Ross Susan D, Allen I Elaine, Henry David H, Seaman Christopher, Sercus Brian, Goodnough Lawrence T
MetaWorks, Inc., Medford, Massachusetts 02155, USA.
Clin Ther. 2006 Jun;28(6):801-31. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2006.06.003.
BACKGROUND: Erythropoiesis-stimulating proteins (ESPs) are indicated for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). Evidence-based guidelines and systematic reviews of the management of CIA do not yet include all currently approved ESPs or all of the clinically relevant benefits and risks of ESPs. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this work were to provide up-to-date assessments of the clinical efficacy and effectiveness (ie, transfusions and quality-of-life [QoL] benefits) and safety (ie, risk of venous thromboembolism [VTE] and all-cause or treatment-associated death) of epoetin-alfa, epoetin-beta, and darbepoetin-alfa for the treatment of CIA in cancer patients with hemoglobin<11 g/dL. We also considered the impact of differences in study design, patients, and treatments on the results. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify and analyze English-language studies (controlled trials and prospective uncontrolled studies with >or=300 patients) published between 1980 and July 2005. The databases searched were MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library. Relevant abstracts from the last 2 annual meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Hematology, and European Society for Medical Oncology were also included. Studies were selected, using predefined eligibility criteria. Two reviewers had to agree on all included and excluded studies, and on all data extracted from each accepted study before they were entered into a relational database. Meta-analyses were performed to quantify benefit and risk outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 40 studies including 21,378 patients were eligible for analysis. Each ESP was found to have efficacy relative to standard care or placebo. The odds ratio (OR) for transfusions in studies of epoetin versus controls was 0.44 (95% CI, 0.35-0.55) and of darbepoetin versus controls was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.31-0.55). Patients receiving ESPs experienced a significant improvement in QoL; the mean difference in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue score for ESPs versus controls was 0.23 (95% CI, 0.10-0.36; P=0.001). The frequency of VTE and death was not significantly different between ESPs and control (VTE OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 0.81-2.47]; all-cause mortality OR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.69-1.44]). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of key clinical benefits and risks of epoetin and darbepoetin in the treatment of CIA found no clinically relevant differences between these drugs.
背景:促红细胞生成素(ESPs)被用于治疗化疗所致贫血(CIA)。基于循证的CIA管理指南和系统评价尚未涵盖所有目前已获批的ESPs,也未涉及ESPs所有临床相关的获益和风险。 目的:本研究旨在对重组人促红细胞生成素-α、重组人促红细胞生成素-β和聚乙二醇化促红细胞生成素-α治疗血红蛋白<11 g/dL的癌症患者CIA的临床疗效和有效性(即输血及生活质量[QoL]获益)以及安全性(即静脉血栓栓塞症[VTE]风险和全因或治疗相关死亡)进行最新评估。我们还考虑了研究设计、患者和治疗方法的差异对结果的影响。 方法:进行文献系统评价,以识别和分析1980年至2005年7月期间发表的英文研究(对照试验和患者≥300例的前瞻性非对照研究)。检索的数据库为MEDLINE和考克兰图书馆。还纳入了美国临床肿瘤学会、美国血液学会和欧洲医学肿瘤学会最近两届年会的相关摘要。采用预先定义的纳入标准选择研究。两名评价者必须就所有纳入和排除的研究,以及从每项纳入研究中提取的所有数据达成一致,然后将这些数据录入关系数据库。进行荟萃分析以量化获益和风险结果。 结果:共有40项研究(21378例患者)符合分析条件。发现每种ESPs相对于标准治疗或安慰剂均具有疗效。重组人促红细胞生成素-α研究中输血的比值比(OR)为0.44(95%CI,0.35-0.55),聚乙二醇化促红细胞生成素-α研究中输血的OR为0.41(95%CI,0.31-0.55)。接受ESPs治疗的患者QoL有显著改善;ESPs组与对照组癌症治疗功能评估-疲劳评分的平均差值为0.23(95%CI,0.10-0.36;P=0.001)。ESPs组和对照组之间VTE和死亡的发生率无显著差异(VTE的OR为1.41[95%CI,0.81-2.47];全因死亡率的OR为1.00[95%CI,0.69-1.44])。 结论:对重组人促红细胞生成素-α和聚乙二醇化促红细胞生成素-α治疗CIA的关键临床获益和风险的分析发现,这些药物之间无临床相关差异。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-2-6
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-7-9
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006-5-17
Curr Med Res Opin. 2006-12
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005-7-20
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2015-12
Medicare Medicaid Res Rev. 2014-11-26
Curr Oncol Rep. 2014-4
Support Care Cancer. 2013-6-18