地西他滨与阿扎胞苷治疗高危骨髓增生异常综合征的疗效比较研究

Abstract
Figure/Table
References (15)
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (0 KB) HTML (30 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Objective To compare the efficacy of Decitabine and Azacitidine in the treatment of high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome.Methods A total of 60 patients with high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome admitted to Yichun People′s Hospital from January 2018 to January 2020 were selected as the research subjects.According to the random number table method, they were divided into Decitabine group and Azacitidine group, with 30 cases in each group.In the Decitabine group, Decitabine was used, and in the Azacitidine group, Azacitidine was adopted.The clinical efficacy and the occurrence of side effect were compared between the two groups after six courses of treatment.Results The overall response rate (ORR) of the Decitabine group after six courses of treatment was higher than that of the Azacitidine group, and the difference was statistically significant (P＜0.05).In the Decitabine group, the incidence of bone marrow suppression, reduction of neutrophils, thrombocytes, and erythrocytes was superior to that in the Azacitidine group, and the difference was statistically significant (P＜0.05).Conclusion Decitabine is better than Azacitidine in the treatment of high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome, but it will increase the risk of toxic and side effect, which should be with caution on drug selection.

Key words： High-risk myelodysplastic syndrome Decitabine Azacitidine Clinical efficacy Toxic and side effect

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	LU Yu-hua
	YANG Xin-ping
	AO Zhi-wen
	LI Ming

Cite this article:

LU Yu-hua,YANG Xin-ping,AO Zhi-wen, et al. Comparative study of the efficacy of Decitabine and Azacitidine in the treatment of high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome[J]. 中国当代医药, 2021, 28(10): 180-182转186.

URL:

http://dangdaiyiyao.com/EN/ OR http://dangdaiyiyao.com/EN/Y2021/V28/I10/180

[1]	杨倩，聂淑敏，李田兰，等.中高危骨髓增生异常综合征转化为急性髓系白血病的高危因素[J].中国实验血液学杂志，2020，28（2）：558-566.
[2]	何例南，陈琦.去甲基化药物治疗骨髓增生异常综合征的临床研究进展[J].实用中西医结合临床，2019，19（11）：178-180.
[3]	杜欣.两种去甲基化药物在骨髓增生异常综合征中的回顾性评价[J].临床血液学杂志，2019，32（6）：847-850.
[4]	于宁，唐一楠，张镭.阿扎胞苷和地西他滨治疗血液系统肿瘤的临床分子学研究进展[J].中国医院用药评价与分析，2020，20（4）：510-512.
[5]	Chinese Society of Hematology，Chinese Medical Association.骨髓增生异常综合征中国诊断与治疗指南（2019年版）[J].中华血液学杂志，2019，40（2）：89-97.
[6]	沈悌，赵永强.血液病诊断及疗效标准（第4 版）[M].北京：科学出版社，2020：75-79.
[7]	Chung AE，Shoenbill K，Mitchell SA，et al.Patient free text reporting of symptomatic adverse events in cancer clinical research using the National Cancer Institute′s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events（PRO-CTCAE）[J].J Am Med Inform Assoc，2019，26（4）：276-285.
[8]	杨红蓉，郭培京，张娜，等.中高危骨髓增生异常综合征及其进展的白血病“接力”治疗临床研究[J].光明中医，2017，32（20）：3038-3041.
[9]	佟红艳.骨髓增生异常综合征去甲基化治疗：地西他滨还是阿扎胞苷?[J].临床血液学杂志，2019，32（6）：841-846，850.
[10]	焦蒙，肖志坚.去甲基化药物治疗骨髓增生异常综合征：治疗失败原因及其解决方案[J].临床血液学杂志，2019，32（2）：229-233.
[11]	石雨薇，娄世锋.关于阿扎胞苷、地西他滨和来那度胺在治疗骨髓增生异常综合症中疗效和安全性的Meta 分析[J].世界最新医学信息文摘，2019，19（A0）：9-14.
[12]	杨倩，聂淑敏，黄俊霞，等.地西他滨为主方案治疗中高危骨髓增生异常综合征患者的病态造血变化及预后价值分析[J].临床血液学杂志，2020，33（2）：191-194.
[13]	肖超，苏基滢，宋陆茜，等.高危骨髓增生异常综合征患者阿扎胞苷去甲基化治疗30 疗程1 例[J].内科理论与实践，2019，14（2）：131-134.
[14]	胡通林，郑智茵，沈建平，等.地西他滨治疗中高危骨髓增生异常综合征的疗效分析[J].中华全科医学，2020，18（4）：552-554，689.
[15]	陈园园，石锐，郭素青，等.地西他滨治疗伴DNA 甲基转移酶基因突变的骨髓增生异常综合征患者的疗效分析[J].中国实验血液学杂志，2020，28（4）：1292-1297.