Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments for lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes: a Systematic Review and network meta-analysis - Report - MDSpire

Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments for lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes: a Systematic Review and network meta-analysis

  • By

  • Haixia Zhang

  • Jiaqiang Hu

  • Yaxi Jiang

  • Lihua Deng

  • Song Liu

  • June 16, 2026

  • 0 min

Share

Clinical Report: Efficacy and Safety Comparison of Drug Therapies for LR-MDS

Overview

This systematic review and network meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments for lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (LR-MDS).

Background

Lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (LR-MDS) are characterized by ineffective hematopoiesis and cytopenias, leading to significant morbidity. The management of symptomatic anemia in LR-MDS has evolved with various pharmacological agents, yet comparative efficacy remains unclear due to limited head-to-head trials. Understanding the differential efficacy and safety profiles of these treatments is crucial for optimizing patient care.

Data Highlights

OutcomeTreatmentFindings
HI–ELuspatercept, ESA-based regimensHigher rates of improvement
RBC–TILenalidomide-containing regimensFavorable outcomes
HI–PEltrombopag, RomiplostimPotential benefits
AEsCC-486, ImetelstatHigher odds of neutropenia and gastrointestinal toxicity
AEsLuspaterceptIncreased fatigue and adverse events

Key Findings

  • Luspatercept and ESA-based regimens showed higher rates of haematological improvement–erythroid (HI–E).
  • Lenalidomide-containing regimens demonstrated favorable outcomes for red blood cell transfusion independence (RBC–TI).
  • Eltrombopag and romiplostim indicated potential benefits for haematological improvement–platelet (HI–P).
  • CC-486 and imetelstat were associated with higher odds of neutropenia and gastrointestinal toxicity.
  • Luspatercept was linked to increased fatigue and adverse events.

Clinical Implications

Clinicians should weigh the efficacy and safety profiles of available therapies when making treatment decisions.

Conclusion

The comparative efficacy of pharmacological treatments for LR-MDS varies by clinical endpoint.

Related Resources & Content

  1. NCCN Guidelines® Insights, Version 2.2025 -- Myelodysplastic Syndromes
  2. Long-Term Transfusion Independence with Luspatercept vs Epoetin Alfa -- COMMANDS Trial
  3. Advancements in Pharmacological Approaches for High-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes
  4. the asco post — Study Finds Novel Triplet Regimen Safe and Effective for Patients With Higher-Risk MDS and CMML
  5. Frontiers in Oncology — Efficacy and safety of FLT3 inhibitors for acute myeloid leukemia: a network meta-analysis
  6. Frontiers in Immunology — Comparative effectiveness and safety of biologics and targeted small-molecule therapies plus stable background therapy in systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
  7. Study Finds Novel Triplet Regimen Safe and Effective for Patients With Higher-Risk MDS and CMML
  8. Efficacy and safety of FLT3 inhibitors for acute myeloid leukemia: a network meta-analysis
  9. Comparative effectiveness and safety of biologics and targeted small-molecule therapies in systemic lupus erythematosus
  10. NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Myelodysplastic Syndromes, Version 2.2025 - PubMed
  11. Long-Term Transfusion Independence with Luspatercept Versus Epoetin Alfa in Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agent-Naive, Lower-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes in the COMMANDS Trial - PubMed
  12. Luspatercept for patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms: a systematic review and meta-analysis - PMC

Original Source(s)

Related Content