BackgroundLiposomal formulations of anthracyclines appear to have favorable toxicity profile when compared with conventional anthracyclines in elderly, high risk cardiac patients and patients with prior use of anthracyclines. Randomized controlled trials have evaluated the efficacy and safety profile of liposomal formulations with conventional anthracyclines. Our aim is to evaluate the adverse effects and quantify the relative safety profile of the liposomal and conventional anthracyclines through meta-analysis of the published randomized trials.MethodsWe conducted a broad search strategy of major electronic databases. We performed a meta- analysis of adverse effects on randomized controlled trials comparing liposomal formulation and conventional anthracyclines on different tumors. The primary outcome was the adverse effects including congestive heart failure (CHF), hematological toxicity, palmar-plantar erythrodysthesias (PPE), alopecia, nausea and vomiting. The odds ratios of the adverse effects were calculated separately and the overall odds ratio of the pooled data was calculated.ResultsWe identified nine randomized controlled trials comparing liposomal formulations and conventional anthracyclines. The study included 2220 patients, of which1112 patients were treated with liposomal formulations and 1108 were treated with conventional anthracyclines. We found that the liposomal formulations have low incidence of CHF(OR 0.34, 95% CI, 0.24–0.47), alopecia (OR 0.0.25, 95% CI, 0.0.10-0.62), neutropenia (OR 0.62, 95% CI, 0.45- 0.85),(OR 0.89, 95% CI, 0.71-1.125), and thrombocytopenia (OR 0.87, 95% CI, 0.61-1.25). The incidence of PPE was similar in both arms (OR 1.08, 95% CI, 0.11- 10.30).ConclusionsLiposomal doxorubicin and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin demonstrated favorable toxicity profiles with better cardiac safety and less myelosuppression, alopecia, nausea and vomiting compared with the conventional anthracyclines. The better therapeutic index of liposomal anthracyclines without compromising the efficacy makes it a favorable choice over conventional anthracyclines in elderly patients, patients with risk factors for cardiac disease and patients with prior use of anthracyclines.

Imatinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) of BCR-ABL, was the standard first-line therapy for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) for almost 10 years. Dasatinib and nilotinib, two newer drugs with higher potency than imatinib against BCR-ABL and activity against most imatinib-resistant BCR-ABL mutations, have each shown superior efficacy compared with imatinib for first-line treatment of chronic-phase CML in randomized phase 3 trials. With 14 months follow-up time, available data suggest no obvious differences in efficacy between dasatinib and nilotinib. Compared with imatinib, dasatinib is associated with higher rates of pleural effusion and thrombocytopenia, but lower rates of edema, gastrointestinal AEs, musculoskeletal AEs, and rash. Nilotinib is associated with higher rates of dermatologic toxicity, headache, and biochemical abnormalities associated with hepatic and pancreatic toxicity compared with imatinib, but lower rates of edema, gastrointestinal AEs, muscle spasm, and neutropenia. Several studies have shown that poor adherence to imatinib detrimentally affects responses and should be considered in patients with a suboptimal response. The different dosing requirements of dasatinib (once daily with or without food) and nilotinib (twice daily with fasting) may be an additional factor in selecting frontline agents. This review compares and contrasts the three FDA approved first line TKI agents.

No abstract