ReviewExperimental hematology & oncology2020
Indirect comparison of azacitidine and decitabine for the therapy of elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Review in Experimental hematology & oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing National Health Technology Assessment approaches and the new European Joint Clinical Assessment framework: The case of onco-hematological medicines.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Meta-analysis of clinical efficacy and safety of decitabine combined with CAG regimen in the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia in the elderly.Leukemia research reports · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of venetoclax plus hypomethylating agents in relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia: a multicenter real-life experience.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Article
- Comparing Arsenic-Containing Qinghuang Powder and Low-Intensity Chemotherapy in Elderly Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia.Chinese journal of integrative medicine · 2023Article
- Hypomethylating agent-based therapies in older adults with acute myeloid leukemia - A joint review by the Young International Society of Geriatric Oncology and European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation Trainee Committee.Journal of geriatric oncology · 2023Review
- Azacitidine vs. Decitabine in Unfit Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia Patients: Results from the PETHEMA Registry.Cancers · 2022Article
- Survival outcomes of hypomethylating agents maintenance therapy in new diagnosed AML patients: Real experience data.Northern clinics of Istanbul · 2022Article
- Use of Azacitidine or Decitabine for the Up-Front Setting in Acute Myeloid Leukaemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancers · 2021Review
- Regulatory T Cells-Related Genes Are under DNA Methylation Influence.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Comparison Between Decitabine and Azacitidine for Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- The Implementation of Mass Spectrometry-Based Proteomics Workflows in Clinical Routines of Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Applicability and Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe DNA hypomethylating agents (HMAs) decitabine and azacitidine have been widely used in the management of elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, no direct clinical trials have been carried out to compare the two agents. A systematic review and network meta-analysis were performed to indirectly compare the efficacy and safety of decitabine and azacitidine in elderly AML patients.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library through May 14, 2019. Randomized controlled trials on elderly AML patients comparing the efficacy and safety between decitabine and azacitidine, or comparing one of HMAs to standard supportive care or placebo were selected. The major outcomes of interest were performed with methods of adjusted indirect comparison and the fixed effect model.
resultsOnly three RCTs including a total number of 1086 patients were identified. Direct comparisons showed that azacitidine significantly reduced mortality (RR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.97) while decitabine was not significantly associated with lower mortality (RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.92-1.02) compared to the conventional care regimen (CCR). In addition, for the indirect method, azacitidine significantly reduced mortality compared to decitabine (RR = 0.83 95% CI 0.77-0.90) and was more likely to improve complete response (CR) (RR = 1.66, 95% CI 1.17-2.35, low-certainty evidence). No statistical significance was found for the other studied outcomes.
conclusionsCompared to CCR, decitabine and azacitidine can promote studied outcomes in elderly AML patients. Indirect evidence with low certainty was used to compare these two agents. The superiority of either agent cannot be confirmed, and head-to-head clinical trials are still required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.