Comparison of bolus administration and short-term infusion versus long-term infusion of doxorubicin in terms of cardiotoxicity and efficacy

Hamed Ghiami, Navid Omidkhoda, Mohsen Seddigh-Shamsi, Hossein Rahimi, Omid Arasteh
{"title":"Comparison of bolus administration and short-term infusion versus long-term infusion of doxorubicin in terms of cardiotoxicity and efficacy","authors":"Hamed Ghiami, Navid Omidkhoda, Mohsen Seddigh-Shamsi, Hossein Rahimi, Omid Arasteh","doi":"10.1007/s00210-023-02886-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Cardiotoxicity caused by anthracyclines chemotherapy is one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity in cancer survivors. Continuous infusion (CI) instead of bolus (BOL) injection is one of the methods that seem to be effective in reducing doxorubicin (DOX) cardiotoxicity. Due to the variety of results, we decided to compare these two approaches regarding toxicity and efficacy and report the final results for different cancers. We included 21 studies (four preclinical and seventeen clinical trials) up to May 15, 2023. In children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and adults with chronic lymphoblastic leukemia (CLL) and gastric cancer, results were in favor of BOL injection, without increase in cardiotoxicity. On the other hand, CI showed to be better option in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and breast cancer. Various results were also observed in adult patients with sarcoma. Overall, it can be concluded that the benefits of CI, especially in adults, outweigh its disadvantages. However, due to the variety of results and heterogeneity of studies, further clinical trials with a larger sample size and a longer duration of follow-up are needed to make a more accurate comparison between CI and BOL injection.</p>","PeriodicalId":18862,"journal":{"name":"Naunyn-schmiedebergs Archives of Pharmacology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Naunyn-schmiedebergs Archives of Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00210-023-02886-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Cardiotoxicity caused by anthracyclines chemotherapy is one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity in cancer survivors. Continuous infusion (CI) instead of bolus (BOL) injection is one of the methods that seem to be effective in reducing doxorubicin (DOX) cardiotoxicity. Due to the variety of results, we decided to compare these two approaches regarding toxicity and efficacy and report the final results for different cancers. We included 21 studies (four preclinical and seventeen clinical trials) up to May 15, 2023. In children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and adults with chronic lymphoblastic leukemia (CLL) and gastric cancer, results were in favor of BOL injection, without increase in cardiotoxicity. On the other hand, CI showed to be better option in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and breast cancer. Various results were also observed in adult patients with sarcoma. Overall, it can be concluded that the benefits of CI, especially in adults, outweigh its disadvantages. However, due to the variety of results and heterogeneity of studies, further clinical trials with a larger sample size and a longer duration of follow-up are needed to make a more accurate comparison between CI and BOL injection.

Abstract Image

栓剂给药和短期输注与长期输注多柔比星在心脏毒性和疗效方面的比较
蒽环类药物化疗引起的心脏毒性是癌症幸存者死亡和发病的主要原因之一。连续输注(CI)代替单丸(BOL)注射是一种有效降低阿霉素(DOX)心脏毒性的方法。由于结果不同,我们决定比较这两种方法的毒性和疗效,并报告不同癌症的最终结果。截至2023年5月15日,我们纳入了21项研究(4项临床前试验和17项临床试验)。在患有急性淋巴细胞白血病(ALL)的儿童和患有慢性淋巴细胞白血病(CLL)和胃癌的成人中,结果支持BOL注射,没有增加心脏毒性。另一方面,CI在小细胞肺癌(SCLC)和乳腺癌患者中显示为更好的选择。在成年肉瘤患者中也观察到不同的结果。总的来说,可以得出结论,CI的好处,特别是在成人中,超过了它的缺点。然而,由于研究结果的多样性和异质性,需要进一步进行更大样本量和更长的随访时间的临床试验,才能对CI和BOL注射进行更准确的比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信