Irruption of decitabine and azacitidine has led to profound changes in the upfront management of older acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). However, they have not been directly compared in a randomised clinical trial. In addition, there are no studies comparing the optimal treatment schedule of each drug in AML. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of decitabine and azacitidine monotherapy in newly diagnosed AML was conducted. Randomised controlled trials and retrospective studies were included. A total of 2743 patients from 23 cohorts were analysed (10 cohorts of azacitidine and 13 of decitabine). Similar response rates were observed for azacitidine (38%, 95% CI: 30-47%) compared to decitabine (40%, 95% CI: 32-48%) (p = 0.825). Overall survival (OS) between azacitidine (10.04 months, 95% CI: 8.36-11.72) and decitabine (8.79 months, 95% CI: 7.62-9.96) was also similar (p = 0.386). Patients treated with azacitidine showed a lower median OS when azacitidine was administered for 5 days (6.28 months, 95% CI: 4.23-8.32) compared to the standard 7-day schedule (10.83 months, 95% CI: 9.07-12.59, p = 0.002). Among patients treated with decitabine, response rates and OS were not significantly different between 5-day and 10-day decitabine regimens. Despite heterogeneity between studies, we found no differences in response rates and OS in AML patients treated with azacitidine or decitabine.
Keywords: acute myeloid leukaemia; azacitidine; decitabine; elderly; meta-analysis.