Comparative safety of novel targeted therapies in relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a network meta-analysis.

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology Pub Date : 2024-10-09 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/17588359241285988
Magdalena Monica, Monika Reczek, Paweł Kawalec
{"title":"Comparative safety of novel targeted therapies in relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a network meta-analysis.","authors":"Magdalena Monica, Monika Reczek, Paweł Kawalec","doi":"10.1177/17588359241285988","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The emergence of new antileukemic drugs, including Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis), phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitors (PI3Kis), and B-cell lymphoma 2 antagonists (BCL-2a), has significantly improved the outcomes for patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Despite advances in treatment efficacy, the comprehensive safety profile of these novel agents versus traditional chemotherapy and immunotherapy has not been adequately explored, and there have been few direct comparisons.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to compare the safety profiles of novel therapeutic agents, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory CLL using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials on relapsed/refractory CLL. The search encompassed major medical databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL) and gray literature, with the aim to integrate the findings into a Bayesian NMA framework for safety outcome assessment.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic literature review with Bayesian NMA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The systematic search identified 14 randomized trials that formed networks for the comparison of safety outcomes. No differences were shown between therapies in terms of overall adverse events (AEs). However, bendamustine + rituximab had a more favorable safety profile for grade ⩾3 AEs when compared with ibrutinib (risk ratio 0.62 (95% credible interval 0.40-0.86)), acalabrutinib (0.69 (0.45-0.94)), zanubrutinib (0.64 (0.42-0.91)), and venetoclax + rituximab (0.87 (0.79-0.96)). The frequency of grade ⩾3 AEs, serious AEs, and treatment discontinuations and deaths due to AEs was comparable between acalabrutinib, zanubrutinib, and venetoclax + rituximab. There were no significant differences in the safety profiles regarding hematological events, events affecting the quality of life, and infections for most comparisons of venetoclax + rituximab with BTKis. Among BTKi-specific events, zanubrutinib was associated with a higher risk of hypertension (2.96 (1.74-5.16)) and bleeding (1.38 (1.06-1.81)) than acalabrutinib. No differences in the risk of atrial fibrillation were found between acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib (1.56 (0.74-3.34)).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings showed that venetoclax + rituximab, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib have acceptable safety profiles, which indicates that they may be the preferred therapeutic options in the setting of relapsed/refractory CLL.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42022304330.</p>","PeriodicalId":23053,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology","volume":"16 ","pages":"17588359241285988"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11465315/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17588359241285988","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The emergence of new antileukemic drugs, including Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis), phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitors (PI3Kis), and B-cell lymphoma 2 antagonists (BCL-2a), has significantly improved the outcomes for patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Despite advances in treatment efficacy, the comprehensive safety profile of these novel agents versus traditional chemotherapy and immunotherapy has not been adequately explored, and there have been few direct comparisons.

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the safety profiles of novel therapeutic agents, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory CLL using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA).

Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials on relapsed/refractory CLL. The search encompassed major medical databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL) and gray literature, with the aim to integrate the findings into a Bayesian NMA framework for safety outcome assessment.

Design: Systematic literature review with Bayesian NMA.

Results: The systematic search identified 14 randomized trials that formed networks for the comparison of safety outcomes. No differences were shown between therapies in terms of overall adverse events (AEs). However, bendamustine + rituximab had a more favorable safety profile for grade ⩾3 AEs when compared with ibrutinib (risk ratio 0.62 (95% credible interval 0.40-0.86)), acalabrutinib (0.69 (0.45-0.94)), zanubrutinib (0.64 (0.42-0.91)), and venetoclax + rituximab (0.87 (0.79-0.96)). The frequency of grade ⩾3 AEs, serious AEs, and treatment discontinuations and deaths due to AEs was comparable between acalabrutinib, zanubrutinib, and venetoclax + rituximab. There were no significant differences in the safety profiles regarding hematological events, events affecting the quality of life, and infections for most comparisons of venetoclax + rituximab with BTKis. Among BTKi-specific events, zanubrutinib was associated with a higher risk of hypertension (2.96 (1.74-5.16)) and bleeding (1.38 (1.06-1.81)) than acalabrutinib. No differences in the risk of atrial fibrillation were found between acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib (1.56 (0.74-3.34)).

Conclusion: Our findings showed that venetoclax + rituximab, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib have acceptable safety profiles, which indicates that they may be the preferred therapeutic options in the setting of relapsed/refractory CLL.

Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42022304330.

新型靶向疗法在复发/难治性慢性淋巴细胞白血病中的安全性比较:一项网络荟萃分析。
背景:包括布鲁顿酪氨酸激酶抑制剂(BTKis)、磷酸肌酸3-激酶抑制剂(PI3Kis)和B细胞淋巴瘤2拮抗剂(BCL-2a)在内的新型抗白血病药物的出现大大改善了复发/难治性慢性淋巴细胞白血病(CLL)患者的治疗效果。尽管在疗效方面取得了进步,但这些新型药物与传统化疗和免疫疗法的综合安全性还没有得到充分探讨,直接比较也很少:本研究旨在通过贝叶斯网络荟萃分析(NMA)比较新型治疗药物、化疗和免疫疗法对复发/难治性 CLL 患者的安全性:进行了系统性文献综述,以确定有关复发/难治性 CLL 的随机临床试验。检索范围包括主要医学数据库(MEDLINE、Embase 和 CENTRAL)和灰色文献,目的是将检索结果整合到贝叶斯网络荟萃分析框架中,以进行安全结果评估:设计:系统文献综述与贝叶斯 NMA:结果:系统性检索确定了 14 项随机试验,这些试验组成了安全性结果比较网络。就总体不良事件(AEs)而言,不同疗法之间没有差异。然而,与伊布替尼(风险比为0.62(95%可信区间为0.40-0.86))、阿卡布替尼(0.69(0.45-0.94))、扎鲁布替尼(0.64(0.42-0.91))和韦尼妥克雷+利妥昔单抗(0.87(0.79-0.96))相比,苯达莫司汀+利妥昔单抗在3级AE方面具有更有利的安全性。阿卡鲁替尼、扎鲁替尼和韦尼妥昔+利妥昔单抗之间发生⩾3级AEs、严重AEs以及因AEs而中断治疗和死亡的频率相当。在血液学事件、影响生活质量的事件和感染方面,venetoclax+利妥昔单抗与BTKis的安全性比较大多没有明显差异。在BTKi特异性事件中,zanubrutinib与高血压(2.96(1.74-5.16))和出血(1.38(1.06-1.81))相关的风险高于acalabrutinib。阿卡布替尼与扎努布替尼的心房颤动风险没有差异(1.56(0.74-3.34)):我们的研究结果表明,venetoclax+利妥昔单抗、acalabrutinib和zanubrutinib具有可接受的安全性,这表明它们可能是复发/难治性CLL的首选治疗方案:试验注册:PROCMO CRD42022304330。
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
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
2.00%
发文量
160
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal delivering the highest quality articles, reviews, and scholarly comment on pioneering efforts and innovative studies in the medical treatment of cancer. The journal has a strong clinical and pharmacological focus and is aimed at clinicians and researchers in medical oncology, providing a forum in print and online for publishing the highest quality articles in this area. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
×
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