dose of IA patients was longer than that of DA patients. Our research shows that anthracycline dose intensification of daunorubicin is of no clinically relevant benefit in AML patients comparing with a standard dose of IA. When it comes to adverse drug reactions, it is not a significant difference. Therefore, in clinical practice, IA should be the first choice for induction regimen in patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the efficacy and safety of daunorubicin combined with cytarabine comparing with idarubicin combined with cytarabine as a standard induction therapy for acute Myeloid leukemia by a meta-analysis. METHODS: The randomized controlled trials included were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library. We evaluated and cross-checked the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing daunorubicin combined with cytarabine (DA) and idarubicin combined with cytarabine (IA) by two reviewers independently according to Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviewers of Interventions. The data of meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 12.0 software. RESULTS: A total of 6 studies containing 3140 patients were included. The primary outcomes were complete remission (CR), CR in one course (CR1), CR in two courses (CR2), overall survival (OS), and relapse rate. The secondary outcomes included adverse events and cytogenetic risk in subgroup analyses. IA showed a statistically significant in CR (RR = 1.05; 95%CI = 1.00-1.09, P = .03) and CR1 (RR = 1.11; 95%CI = 1.04-1.18, P = .003), but not in CR2 (RR = 0.97; 95%CI = 0.77-1.24, P = .83), and relapse rate (RR = 1.08; 95%CI = 0.98-1.43, P = .08). In high dose daunorubicin group, OS was significantly improved with IA compared to DA (HR = 0.89, 95%CI = 0.8-1.0, P = .041, I = 0). At grade 3/4 adverse events, the difference between IA and DA was not statistically significant (infection, P = .28; cardiac toxicity, P = .15; bleeding, P = .29). In the subgroup analysis, the genotypes of the IA and DA groups were not statistically significant for comparison of CR between the two groups (P = .07). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis showed that IA had a better efficacy in the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia than DA, even with increased doses of DA. The OS of a standard dose of IA patients was longer than that of DA patients. Our research shows that anthracycline dose intensification of daunorubicin is of no clinically relevant benefit in AML patients comparing with a standard dose of IA. When it comes to adverse drug reactions, it is not a significant difference. Therefore, in clinical practice, IA should be the first choice for induction regimen in patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 28 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the efficacy and safety of daunorubicin combined with cytarabine comparing with idarubicin combined with cytarabine as a standard induction therapy for acute Myeloid leukemia by a meta-analysis. METHODS: The randomized controlled trials included were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library. We evaluated and cross-checked the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing daunorubicin combined with cytarabine (DA) and idarubicin combined with cytarabine (IA) by two reviewers independently according to Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviewers of Interventions. The data of meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 12.0 software. RESULTS: A total of 6 studies containing 3140 patients were included. The primary outcomes were complete remission (CR), CR in one course (CR1), CR in two courses (CR2), overall survival (OS), and relapse rate. The secondary outcomes included adverse events and cytogenetic risk in subgroup analyses. IA showed a statistically significant in CR (RR = 1.05; 95%CI = 1.00-1.09, P = .03) and CR1 (RR = 1.11; 95%CI = 1.04-1.18, P = .003), but not in CR2 (RR = 0.97; 95%CI = 0.77-1.24, P = .83), and relapse rate (RR = 1.08; 95%CI = 0.98-1.43, P = .08). In high dose daunorubicin group, OS was significantly improved with IA compared to DA (HR = 0.89, 95%CI = 0.8-1.0, P = .041, I = 0). At grade 3/4 adverse events, the difference between IA and DA was not statistically significant (infection, P = .28; cardiac toxicity, P = .15; bleeding, P = .29). In the subgroup analysis, the genotypes of the IA and DA groups were not statistically significant for comparison of CR between the two groups (P = .07). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis showed that IA had a better efficacy in the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia than DA, even with increased doses of DA. The OS of a standard dose of IA patients was longer than that of DA patients. Our research shows that anthracycline dose intensification of daunorubicin is of no clinically relevant benefit in AML patients comparing with a standard dose of IA. When it comes to adverse drug reactions, it is not a significant difference. Therefore, in clinical practice, IA should be the first choice for induction regimen in patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

Key concepts: Medicine, Idarubicin, Cytarabine, Internal medicine, Daunorubicin, Adverse effect, Gastroenterology, Myeloid leukemia

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The efficacy and safety of daunorubicin versus idarubicin combined with cytarabine for induction therapy in acute myeloid leukemia — Research Paper | ScholarLens