Anabolic Steroids in Myelodysplastic Syndromes: A Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Anabolic steroids, such as danazol, have been used for years in the treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Their successful use has been documented in aplastic anemia, hypoplastic MDS, and immune thrombocytopenia, among other hematologic conditions. In patients with low-risk MDS, available treatment options are limited. Danazol is frequently used to improve symptoms and modify the disease course; however, its efficacy and optimal dosing schedule are unclear. Methods We conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify studies that used anabolic steroids, including danazol, in the treatment of MDS. In accordance to guidelines, our systematic review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under ID CRD42019121467. We included case series with more than 15 patients, observational studies (cohorts and case control), and randomized trials where anabolic steroids were used to treat MDS. Following PRISMA guidelines, 2 independent reviewers assessed the studies obtained through the search strategy. Discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. Due to the heterogeneity of the findings, no meta-analysis was performed. Results A total of 1000 studies were identified through our search. After removing duplicates and undergoing Level 1 screening by 2 reviewers, 69 full text articles were assessed. Thirteen studies were included in the final review as the other studies did not meet inclusion criteria. Of these, 3 were retrospective cohorts, 8 prospective cohorts, and 2 randomized trials. A total of 366 patients with MDS were exposed to anabolic steroids throughout the studies with diverse outcomes reported. FAB classification was used by most of the studies to categorize MDS, with one exception that used the 2008 WHO classification. Diagnoses included refractory anemia, refractory anemia with ring sideroblasts, refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB), RAEB in transformation, and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia. All but 2 studies used danazol as their intervention, with the exceptions using other anabolic steroids as well as danazol. Dosage varied across studies with the majority aiming for a dose of danazol 600mg daily. Patient characteristics and interventions are summarized in Table 1. The intervention was sustained for at least 1 month and up to 12 months across studies. Outcomes reported are diverse with positive and negative studies identified. Unfortunately, outcomes are not comparable due to the presence of different response definitions with different hematologic improvement cutoffs. Reports of response were highly variable, with studies showing 5 - 75% response rates depending on their study response definitions. Multiple studies reported a trend in platelet count improvement. Response duration was not specified by all studies and was highly variable across the reports. Response definitions and outcomes are shown in Table 2. No significant adverse effects to danazol were reported in any of the studies reviewed. No specific analysis of benefit throughout the different MDS groups was reported in any of the studies. Conclusion Our systematic review highlights the significant lack of data and irregular results across studies. The heterogeneity of included populations, MDS classification, response criteria, and interventions, do not allow for evidence based recommendations regarding the use of danazol or anabolic steroids in MDS patients. Given the limited treatment options for low-risk MDS patients, particularly in low and middle income countries, further well designed studies are needed. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,020 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,009 | 0,007 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».