4.6 Review

Clinical effectiveness and safety of erythropoietin-stimulating agents for the treatment of low- and intermediate-1-risk myelodysplastic syndrome: a systematic literature review

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
Volume 184, Issue 2, Pages 134-160

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.15707

Keywords

darbepoetin alfa; myelodysplastic syndromes; erythropoiesis-stimulating agent; anaemia; systematic review

Categories

Funding

  1. Amgen Inc.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Many patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) experience anaemia, which has negative consequences. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and their biosimilars are used to treat anaemia in MDS and, currently, epoetin alfa and darbepoetin alfa are commonly used and recommended by clinical guidelines. To better understand the evidence available on the use of ESAs for anaemia in lower-risk MDS, we conducted a systematic literature review to identify randomized and nonrandomized prospective studies reporting on clinical efficacy/effectiveness, patient-reported quality of life (QoL), and safety. We extended our review to include retrospective studies for darbepoetin alfa specifically and to ascertain the feasibility of completing an indirect network meta-analysis comparing epoetin and darbepoetin alfa. Overall, 53 articles reporting on 35 studies were included. The studies indicated a clinical benefit of ESAs, with benefits observed across key clinical outcomes. ESAs showed consistent improvement in erythroid response rates (ESA-naive, 45-73%; previous ESA exposure, 25-75%) and duration of response. Comparative studies demonstrated similar progression to acute myeloid leukaemia and several showed improved overall survival and QoL. Limited safety concerns were identified. This analysis confirmed ESA therapy should be the foremost first-line treatment of anaemia in most patients with lower-risk MDS who lack the 5q deletion.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available