4.7 Review

Interferon alpha therapy in essential thrombocythemia and polycythemia vera-a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

LEUKEMIA
Volume 35, Issue 6, Pages 1643-1660

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41375-020-01020-4

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Cancer Institute (NCI)
  2. NCI of the National Institutes of Health [P30 CA016359, P30 CA008748]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Interferon-alpha treatment for essential thrombocythemia and polycythemia vera shows similar efficacy and safety between peg-IFN and non-peg-IFN, making them both viable long-term treatment options for patients with these conditions.
Data on the efficacy and safety of interferon (IFN)-alpha for the treatment of essential thrombocythemia (ET) and polycythemia vera (PV) are inconsistent. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis and searched MEDLINE and EMBASE via Ovid, Scopus, COCHRANE registry of clinical trials, and Web of Science from inception through 03/2019 for studies of pegylated IFN (peg-IFN) and non-pegylated IFN (non-peg-IFN) in PV and ET patients. Random-effects models were used to pool response rates for the primary outcome of overall response rate (ORR) defined as a composite of complete response, partial response, complete hematologic response (CHR) and partial hematologic response. Peg-IFN and non-peg-IFN were compared by meta-regression analyses. In total, 44 studies with 1359 patients (730 ET, 629 PV) were included. ORR were 80.6% (95% confidence interval: 76.6-84.1%, CHR: 59.0% [51.5%-66.1%]) and 76.7% (67.4-84.0%; CHR: 48.5% [37.8-59.4%]) for ET and PV patients, respectively. In meta-regression analyses results did not differ significantly for non-peg-IFN vs. peg-IFN. Annualized rates of thromboembolic complications and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events were low at 1.2% and 8.8% for ET and 0.5% and 6.5% for PV patients, respectively. Both peg-IFN and non-peg-IFN can be effective and safe long-term treatments for ET and PV.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available