Suppr超能文献

环磷酰胺+沙利度胺+地塞米松与马法兰+地塞米松治疗伴有肾脏受累的轻链淀粉样变性:中国患者的回顾性研究。

Cyclophosphamide + Thalidomide + Dexamethasone Versus Melphalan + Dexamethasone for the Treatment of Amyloid Light-chain Amyloidosis With Kidney Involvement: A Retrospective Study in Chinese Patients.

机构信息

Department of Nephrology, Xijing Hospital, Air Force Medical University, Xi'an, China.

Department of Nephrology, Xijing Hospital, Air Force Medical University, Xi'an, China.

出版信息

Clin Ther. 2019 Jun;41(6):1186-1198. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2018.12.003. Epub 2019 Feb 2.

Abstract

PURPOSE

At present, a diverse array of treatment regimens are available for systemic amyloid light-chain (AL) amyloidosis. Both cyclophosphamide + thalidomide + dexamethasone (CTD) and melphalan + dexamethasone (MD) regimens have been recommended as first-line therapies, but no detailed comparative studies of the two have been performed. This study is the first to compare the efficacy and tolerability of the CTD and MD regimens in the treatment of AL amyloidosis.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data from consecutive patients with AL amyloidosis who were treated with MD or CTD as the initial regimen between June 2012 and January 2018.

FINDINGS

In the final analysis, 38 patients received CTD, and 30 received MD. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics, including age, sex, renal function, involved organs, level of free light chains, and Mayo Clinic amyloidosis prognostic staging. The overall hematologic response rates in the CTD and MD groups were 69.0% versus 68.0%, respectively (P = 0.94), including a complete response in 27.6% versus 8.0% (P = 0.14). Neither group reached the estimated median overall survival, and the difference between the 2 groups was not significant (P = 0.17). The median progression-free survival times were 36 versus 14 months (P = 0.24) in the CTD and MD groups, respectively. The CTD group achieved a numerically but not statistically higher prevalence of kidney response (52.9% vs 37.0%; P = 0.22). The most common adverse events in the 2 treatment groups were fatigue (48.5% vs 21.7%; P = 0.04) and constipation, anemia, nausea/vomiting, neutropenia, and syncope (all, P = NS). Deaths occurred in 6 patients in the CTD group and 9 patients in the MD group; none were considered by the investigators as related to the study treatments. There were no other serious adverse events observed in our study.

IMPLICATIONS

The CTD regimen may not be inferior to standard oral MD in terms of overall hematologic response and overall survival. Although this study was of retrospective and negative-control design with some additional limitations, it may provide a therapeutic option for use in developing countries where patients cannot afford bortezomib or melphalan.

摘要

目的

目前,有多种治疗方案可用于系统性轻链淀粉样变性(AL)淀粉样变性。环磷酰胺+沙利度胺+地塞米松(CTD)和马法兰+地塞米松(MD)方案均被推荐为一线治疗方案,但尚未对这两种方案进行详细的比较研究。本研究首次比较了 CTD 和 MD 方案在治疗 AL 淀粉样变性中的疗效和耐受性。

方法

我们回顾性分析了 2012 年 6 月至 2018 年 1 月期间连续接受 MD 或 CTD 作为初始方案治疗的 AL 淀粉样变性患者的数据。

结果

最终分析中,38 例患者接受 CTD,30 例患者接受 MD。两组患者的基线特征,包括年龄、性别、肾功能、受累器官、游离轻链水平和 Mayo 淀粉样变性预后分期均无显著差异。CTD 和 MD 组的总体血液学反应率分别为 69.0%和 68.0%(P=0.94),完全反应率分别为 27.6%和 8.0%(P=0.14)。两组均未达到估计的中位总生存期,两组之间差异无统计学意义(P=0.17)。CTD 和 MD 组的中位无进展生存期分别为 36 个月和 14 个月(P=0.24)。CTD 组肾脏反应的发生率虽高但无统计学意义(52.9% vs 37.0%;P=0.22)。两组最常见的不良反应为乏力(48.5% vs 21.7%;P=0.04)和便秘、贫血、恶心/呕吐、中性粒细胞减少和晕厥(均 P<0.05)。CTD 组 6 例患者和 MD 组 9 例患者死亡;研究者认为均与研究治疗无关。本研究未观察到其他严重不良事件。

结论

CTD 方案在总体血液学反应和总生存期方面可能并不逊于标准口服 MD。虽然本研究为回顾性和阴性对照设计,且存在一些额外的局限性,但它可能为发展中国家的患者提供一种治疗选择,这些国家的患者无法负担硼替佐米或马法兰的费用。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验