International phase 3 study of azacitidine vs conventional care regimens in older patients with newly diagnosed AML with >30% blasts.

This multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial evaluated azacitidine efficacy and safety vs conventional care regimens (CCRs) in 488 patients age ≥65 years with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with >30% bone marrow blasts. Before randomization, a CCR (standard induction chemotherapy, low-dose ara-c, or supportive care only) was preselected for each patient. Patients then were assigned 1:1 to azacitidine (n = 241) or CCR (n = 247). Patients assigned to CCR received their preselected treatment. Median overall survival (OS) was increased with azacitidine vs CCR: 10.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.0-12.7 months) vs 6.5 months (95% CI, 5.0-8.6 months), respectively (hazard ratio [HR] was 0.85; 95% CI, 0.69-1.03; stratified log-rank P = .1009). One-year survival rates with azacitidine and CCR were 46.5% and 34.2%, respectively (difference, 12.3%; 95% CI, 3.5%-21.0%). A prespecified analysis censoring patients who received AML treatment after discontinuing study drug showed median OS with azacitidine vs CCR was 12.1 months (95% CI, 9.2-14.2 months) vs 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.1-9.6 months; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.96; stratified log-rank P = .0190). Univariate analysis showed favorable trends for azacitidine compared with CCR across all subgroups defined by baseline demographic and disease features. Adverse events were consistent with the well-established safety profile of azacitidine. Azacitidine may be an important treatment option for this difficult-to-treat AML population. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01074047.

Hematologic response to three alternative dosing schedules of azacitidine in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes.

PURPOSE: Azacitidine (AZA) is effective treatment for myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) at a dosing schedule of 75 mg/m(2)/d subcutaneously for 7 days every 4 weeks. The initial phase of this ongoing multicenter, community-based, open-label study evaluated three alternative AZA dosing schedules without weekend dosing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: MDS patients were randomly assigned to one of three regimens every 4 weeks for six cycles: AZA 5-2-2 (75 mg/m(2)/d subcutaneously for 5 days, followed by 2 days no treatment, then 75 mg/m(2)/d for 2 days); AZA 5-2-5 (50 mg/m(2)/d subcutaneously for 5 days, followed by 2 days no treatment, then 50 mg/m(2)/d for 5 days); or AZA 5 (75 mg/m(2)/d subcutaneously for 5 days). RESULTS: Of patients randomly assigned to AZA 5-2-2 (n = 50), AZA 5-2-5 (n = 51), or AZA 5 (n = 50), most were French-American-British (FAB) lower risk (refractory anemia [RA]/RA with ringed sideroblasts/chronic myelomonocytic leukemia with < 5% bone marrow blasts, 63%) or RA with excess blasts (30%), and 79 (52%) completed > or = six treatment cycles. Hematologic improvement (HI) was achieved by 44% (22 of 50), 45% (23 of 51), and 56% (28 of 50) of AZA 5-2-2, AZA 5-2-5, and AZA 5 arms, respectively. Proportions of RBC transfusion-dependent patients who achieved transfusion independence were 50% (12 of 24), 55% (12 of 22), and 64% (16 of 25), and of FAB lower-risk transfusion-dependent patients were 53% (nine of 17), 50% (six of 12), and 61% (11 of 18), respectively. In the AZA 5-2-2, AZA 5-2-5, and AZA 5 groups, 84%, 77%, and 58%, respectively, experienced > or = 1 grade 3 to 4 adverse events. CONCLUSION: All three alternative dosing regimens produced HI, RBC transfusion independence, and safety responses consistent with the currently approved AZA regimen. These results support AZA benefits in transfusion-dependent lower-risk MDS patients.