What question did this study set out to answer?

To evaluate the impact of adding Venetoclax to Azacitidine on survival and tolerability in acute myeloid leukemia patients in a real-world setting.

March 7, 2026Open Access

Addition of Venetoclax to Azacitidine Did Not Improve Survival in Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Was Not Well Tolerated: Real World Experience

Puntos clave

To evaluate the impact of adding Venetoclax to Azacitidine on survival and tolerability in acute myeloid leukemia patients in a real-world setting.
Retrospective review of patients treated with Azacitidine alone or Azacitidine plus Venetoclax
Assessment of administration patterns, tolerability, efficacy, and safety
Exclusion of patients receiving less than one cycle or those proceeding to stem cell transplant
Median overall survival was 18 months for Azacitidine and 14 months for Azacitidine plus Venetoclax, p = 0.905
28.3% of Azacitidine patients experienced severe neutropenia compared to 56.5% for the combined treatment
Thrombocytopenia occurred in 15.1% of Azacitidine versus 51.2% of Azacitidine plus Venetoclax patients
Clinical stability or remission was achieved in 69.8% of Azacitidine patients and 69.5% in those receiving the combination treatment

Resumen

Introduction: Front-line therapy with Azacitidine (AZA) + Venetoclax (Ven) improved overall survival (OS) and remissions in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients ineligible for standard induction. Less is known about the outcome of AML treated with AZA + Ven in the “real world”. Methods: We assessed the comparative pattern of administration, tolerability, efficacy and safety of AZA vs. AZA + Ven administered at our cancer centre. We retrospectively reviewed all patients treated with AZA alone or AZA + Ven. Patients who received less than one cycle or proceeded with consolidative stem cell transplant were excluded. Results: A total of 53 patients, median age 77 years, received AZA, and 23 patients, median age 73 years, received AZA + Ven. Among those, 69% and 47.8% were ≥75 years old, respectively. Only 52% received Ven doses above 200 mg. Mean time on therapy was 13.1 months in AZA vs. 5.9 months in AZA + Ven. Treatment delays occurred in 22.6% of AZA and 34.8% of AZA + Ven patients, primarily due to infections and cytopenias. Neutropenia grade 3/4 occurred in 28.3% of AZA vs. 56.5% of AZA + Ven patients. Thrombocytopenia grade 3/4 occurred in 15.1% of AZA and 51.2% of AZA + Ven patients. Anemia grade 3/4 occurred in 5.7% of AZA vs. 30.4% of AZA + Ven patients. Moreover, 69.8% of AZA and 69.5% AZA + Ven patients reached stable disease/partial and complete remission. Median overall survival (OS) was similar: 18 months in AZA vs. 14 months in the AZA + Ven group, p = 0.905. Conclusions: In a community setting, the addition of Venetoclax to AZA did not improve overall survival or disease control, mainly due to low tolerability and higher toxicity. However, these results should be interpreted cautiously due to a significant imbalance in the cytogenetic risk profiles and lower tolerability in the combined group. This suggests the need for a larger study with adjusted analyses.

Leer artículo completoexternamente

Me gusta

Guardar

Ver artículo completo