Search

The hypomethylating agents (HMAs) azacitidine and decitabine are both approved for treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) in the USA. In Europe, decitabine is not approved due to lack of survival advantage in randomized trials. The two drugs have not been compared in clinical trials. We identified patients diagnosed with MDS between 2004 and 2011 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database in the USA who received ≥ 10 doses of either HMA. We estimated survival from HMA initiation with Kaplan-Meier methods and used multivariate Cox proportional hazards models to adjust for covariates. Analyses controlled for histological subtype and we conducted a subset analysis limited to patients with refractory anaemia with excess blasts (RAEB). In 2025 HMA-treated patients, median survival was 15 months with no difference in survival based on the HMA received in adjusted analysis (decitabine versus azacitidine, hazard ratio = 1·06, 95% confidence interval: 0·94-1·19, P = 0·37). For RAEB patients (n = 523), median survival was 12 months, with no significant difference based on HMA received. No significant survival difference was found between azacitidine and decitabine in patients with MDS, including RAEB. Importantly, population-based survival of azacitidine-treated RAEB patients was substantially shorter than in the AZA-001 clinical trial (11 versus 24·5 months)., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Despite the approval of azacitidine in 2004 and the approval of decitabine in 2006 in the United States for chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML), the overall survival (OS) benefit with hypomethylating agent (HMA) therapy is unclear.Methods: Older adults (age ≥ 66 years) who had been diagnosed with CMML from 2001 to 2011 were selected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database, and propensity score matching was used to match patients who had been diagnosed after HMA approval (2007-2011) and had received HMA treatment with patients diagnosed before HMA approval (2001-2003). Cox proportional hazards models with the matched sample were used to assess the change in OS. A second matched cohort of patients who did not receive HMA after approval and patients diagnosed before HMA approval was used to evaluate survival change attributable to other potential differences between the 2 time periods, such as improved supportive care.Results: Among 1378 older adults diagnosed with CMML, the median OS was 13 months, and 18.8% received HMAs. In the primary matched analysis, with 225 HMA users diagnosed in 2007-2011 and 395 patients diagnosed in 2001-2003, the median OS times were 17 and 11 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-0.91; P = .005). In a secondary analysis, the risk of death did not differ between 395 propensity score-matched HMA nonusers diagnosed in 2007-2011 and 484 patients diagnosed in 2001-2003 (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.91-1.32; P = .34).Conclusions: Despite limited evidence, HMAs are commonly used to treat older CMML patients. The use of HMAs was associated with a 28% reduction in the risk of death in adjusted analyses. Improvements in supportive care do not appear to account for temporal improvements in OS. Cancer 2017;123:3754-3762. © 2017 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]