4.5 Article

Thalidomide plus prednisone with or without danazol therapy in myelofibrosis: a retrospective analysis of incidence and durability of anemia response

期刊

BLOOD CANCER JOURNAL
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41408-017-0029-4

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Funds [81530008, 81370611, 81270585, 81470297]
  2. Program for Peking Union Scholars and Innovative Research Team
  3. PUMC Youth Fund and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [3332016089]
  4. National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Low-dose thalidomide and prednisone alone or combined are effective therapies in some persons with primary myelofibrosis (PMF) and anemia with or with RBC transfusion dependence. Danazol is also effective in some persons with PMF and anemia. Responses to these drugs are typically incomplete and not sustained. It is unclear whether adding danazol to thalidomide and prednisone would improve efficacy. We retrospectively compared the outcomes of 88 subjects with PMF and anemia receiving thalidomide and prednisone without (n = 46) or with danazol (n = 42). The primary end point was anemia response, which was 71% (95% confidence interval (CI), 57, 85%) in subjects receiving thalidomide/prednisone/danazol compared with 46% (32, 60%; P = 0.014) in those receiving thalidomide/prednisone. Response rates in subjects who were RBC transfusion dependent was also higher in the danazol cohort (61% (38, 84%)) vs. 25% (6, 44%); P = 0.024). Time to response was rapid (median, 2 months (range, 1-11 months)) and similar between the cohorts. Response duration was longer in the thalidomide/prednisone/danazol cohort (HR 2.18 (1.18-5.42); P = 0.019). Adverse effects were mild and similar between the cohorts. In conclusion, thalidomide/prednisone/danazol seems superior to thalidomide/prednisone in persons with PMF and anemia. Our conclusion requires confirmation in a randomized trial.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据