Bone marrow hypocellularity does not affect tolerance or efficacy of azacitidine in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes.

The efficacy and tolerance of azacitidine in higher-risk myelodysplasia with hypocellular bone marrow (BM) are unknown. This post hoc AZA-001 trial analysis assessed whether baseline BM cellularity affected the overall survival (OS) advantage demonstrated with azacitidine versus conventional care regimens (CCR). Baseline BM biopsies of <30% cellularity were considered hypocellular with data evaluable from 299 patients (azacitidine n = 154, CCR n = 145); 13% (n = 39) hypocellular, 87% (n = 260) non-hypocellular. Patient characteristics were balanced between cellularity and treatment groups. Most patients (90-100%) had 2-3 cytopenias at baseline. Median (range) azacitidine treatment cycle lengths were 35·5 (28-54) and 33·0 (15-75) d in hypocellular and non-hypocellular groups, respectively. At 33 months, median OS was not reached (NR) [95% confidence interval (CI): 19·2, NR] in hypocellular patients receiving azacitidine versus 16·9 months (95% CI: 11·1, 19·3) with CCR (P = 0·001); and in non-hypocellular patients, it was 21·1 months (95% CI: 16·2, 34·7) versus 15·3 months (95% CI: 9·3, 17·6) (P = 0·012). Azacitidine tolerance was similar regardless of cellularity. Grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia and neutropenia occurred similarly in hypocellular patients treated with azacitidine versus CCR (80% vs. 92% and 88% vs. 75%). Azacitidine OS results are consistent with those from AZA-001, regardless of cellularity, and demonstrate its safety and efficacy in higher-risk myelodysplasia with hypocellular BM.

A multivariate analysis of the relationship between response and survival among patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes treated within azacitidine or conventional care regimens in the randomized AZA-001 trial.

The phase III AZA-001 study established that azacitidine significantly improves overall survival compared with conventional care regimens (hazard ratio 0.58 [95% confidence interval 0.43-0.77], P<0.001). This analysis was conducted to investigate the relationship between treatment response and overall survival. AZA-001 data were analyzed in a multivariate Cox regression analysis with response as a time-varying covariate. Response categories were "Overall Response" (defined as complete remission, partial remission, or any hematologic improvement) and "Stable Disease" (no complete or partial remission, hematologic improvement, or progression) or "Other" (e.g. disease progression). Achieving an Overall Response with azacitidine reduced risk of death by 95% compared with achieving an Overall Response with the conventional care regimens (hazard ratio 0.05 [95%CI: 0.01-0.43], P=0.006). Sensitivity analyses indicated that significantly improved overall survival remained manifest for patients with a hematologic improvement who had never achieved complete or partial remission (hazard ratio 0.19 [95%CI: 0.08-0.46], P<0.001). Stable Disease in both azacitidine-treated and conventional care-treated patients was also associated with a significantly reduced risk of death (hazard ratio 0.09, [95%CI: 0.06-0.15]; P<0.001). These results demonstrate azacitidine benefit on overall survival compared with conventional care regimens in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes who achieve hematologic response but never attain complete or partial remission, in addition to the survival advantage conferred by achievement of complete or partial remission.

Prolonged survival with improved tolerability in higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes: azacitidine compared with low dose ara-C.

In the phase III AZA-001 trial, low-dose cytarabine (LDara-C), the most widely used low-dose chemotherapy in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) who are ineligible for intensive treatment, was found to be associated with poorer survival compared with azacitidine. This analysis further compared the efficacy and the toxicity of these two drug regimens. Before randomization, investigators preselected patients to receive a conventional care regimen, one of which was LDara-C. Of 94 patients preselected to LDara-C, 45 were randomized to azacitidine and 49 to LDara-C. Azacitidine patients had significantly more and longer haematological responses and increased red blood cell transfusion independence. Azacitidine prolonged overall survival versus LDara-C in patients with poor cytogenetic risk, presence of -7/del(7q), and French-American-British subtypes refractory anaemia with excess blasts (RAEB) and RAEB in transformation. When analyzed per patient year of drug exposure, azacitidine treatment was associated with fewer grade 3-4 cytopenias and shorter hospitalisation time than LDara-C in these higher-risk MDS patients.

Management and supportive care measures for adverse events in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes treated with azacitidine*.

OBJECTIVE: Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) treatment can initially worsen patients' clinical condition and they may discontinue therapy before achieving benefit. We present previously unpublished data from two large phase III trials describing common adverse events (AEs) associated with azacitidine and methods to manage them. METHODS: In the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 9221 study, patients with any French-American-British (FAB) subtype of MDS were randomized to azacitidine or best supportive care (BSC). After 56 d, patients randomized to BSC with disease progression could cross over to receive azacitidine. In the AZA-001 study, patients with higher-risk MDS (FAB-defined refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB), RAEB in transformation, or chronic myelomonocitic leukaemia and IPSS int-2 or high) were randomized to azacitidine or to conventional care regimens (CCR), which included low-dose ara-C, BSC, or intensive chemotherapy. In both studies, azacitidine dose was 75 mg/m(2)/d SC for 7 d every 28 d. AEs were graded per National Cancer Institute's Common Toxicity Criteria version 2.0 (AZA-001) or CALGB Expanded CTC (CALGB 9221). RESULTS: In safety-evaluable patients in AZA-001 (N = 175) or CALGB 9221 (N = 150), the most common AEs with azacitidine included hematologic (eg, cytopenias) and non-hematologic administration-related events (eg, injection-site reactions and gastrointestinal disorders). Most AEs were transient and resolved during ongoing therapy (> 83%). Hematologic AEs, most frequently observed during early treatment cycles, decreased during subsequent cycles and were usually managed with dosing delays (23-29%). Gastrointestinal symptoms were primarily managed with anti-emetics and laxatives. CONCLUSION: Hematologic and non-hematologic AEs with azacitidine decreased in frequency as treatment continued. Awareness of the onset, duration and management of AEs can facilitate treatment, permitting patients to continue therapy for maximum benefit.

Survival and hospitalization among patients with acute myeloid leukemia treated with azacitidine or decitabine in a large managed care population: a real-world, retrospective, claims-based, comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study examined patient outcomes using real world data for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients initiating treatment. METHODS: A retrospective, administrative claims-based, comparative analysis was developed to study outcomes for AML patients initiating treatment with decitabine or azacitidine between January 2006 and June 2012. RESULTS: Treatment with azacitidine was associated with a longer median overall survival (10.1 versus 6.9 mos., p = 0.007) and a lower risk of hospitalization (HR 0.787, p = 0.02) compared to treatment with decitabine. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of the outcomes of real-world treatment of AML patients with demethylating agents suggests that azacitidine may result in clinically superior outcomes than decitabine.

A phase I study in patients with solid or hematologic malignancies of the dose proportionality of subcutaneous Azacitidine and its pharmacokinetics in patients with severe renal impairment.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess the dose proportionality of azacitidine pharmacokinetics (PK) after single subcutaneous (SC) doses of 25-100 mg/m2, and determine the effect of renal impairment on PK after single and multiple 75 mg/m2 SC azacitidine doses. DESIGN: Multicenter, phase I, open-label, parallel group study. SETTING: Community clinics and major academic centers. PATIENTS: Twenty-seven patients with solid or hematologic malignancies. INTERVENTIONS: Part 1 evaluated azacitidine dose proportionality in patients with normal renal function randomized to single 25, 50, 75, or 100 mg/m2 SC doses. The 75 mg/m2 dosing group received 4 additional days of SC azacitidine. In Part 2, patients with severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance < 30 ml/min/1.73 m2 Cockcroft-Gault adjusted) received azacitidine 75 mg/m2 for 5 consecutive days. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: PK parameters were determined using noncompartmental methods. In patients with normal renal function (n=21), azacitidine area under the plasma-time curve (AUC0-∞) and maximum observed plasma concentration (Cmax) were dose proportional within the 25-100 mg/m2 range. Concentration versus time profiles after single and multiple azacitidine 75 mg/m2 doses were similar in shape for patients with normal (n=6) or impaired renal function (n=6), with higher mean concentrations in the latter group. Higher mean exposures (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) in renally impaired patients were observed; however, individual exposure values were, with few exceptions, within the same range in both groups. No drug accumulation after multiple doses was observed in either group. Terminal half-life and time to maximum plasma concentration were comparable between groups. Azacitidine tolerability was similar in patients with normal or impaired renal function. CONCLUSION: Azacitidine is dose proportional over the 25-100 mg/m2 dosing range. Overall, renal impairment had no important effect on azacitidine PK. Therefore, no initial azacitidine dose adjustment in patients with renal impairment is required.