↓ Skip to main content

The effects of idarubicin versus other anthracyclines for induction therapy of patients with newly diagnosed leukaemia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The effects of idarubicin versus other anthracyclines for induction therapy of patients with newly diagnosed leukaemia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010432.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xi Li, ShuangNian Xu, Ya Tan, JiePing Chen

Abstract

Anthracycline combined with cytarabine has been the standard for induction therapy of newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) for several decades. Due to theoretical advantages, idarubicin (IDA) might be the most effective and tolerable anthracycline. However, there is no evidence that would definitively prove the superiority of IDA over other anthracyclines. To assess the efficacy and safety of IDA versus other anthracyclines in induction therapy of newly diagnosed AML. We identified relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (from 1946 to 3 August 2014), EMBASE (from 1974 to 3 August 2014), Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (1978 to 3 August 2014), relevant conference proceedings and databases of ongoing trials. RCTs that compared IDA with other anthracyclines in induction therapy of newly diagnosed AML. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of studies according to methodological standards of the Cochrane Collaboration. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-event data outcomes using the inverse variance method, and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data outcomes using the Mantel-Haenszel method. We adopted a fixed-effect model and repeated the main meta-analysis by a random-effects model in a sensitivity analysis. We identified 2017 references. Ultimately, 27 RCTs (including 22 two-armed RCTs and five three-armed RCTs) involving 9549 patients were eligible. The consolidation treatments adopted in the studies were comparable and had no impact on the results. Overall, the risk of bias of the studies was unclear to high.Eighteen RCTs (N = 6755) assessed IDA versus daunorubicin (DNR). The main meta-analyses showed that IDA compared with DNR prolonged overall survival (OS) (12 studies, 5976 patients; HR 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.96, P = 0.0008; high quality of evidence) and disease-free survival (DFS) (eight studies, 3070 patients; HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.96, P = 0.004; moderate quality of evidence), increased complete remission (CR) rate (18 studies, 6692 patients; RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.07, P = 0.009; moderate quality of evidence), and reduced relapse rate (four studies, 1091 patients; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98, P = 0.02; moderate quality of evidence), although increased the risks of death on induction therapy (14 studies, 6349 patients; RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.36, P = 0.03; moderate quality of evidence) and grade 3/4 mucositis (five studies, 2000 patients; RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.44, P = 0.02; moderate quality of evidence). There was no evidence for difference in the risks of grade 3/4 cardiac toxicity (six studies, 2795 patients; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.37, P = 0.91; moderate quality of evidence) and other grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs). None of the studies reported on quality of life (QoL).Eight RCTs (N = 2419) evaluated IDA versus mitoxantrone (MIT). The main meta-analyses showed that there was no evidence for difference between arms in OS (six studies, 2171 patients; HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.08, P = 0.69; high quality of evidence), DFS (four studies, 249 patients; HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.10, P = 0.26; low quality of evidence), CR rate (eight studies, 2411 patients; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.03, P = 0.32;moderate quality of evidence), the risks of death on induction therapy (five studies, 2055 patients; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.38, P = 0.39; moderate quality of evidence) and relapse (three studies, 328 patients; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.22, P = 0.89; moderate quality of evidence). There was no evidence for difference in the risks of grade 3/4 cardiac toxicity (one study, 160 patients; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.88, P = 0.65; low quality of evidence) and other grade 3/4 AEs. None of the studies reported on QoL.Two RCTs (N = 211) compared IDA with doxorubicin (DOX). Neither study assessed OS. One study showed that there was no evidence for difference in DFS (63 patients; HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.14, P = 0.12; low quality of evidence). The main meta-analysis for CR rate showed an improved CR rate with IDA (two studies, 187 patients; RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.59, P = 0.02; low quality of evidence). Neither study provided data for the risks of death on induction therapy and relapse. One trial showed that there was no evidence for difference in the risk of grade 3/4 cardiac toxicity (one study, 100 patients; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.39, P = 0.47; very low quality of evidence). Neither study reported on QoL.Two RCTs (N = 1037) evaluated IDA versus zorubicin (ZRB). Neither study assessed OS. One trial showed that there was no evidence for difference in DFS (one study, 155 patients; HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.88, P = 0.29; low quality of evidence). The main meta-analyses for CR and death on induction therapy both showed that there was no evidence for difference (CR rate: two studies, 964 patients; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.13, P = 0.31; low quality of evidence. risk of death on induction therapy: two studies, 964 patients; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.13, P = 0.17; moderate quality of evidence). Neither study reported the risks of relapse and grade 3/4 cardiotoxicity. One trial showed that IDA reduced the risk of grade 3/4 mucositis. Neither study reported on QoL. Compared with DNR in induction therapy of newly diagnosed AML, IDA prolongs OS and DFS, increases CR rate and reduces relapse rate, although increases the risks of death on induction therapy and grade 3/4 mucositis. The currently available evidence does not show any difference between IDA and MIT used in induction therapy of newly diagnosed AML. There is insufficient evidence regarding IDA versus DOX and IDA versus ZRB to make final conclusions. Additionally, there is no evidence for difference on the effect of IDA compared with DNR, MIT, DOX or ZRB on QoL.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 59 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 18%
Student > Bachelor 10 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 17%
Researcher 9 15%
Unspecified 8 13%
Other 12 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 40%
Unspecified 11 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 8%
Psychology 4 7%
Other 11 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 April 2018.
All research outputs
#2,898,082
of 12,858,386 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,555
of 10,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,143
of 233,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#157
of 249 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,858,386 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,449 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 233,286 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 249 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.