Hydroxyurea has long been the cornerstone disease-modifying therapy for sickle cell anemia, the homozygous HbSS or HbSβ0-thalassemia genotypes that produce the most severe disease course. The drug works partly by reactivating fetal hemoglobin production, reducing the polymerization of sickle hemoglobin that drives red cell sickling, painful crises, and organ damage. Yet despite decades of clinical use, the precise relationship between dose and both clinical benefit and hematologic harm has remained uncertain, particularly across the diverse populations in which the disease is now treated.

To resolve this, the researchers conducted a systematic review and one-stage multilevel dose-response meta-analysis encompassing randomized trials, nonrandomized comparative studies, and longitudinal cohorts of children and adults with sickle cell disease. The quantitative synthesis focused principally on sickle cell anemia, with hydroxyurea dose expressed in mg/kg/day and achieved or maintenance doses preferred over starting doses. The primary benefit outcome was the rate of recurrent vaso-occlusive crises, while the primary safety outcomes were annual risks of severe or treatment-limiting neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, the two cytopenias that most often force dose reductions or discontinuation.

The modeling strategy was unusually rigorous. The team fitted Emax maximum-effect dose-response models as their primary analysis, testing linear and dose-independent alternatives in sensitivity analyses, and prespecified a decision rule requiring predicted annual neutropenia risk of no more than 5 percent and thrombocytopenia risk of no more than 3 percent, with at least an 80 percent simulation-derived probability that both criteria would be met simultaneously. Any eligible dose also had to retain near-optimal crisis control.

The results revealed a striking asymmetry between benefit and risk across the dose range. Empirical support for the primary analysis clustered between 20 and 28 mg/kg/day, and within that window recurrent vaso-occlusive crisis rates continued to fall, from a predicted 39.8 events per 100 person-years at 20 mg/kg/day to 32.5 at 28 mg/kg/day. Critically, the data showed no efficacy plateau: the Emax ED50 hit the upper limit of the prespecified search grid, and a simpler linear model actually fit marginally better, suggesting that whatever additional crisis reduction higher doses confer had not yet been exhausted within the observed range.

Safety told a different story. Predicted annual risk of severe or treatment-limiting neutropenia climbed steeply and early, from 1.98 percent at 20 mg/kg/day to 3.74 percent at just 21.5 mg/kg/day and 5.63 percent at 22.5 mg/kg/day. Thrombocytopenia, by contrast, remained uncommon and showed little dose dependence. Under the prespecified joint safety rule, the probability that both criteria were met was 87.1 percent at 20 mg/kg/day, 85.6 percent at 21 mg/kg/day, but only 77.8 percent at 21.5 mg/kg/day, failing the 80 percent threshold. The authors cautioned that because safety evidence was sparse and the joint classification depended partly on the relation between the two safety models, the low-20-mg/kg/day range should be read as an approximate safety transition rather than a precise toxicity threshold.

Within the empirically supported range, the lowest modeled recurrent crisis rate occurred at 28 mg/kg/day, and the unconstrained composite-benefit maximum at 25.5 mg/kg/day, but neither could clear the safety bar. Twenty-one mg/kg/day emerged as the highest dose satisfying the analytical rule, and the rounder conventional increment of 20 mg/kg/day was selected as the population reference dose, chosen from standard 2.5-mg/kg/day increments for practical prescribing.

The certainty of evidence behind these estimates was graded as very low for all three outcomes—recurrent crises, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia—underscoring how much uncertainty remains. The review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO, and the authors emphasize that their decision framework, rather than any single trial, is what allows conflicting and sparse evidence to be converted into an actionable population-level recommendation.

Perhaps the most important clinical message is what the reference dose is not. The authors explicitly state that 20 mg/kg/day is neither a maximum tolerated dose nor a ceiling for treatment. Because crisis rates kept declining above 20 mg/kg/day, higher doses may well be appropriate for individual patients who need further clinical benefit, provided hematologic tolerance, adherence, and laboratory monitoring permit careful escalation. In resource-limited settings where laboratory surveillance is constrained, however, the population-level framework offers a defensible default that maximizes expected benefit while keeping predicted severe cytopenia risks within prespecified limits.

For the millions of people living with sickle cell anemia worldwide, most of them in sub-Saharan Africa, the findings translate decades of fragmented trial evidence into a single, transparent, quantitatively justified starting point for therapy—and a clear signal that the field still needs better safety data to push the benefit curve further.

Subject of Research: Dose-response relationship of hydroxyurea therapy in sickle cell anemia

Article Title: Hydroxyurea dosing in sickle cell anemia: a systematic review, dose-response meta-analysis, and population-level benefit-risk assessment

Article References: Hydroxyurea dosing in sickle cell anemia: a systematic review, dose-response meta-analysis, and population-level benefit-risk assessment. (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-026-07679-5

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12887-026-07679-5

Keywords: hydroxyurea, sickle cell anemia, dose-response meta-analysis, vaso-occlusive crisis, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, benefit-risk assessment, systematic review, fetal hemoglobin, pediatric hematology, BMC Pediatrics, drug dosing