M. Mohseni, M. Arab-Zozani, A. Ahmadi, Babak Salimi, A. Sari
{"title":"Meta-analysis of Pegfilgrastim over Filgrastim in the Treatment of Chemotherapy-induced Neutropenia","authors":"M. Mohseni, M. Arab-Zozani, A. Ahmadi, Babak Salimi, A. Sari","doi":"10.4993/acrt.28.71","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Neutropenia is a major common complication in patients who are treated with myelosuppressive chemo- therapy. Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) has been used to reduce the incidence, duration, and severity of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN). Methods: This study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of pegfilgrastim compared with filgrastim in treating che-motherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Embase, and Web of science were searched until December 2015. The search was updated in January 2018. Also, the reference lists of included studies were screened for additional citations. The quality of studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tools and the random effect model was applied for analyzing the result. Results: Eleven studies with 1,578 participants (799 in pegfilgrastim arm and 779 in filgrastim arm) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The incidence of grade 4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia, the duration of grade 4 neutropenia, and recovery of the absolute neutrophil count were slightly reduced in the pegfilgrastim group, though this difference was not statistically significant. For bone pain, despite the observed superiority in the pegfilgrastim group, there was no significant difference between the two drugs. Conclusion: The results of our review suggest that there is no overall treatment benefit for a median 10–14 days of filgrastim compared to a single dose of pegfilgrastim in the incidence of grade 4 neutropenia, incidence of febrile neutropenia, duration of grade 4 neutropenia, and recovery of absolute neutrophil count and bone pain in the treatment of CIN.","PeriodicalId":35647,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Cancer Research and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Cancer Research and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4993/acrt.28.71","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Introduction: Neutropenia is a major common complication in patients who are treated with myelosuppressive chemo- therapy. Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) has been used to reduce the incidence, duration, and severity of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN). Methods: This study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of pegfilgrastim compared with filgrastim in treating che-motherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Embase, and Web of science were searched until December 2015. The search was updated in January 2018. Also, the reference lists of included studies were screened for additional citations. The quality of studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tools and the random effect model was applied for analyzing the result. Results: Eleven studies with 1,578 participants (799 in pegfilgrastim arm and 779 in filgrastim arm) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The incidence of grade 4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia, the duration of grade 4 neutropenia, and recovery of the absolute neutrophil count were slightly reduced in the pegfilgrastim group, though this difference was not statistically significant. For bone pain, despite the observed superiority in the pegfilgrastim group, there was no significant difference between the two drugs. Conclusion: The results of our review suggest that there is no overall treatment benefit for a median 10–14 days of filgrastim compared to a single dose of pegfilgrastim in the incidence of grade 4 neutropenia, incidence of febrile neutropenia, duration of grade 4 neutropenia, and recovery of absolute neutrophil count and bone pain in the treatment of CIN.
引言:中性粒细胞减少症是接受骨髓抑制化疗的患者常见的主要并发症。粒细胞集落刺激因子(G-CSF)的预防已被用于降低化疗诱导的中性粒细胞减少症(CIN)的发生率、持续时间和严重程度。方法:本研究旨在比较培非司汀与非司汀治疗母亲引起的发热性中性粒细胞减少症的疗效和安全性。PubMed/MEDLINE、Cochrane Library、Scopus、Embase和Web of science一直搜索到2015年12月。搜索于2018年1月更新。此外,对纳入研究的参考文献列表进行了额外引用筛选。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估研究质量,并应用随机效应模型分析结果。结果:11项研究共有1578名参与者(799名在pegfilgrastim组,779名在filtrastim组)符合纳入标准。pegfilgrastim组的4级中性粒细胞减少症和发热性中性粒细胞降低症的发生率、4级中性白细胞减少症的持续时间和中性粒细胞绝对计数的恢复率略有降低,尽管这种差异在统计学上并不显著。对于骨痛,尽管观察到pegfilgrastim组具有优势,但两种药物之间没有显著差异。结论:我们的综述结果表明,与单剂量pegfilgrastim相比,在CIN治疗中,在4级中性粒细胞减少症的发生率、发热性中性粒细胞降低症的发生时间、4级中性白细胞减少症持续时间以及绝对中性粒细胞计数和骨痛的恢复方面,非格拉司汀的中位数为10-14天的治疗没有总体疗效。