Benefit-risk of voxelotor, crizanlizumab, and l-glutamine in sickle cell disease: A systematic review.

IF 1.8
Jingang Wang, Hongfang Lu
{"title":"Benefit-risk of voxelotor, crizanlizumab, and l-glutamine in sickle cell disease: A systematic review.","authors":"Jingang Wang, Hongfang Lu","doi":"10.1016/j.amjms.2026.08.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Newer pharmacologic therapies for sickle cell disease target different clinical domains, complicating class-level comparison. Postapproval developments, including voxelotor withdrawal and regulatory reassessment of crizanlizumab, warrant a therapy-specific reassessment of benefit and risk.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and CINAHL through April 4, 2026, for clinical evidence on l-glutamine, crizanlizumab, and voxelotor. Two reviewers independently screened records, assessed full texts, extracted data, and appraised methodological concerns. Core randomized evidence was distinguished from early randomized, linked follow-up, supportive secondary, and contextual evidence. Pooling was considered only for independent studies with clinically comparable outcomes and compatible follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 742 records identified, 398 remained after deduplication, 52 full-text reports were assessed, and eight studies contributed to the structured synthesis. l-glutamine reduced vaso-occlusive crisis burden in the pivotal trial (rate ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.90). Crizanlizumab prolonged time to first vaso-occlusive crisis in SUSTAIN (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.75), but evidence remained dependent on one core randomized trial. Voxelotor primarily improved hemoglobin response (risk ratio, 7.84; 95% confidence interval, 3.52-17.4). No primary pooled meta-analysis was performed because comparable independent evidence was sparse, follow-up differed, linked reports overlapped, and several safety outcomes were noninformative.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The evidence supports therapy-specific benefit signals rather than a pooled class-level conclusion. Benefit-risk interpretation should distinguish vaso-occlusive morbidity from hemoglobin-centered outcomes and account for replication, durability, and safety completeness.</p>","PeriodicalId":94223,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of the medical sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American journal of the medical sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjms.2026.08.010","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

Background: Newer pharmacologic therapies for sickle cell disease target different clinical domains, complicating class-level comparison. Postapproval developments, including voxelotor withdrawal and regulatory reassessment of crizanlizumab, warrant a therapy-specific reassessment of benefit and risk.

Methods: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and CINAHL through April 4, 2026, for clinical evidence on l-glutamine, crizanlizumab, and voxelotor. Two reviewers independently screened records, assessed full texts, extracted data, and appraised methodological concerns. Core randomized evidence was distinguished from early randomized, linked follow-up, supportive secondary, and contextual evidence. Pooling was considered only for independent studies with clinically comparable outcomes and compatible follow-up.

Results: Of 742 records identified, 398 remained after deduplication, 52 full-text reports were assessed, and eight studies contributed to the structured synthesis. l-glutamine reduced vaso-occlusive crisis burden in the pivotal trial (rate ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.90). Crizanlizumab prolonged time to first vaso-occlusive crisis in SUSTAIN (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.75), but evidence remained dependent on one core randomized trial. Voxelotor primarily improved hemoglobin response (risk ratio, 7.84; 95% confidence interval, 3.52-17.4). No primary pooled meta-analysis was performed because comparable independent evidence was sparse, follow-up differed, linked reports overlapped, and several safety outcomes were noninformative.

Conclusions: The evidence supports therapy-specific benefit signals rather than a pooled class-level conclusion. Benefit-risk interpretation should distinguish vaso-occlusive morbidity from hemoglobin-centered outcomes and account for replication, durability, and safety completeness.

Voxelotor、Crizanlizumab和l -谷氨酰胺治疗镰状细胞病的获益-风险:一项系统综述
背景:镰状细胞病的新药物治疗针对不同的临床领域,使分类水平的比较复杂化。批准后的发展,包括voxelotor停药和crizanlizumab的监管重新评估,需要对治疗特异性的获益和风险进行重新评估。方法:截至2026年4月4日,我们检索了PubMed/MEDLINE、Scopus、Web of Science Core Collection和CINAHL,以获取l -谷氨酰胺、crizanlizumab和voxelotor的临床证据。两位审稿人独立筛选记录,评估全文,提取数据,并评估方法学问题。核心随机证据与早期随机、关联随访、支持性次要证据和背景证据不同。只有具有临床可比结果和相容随访的独立研究才考虑合并。结果:在确定的742条记录中,重复数据删除后保留了398条,评估了52份全文报告,并对8项研究进行了结构化综合。在关键试验中,l -谷氨酰胺降低了血管闭塞危重负担(比率比,0.75;95%可信区间,0.62-0.90)。克里赞单抗延长了SUSTAIN患者发生首次血管闭塞危机的时间(风险比为0.50;95%可信区间为0.33-0.75),但证据仍然依赖于一项核心随机试验。Voxelotor主要改善血红蛋白反应(风险比,7.84;95%可信区间,3.52-17.4)。没有进行主要汇总荟萃分析,因为可比较的独立证据很少,随访不同,相关报告重叠,并且一些安全性结果无信息性。结论:证据支持特定治疗的益处信号,而不是汇总类水平的结论。获益-风险解释应将血管闭塞性发病率与以血红蛋白为中心的结果区分开来,并考虑到重复性、持久性和安全性完整性。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书