filgrastim

Filgrastim
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:推荐用于横纹肌肉瘤(RMS)和尤文肉瘤(ES)患者的化疗方案具有骨髓抑制性,可降低中性粒细胞绝对计数(ANC),并随后增加发热性中性粒细胞减少(FN)的风险。然而,只有少数研究关注粒细胞集落刺激因子(G-CSF)药物在RMS和ES的儿科和青少年患者中的疗效和安全性.我们的目的是研究mecapegfilgrastim的疗效和安全性,pegfilgrastim的生物仿制药,预防儿童和青少年RMS或ES患者的FN。
    方法:在这个单臂中,单中心,前瞻性研究,患有RMS或ES的儿科和青少年患者被纳入接受VAC(长春新碱,环磷酰胺,放线菌素)方案或VDC(长春新碱,环磷酰胺,多柔比星)方案,为期3周,然后用美卡皮非格司亭(100μg/kg,最大6毫克)在完成化疗后24小时给予。主要终点是FN的发生率。次要终点包括4级中性粒细胞减少症的发生率,ANC的持续时间≤0.5×109/L,化疗延迟或减少的发生率,使用抗生素,和安全概况。
    结果:总计,30人中的2人(6.7%,95%CI:0.82-22.07)患者在第一周期化疗后出现FN。八(26.7%,95%CI:12.28-45.89)患者在接受预防性mecapegfilgrastim后出现4级中性粒细胞减少症。8例患者发生ANC≤0.5×109/L,中位病程4.5天;6名患者在第7天达到其ANC水平的最低点,其中5名患者在第10天恢复。没有剂量减少,延迟,或报告停止化疗。21名(70.0%)患者在治疗期间接受了抗生素治疗。在0-5年和13-18年组没有患者经历FN,6-12年组2例患者发生FN。两个病人,6名患者,并且在0-5年内没有患者经历过4级中性粒细胞减少症,6-12年,和13-18岁组,分别。
    结论:Mecapegfilgrastim在RMS或ES的儿科和青少年患者中显示出可接受的疗效和安全性。需要进一步的大样本量随机研究。
    背景:该临床试验已在Chictr.org注册。cn(没有ChiCTR1900022249)。2019年3月31日注册。
    BACKGROUND: The chemotherapy regimens recommended for both rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) and Ewing sarcoma (ES) patients are myelosuppressive and can reduce the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) and subsequently increase the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). However, only a few studies have focused on the efficacy and safety of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) drugs in pediatric and adolescent patients with RMS and ES. Our objective was to investigate the efficacy and safety of mecapegfilgrastim, a biosimilar of pegfilgrastim, in prophylaxis of FN for pediatric and adolescent patients with RMS or ES.
    METHODS: In this single-arm, single-center, prospective study, pediatric and adolescent patients with RMS or ES were enrolled to receive either VAC (vincristine, cyclophosphamide, dactinomycin) regimen or VDC (vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin) regimen in a 3-week cycle, followed by treatment with mecapegfilgrastim (100 μg/kg, maximum 6 mg) given at 24 h after completing chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was the incidence rate of FN. Secondary endpoints included the incidence rate of grade 4 neutropenia, duration of ANC ≤ 0.5 × 109/L, incidence rate of chemotherapy delay or reduction, use of antibiotics, and safety profile.
    RESULTS: In total, 2 of the 30 (6.7%, 95% CI: 0.82-22.07) patients experienced FN after the first cycle of chemotherapy. Eight (26.7%, 95% CI: 12.28-45.89) patients experienced grade 4 neutropenia after receiving prophylactic mecapegfilgrastim. Eight patients experienced ANC ≤ 0.5 × 109/L with a median duration of 4.5 days; among them, 6 patients reached the lowest point of their ANC level on day 7, and 5 of them recovered by day 10. No dose reductions, delays, or discontinuation of chemotherapy was reported. Twenty-one (70.0%) patients received antibiotics during the treatment period. No patient experienced FN in the 0-5 years and the 13-18 years groups, and 2 patients experienced FN in the 6-12 years group. Two patients, 6 patients, and no patient experienced grade 4 neutropenia in the 0-5 years, 6-12 years, and 13-18 years groups, respectively.
    CONCLUSIONS: Mecapegfilgrastim showed acceptable efficacy and safety profile in pediatric and adolescent patients with RMS or ES. Further randomized studies with large sample size are warranted.
    BACKGROUND: This clinical trial was registered at Chictr.org.cn (No.ChiCTR1900022249). Registered on March 31, 2019.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    在动员不良的患者中采用基于化疗的动员方案,基于依托泊苷,阿糖胞苷和pegfilgrastim(EAP),最近被介绍。这项前瞻性研究的目的是研究EAP方案在动员不良的多发性骨髓瘤(MM)或淋巴瘤患者中的疗效和安全性。这项单臂临床试验在中国八家公立医院进行,并注册为临床试验(NCT05510089)。纳入标准为:(1)诊断为MM或淋巴瘤,(2)定义为“不良动员者”和(3)年龄在18-75岁之间。EAP方案包括第1-2天的依托泊苷75mg/m2/天,第1-2天的阿糖胞苷每12小时300mg/m2和第6天的pegfilgrastim6mg。该研究的主要终点是获得足够动员的患者比例(≥2.0×106CD34+细胞/kg)。从2022年9月1日至2023年8月15日,共招募了58名患者,53(91.4%)实现了足够的动员,而41(70.7%)达到最佳动员,累积收集的CD34+细胞的中位数为9.2(范围2.1-92.7)×106/kg,每位患者的单采血液成分的中位数为1.2。从施用EAP方案到第一次单采术的中位时间为12天。大约8.6%的患者需要plerixa进行抢救,这是成功的。58例患者中有12例(20.7%)感染2-3级,25(43.1%)需要输注血小板。中性粒细胞和血小板植入的持续时间为11天。总之,这些结果表明,EAP动员方案可能是MM或淋巴瘤动员不良患者的一个有前景的选择.
    A chemotherapy-based mobilization regimen in patients who mobilize poorly, based on etoposide, cytarabine and pegfilgrastim (EAP), has recently been introduced. The aim of this prospective study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of the EAP regimen in patients with poorly mobilizing multiple myeloma (MM) or lymphoma. This single-arm clinical trial was performed at eight public hospitals in China and was registered as a clinical trial (NCT05510089). The inclusion criteria were; (1) diagnosis of MM or lymphoma, (2) defined as a \'poor mobilizer\' and (3) aged 18-75 years. The EAP regimen consisted of etoposide 75 mg/m2/day on days 1-2, cytarabine 300 mg/m2 every 12 h on days 1-2 and pegfilgrastim 6 mg on day 6. The primary endpoint of the study was the ratio of patients achieving adequate mobilization (≥2.0 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg). From 1 September 2022 to 15 August 2023, a total of 58 patients were enrolled, 53 (91.4%) achieved adequate mobilization, while 41 (70.7%) achieved optimal mobilization with a median number of cumulative collected CD34+ cells was 9.2 (range 2.1-92.7) × 106/kg and the median number of apheresis per patient of 1.2. The median time from administration of the EAP regimen to the first apheresis was 12 days. Approximately 8.6% of patients required plerixa for rescue, which was successful. Twelve (20.7%) of the 58 patients suffered grade 2-3 infections, while 25 (43.1%) required platelet transfusions. The duration of neutrophil and platelet engraftment was 11 days. In conclusion, these results suggest that the EAP mobilization regimen might be a promising option for poorly mobilizing patients with MM or lymphoma.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Meta-Analysis
    背景:为了确定克拉屈滨的疗效和安全性,阿糖胞苷,复发或难治性(R/R)AML患者的基于非格司亭的方案。
    方法:在PubMed,科克伦图书馆,Embase数据。我们选择了可用的因素,包括完全缓解(CR),总反应率(ORR),总生存期(OS)评估疗效,早期死亡(ED)和不良事件来评估安全性。
    结果:最终纳入812名R/RAML患者的15条记录,并使用R软件进行分析。还进行了亚组分析。CLAG方案的合并CR率,CLAG-M方案,CLAG联合任何其他药物方案为56%(95%CI:46-66),46%(95%CI:34-56),44%(95%CI:26-64),分别。复发和难治组的CR率为68%(95%CI:53-80),与CLAG相关方案的占51%(95%CI:45-58)。随着风险等级的降低,合并CR率增加。关于CLAG相关协议的安全性,进行了系统评价。
    结论:CLAG相关方案是R/RAML患者的有效且安全的治疗方法,CLAG似乎比CLAG联合疗法更有优势,尽管进一步的研究包括克拉屈滨联合治疗方案,仍然需要进一步确认我们的结果。
    BACKGROUND: To ascertain the efficacy and safety of cladribine, cytarabine, and filgrastim-based regimen in relapsed or refractory (R/R) AML patients.
    METHODS: Clinical studies were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase data. We selected available factors including complete remission (CR), overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) to evaluate the efficacy, and early death (ED), and adverse events to evaluate safety.
    RESULTS: 15 records with 812 R/R AML patients were finally included and analyzed using the R software. Subgroups analysis was also conducted. The pooled CR rate for CLAG regimen, CLAG-M regimen, and CLAG combined with any other drugs regimen is 56% (95% CI: 46-66), 46% (95% CI: 34-56), 44% (95% CI: 26-64), respectively. The relapsed and refractory groups showed a CR rate of 68% (95% CI: 53-80), and 51% (95% CI: 45-58) with CLAG related regimens. As risk grade decreases, the pooled CR rate increases. Regarding the safety for CLAG-related protocols, systematic review was conducted.
    CONCLUSIONS: The CLAG-related regimen is an effective and safe therapy for R/R AML patients, CLAG seems to have more superiority than CLAG combined therapy, though further studies including cladribine combination treatment protocols, are still needed to confirm our results further.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Meta-Analysis
    UNASSIGNED:没有关于pegfilgrastim对小儿/青少年癌症患者发热性中性粒细胞减少症(FN)发生的影响的荟萃分析。该研究探讨了预防性pegfilgrastim在预防患有癌症的儿童/青少年FN中的功效。
    未经授权:PubMed,Embase,并在Cochrane图书馆搜索了2020年4月7日之前发表的研究。主要结果是FN率。使用效应大小(ES)和比值比(OR)以及95%置信区间(CI)来评估结果。ES代表FN的比率,和STATA\'metaprop\'命令用于合成速率。
    未经评估:纳入了8项研究,包括167名患者和550个疗程。在接受化疗的儿童中,pegfilgrastim和filgrastim的FN发生率没有差异(OR=0.68,95%CI:0.20-2.23,P=0.520)。在接受pegfilgrastim的患者中,FN率为25.6%(95%CI:14.9%-36.3%),4级FN率为38.3%(95%CI:19.2%-59.5%),严重中性粒细胞减少(SN)发生率为40.5%(95%CI:35.1%-46.1%),FN导致的治疗延迟率为4.8%(95%CI:0.8%-11.3%)。
    未经评估:可以纳入的研究数量很少;因此,可以研究特定类型的癌症或特定的治疗方法。异质性很高。
    UNASSIGNED:pegfilgrastim和filgrastim的FN率没有差异。pegfilgrastim的使用仍然与FN率相关,4级FN,严重的中性粒细胞减少症,以及由于FN导致的儿科癌症患者的治疗延迟。
    UNASSIGNED: There is no meta-analysis about the effects of pegfilgrastim on the occurrence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in pediatric/adolescent cancer patients. The study explored the efficacy of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in preventing FN in children/adolescents with cancer.
    UNASSIGNED: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published before April 7, 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of FN. Effect size (ES) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to evaluate the outcome. The ES represented the rate of FN, and the STATA \'metaprop\' command was used to synthesize the rate.
    UNASSIGNED: Eight studies were included, comprising 167 patients and 550 courses of treatment. There was no difference between pegfilgrastim and filgrastim for the rate of FN in children receiving chemotherapy (OR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.20-2.23, P = 0.520). In patients receiving pegfilgrastim, the rate of FN was 25.6% (95% CI: 14.9%-36.3%), the rate of grade 4 FN was 38.3% (95% CI: 19.2%-59.5%), the rate of severe neutropenia (SN) was 40.5% (95% CI: 35.1%-46.1%), and the rate of treatment delays due to FN was 4.8% (95% CI: 0.8%-11.3%).
    UNASSIGNED: The number of studies that could be included was small; therefore, a specific type of cancer or a specific treatment could be studied. Heterogeneity was high.
    UNASSIGNED: There was no difference between pegfilgrastim and filgrastim for the rate of FN. The use of pegfilgrastim was still associated with rates of FN, grade 4 FN, severe neutropenia, and treatment delays due to FN in pediatric cancer patients.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Clinical Trial, Phase III
    预防化疗诱导的中性粒细胞减少症(CIN)及其临床后果是一个未满足的需求,选择性免疫调节微管结合剂,正在接受测试。
    为了证明在接受多西他赛治疗的实体瘤患者中,在第1周期中,普那布林和培非格司亭对严重中性粒细胞减少数日的非劣效性。
    在中国多个中心进行了普那布林与佩格非司汀预防实体瘤患者多西他赛诱导的中性粒细胞减少症(PROTECTIVE-1)双盲3期随机临床试验,俄罗斯,乌克兰,和美国。参与者包括乳腺癌患者,前列腺,或接受多西他赛单药化疗的非小细胞肺癌。数据收集时间为2018年6月1日至2019年1月31日。该数据库于2021年2月18日被锁定。数据分析基于意向治疗和安全性,从2018年10月5日至2021年2月23日进行。
    普那布林,40毫克,加上安慰剂或pegfilgrastim,6毫克,加上安慰剂。
    主要终点是第1周期中严重中性粒细胞减少症的第1天。其他终点包括CIN(发热性中性粒细胞减少症,住院治疗,感染,抗生素使用,和化疗剂量的修改),患者报告的骨痛评分结果,免疫抑制标志物(中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比率[NLR]>5),未成熟的中性粒细胞(带,早幼粒细胞,和骨髓细胞计数>0),和安全。
    在纳入分析的105名患者中(65[6.19%]名女性;中位年龄,59[范围,31-81]年),主要终点在0.65天的非劣效性范围内达到,平均差0.52天(98.52%CI,0.40-0.65天)。第1周期中的4级中性粒细胞减少症频率没有显着差异。在第1周期的第1周,普那布林起效较早,4级中性粒细胞减少较少。普那布林的临床不良反应较少,发热性中性粒细胞减少症发生率较低(52例0vs53例1[1.9%]),感染(52个[7.7%]中的4个与53个[15.1%]中的8个),化疗剂量延迟超过7天(52个中的2个[3.8%]vs53个中的3个[5.7%]),和永久化疗停药(52个中的7个[13.5%]vs53个中的14个[26.4%])。接受普那布林的患者骨痛明显减少(差异,-0.67[95%CI,-1.17至-0.16];P=0.01)和更好的免疫抑制状况(第8天NLR>5,52天的第2天[3.8%]对51天的第24天[46.0%];P<.001)。普那布林耐受性良好,安全性与pegfilgrastim相当.
    普那布林在预防CIN方面具有与pegfilgrastim相当的功效,具有更好的安全性和更好的免疫抑制特性。与pegfilgrastim的第二天给药相比,Plinabulin的当天给药具有明显的优势,包括减少医疗保健服务的使用。
    ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT03102606。
    Prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) and its clinical consequences is an unmet need for which plinabulin, a selective immunomodulating microtubule-binding agent, is being tested.
    To demonstrate noninferiority between plinabulin and pegfilgrastim for days of severe neutropenia in cycle 1 in patients with solid tumors treated with docetaxel.
    The Plinabulin vs Pegfilgrastim for the Prevention of Docetaxel-Induced Neutropenia in Patients With Solid Tumors (PROTECTIVE-1) double-blind phase 3 randomized clinical trial was performed in multiple centers in China, Russia, Ukraine, and the US. Participants included patients with breast, prostate, or non-small cell lung cancer treated with single-agent docetaxel chemotherapy. Data were collected from June 1, 2018, to January 31, 2019. The database was locked on February 18, 2021. Data analysis was based on intention to treat and safety and performed from October 5, 2018, to February 23, 2021.
    Plinabulin, 40 mg, plus placebo or pegfilgrastim, 6 mg, plus placebo.
    The primary end point was day of severe neutropenia in cycle 1. Additional end points included clinical consequences of CIN (febrile neutropenia, hospitalizations, infections, antibiotic use, and modifications of chemotherapy dose), patient-reported outcomes for bone pain score, markers for immune suppression (neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio [NLR] of >5), immature neutrophils (band, promyelocyte, and myelocyte counts >0), and safety.
    Among the 105 patients included in the analysis (65 [6.19%] women; median age, 59 [range, 31-81] years), the primary end point was met within a noninferiority margin of 0.65 days, with a mean difference of 0.52 days (98.52% CI, 0.40-0.65 days). Grade 4 neutropenia frequency in cycle 1 was not significantly different. Plinabulin had earlier onset of action with less grade 4 neutropenia in week 1 of cycle 1. Plinabulin had fewer adverse clinical consequences with rates of febrile neutropenia (0 of 52 vs 1 of 53 [1.9%]), infections (4 of 52 [7.7%] vs 8 of 53 [15.1%]), chemotherapy dose delay of more than 7 days (2 of 52 [3.8%] vs 3 of 53 [5.7%]), and permanent chemotherapy discontinuation (7 of 52 [13.5%] vs 14 of 53 [26.4%]). Patients receiving plinabulin had significantly less bone pain (difference, -0.67 [95% CI, -1.17 to -0.16]; P = .01) and a better immunosuppressive profile (NLR >5 at day 8, 2 of 52 [3.8%] vs 24 of 51 [46.0%]; P < .001). Plinabulin was well tolerated, with comparable safety to pegfilgrastim.
    Plinabulin has comparable efficacy to pegfilgrastim for the prevention of CIN, with better safety and a better immunosuppressive profile. Plinabulin\'s same-day dosing compared with pegfilgrastim\'s next-day dosing offers distinct advantages, including reducing use of health care services.
    ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03102606.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:比较pegfilgrastim和filgrastim预防淋巴瘤和多发性骨髓瘤患者ASCT后FN的疗效和成本。
    方法:将43例接受pegfilgrastim(6mg)的患者与129例接受非格司亭ASCT后的患者的回顾性队列进行比较。造血恢复时间,评估并比较FN发生率和治疗费用。
    结果:前瞻性pegfilgrastim组植入中性粒细胞绝对计数的平均时间为8.72±2.38天,回顾性非格司汀组为9.87±3.13天(P=0.027)。前瞻性pegfilgrastim和回顾性非格司汀组的FN发生率分别为18.60%和50.39%。分别为(P=0.000)。菲格司亭的平均成本为617.22±37.87美元,而佩格司亭的平均成本为525.78美元(P=0.032)。
    结论:方便,有效性,在ASCT患者中,与回顾性非格司亭组相比,前瞻性pegfilgrastim组预防FN的安全性显著提高.
    结论:对于ASCT后患者的FN预防,Pegfilgrastim预防比菲格司亭更有效和方便,尤其是MM患者。
    OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacies and costs between pegfilgrastim and filgrastim prophylaxis for FN post-ASCT for lymphoma and multiple myeloma patients.
    METHODS: 43 patients who received pegfilgrastim (6 mg) were compared to a retrospective cohort of 129 patients that had received filgrastim post-ASCT. Hematopoietic recovery time, FN incidence and treatment costs were assessed and compared.
    RESULTS: The mean time to absolute neutrophil count engraftment was 8.72 ± 2.38 days for the prospective pegfilgrastim group and 9.87 ± 3.13 days for the retrospective filgrastim group (P = 0.027). The incidence of FN was 18.60% and 50.39% in prospective pegfilgrastim and retrospective filgrastim groups, respectively (P = 0.000). The mean cost of filgrastim was $617.22 ± 37.87, compared with $525.78 for pegfilgrastim (P = 0.032).
    CONCLUSIONS: Convenience, effectiveness, and safety of prophylaxis for FN in the prospective pegfilgrastim group were significantly improved compared to the retrospective filgrastim group in ASCT patients.
    CONCLUSIONS: Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis was more effective and convenient than filgrastim for FN prophylaxis in patients post-ASCT, especially for MM patients.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:一项由ECCOPG(华东地区肿瘤药学合作小组)资助的研究旨在回顾性地比较3和6mg培菲格司亭对中国乳腺癌患者发热性中性粒细胞减少症(FN)一级预防的效果。
    方法:接受多西他赛和环磷酰胺化疗方案的患者,紧随其后的是pegfilgrastim,2018年和2020年的一级预防被回顾性纳入本研究.根据pegfilgrastim的剂量将患者分为2组。严重中性粒细胞减少症的发生率(绝对中性粒细胞计数<0.5×109/L),FN的发生率,计算恢复时间,比较不同组的疗效。P<0.05被认为具有统计学意义。
    结果:共纳入295例患者,3mgpegfilgrastim组150,6mgpegfilgrastim组145。在严重中性粒细胞减少症的发生率方面没有发现显着差异(3vs.6毫克,39.3%vs.34.5%,P=0.401)和FN的发生率(3vs.6毫克,7.3%与8.3%,P=0.830)。两组患者的中位恢复时间均为2天(P=0.485)。
    结论:3mgpegfilgrastim作为FN的一级预防对中国乳腺癌患者可能是有效且安全的。需要进行前瞻性研究以进一步确认3mgpegfilgrastim的预防作用。
    BACKGROUND: An ECCOPG (Eastern China Cooperative Oncology Pharmacy Group) funded study was designed to compare the effect of 3 versus 6 mg pegfilgrastim for primary prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in Chinese breast cancer patients retrospectively.
    METHODS: Patients undergoing a docetaxel and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy regimen, followed by pegfilgrastim, for primary prevention during 2018 and 2020 were retrospectively enrolled in the present study. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to the dose of pegfilgrastim. The incidence of severe neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count <0.5×109/L), incidence of FN, and recovery time were calculated to compare the efficacy of different groups. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
    RESULTS: A total of 295 patients were enrolled, 150 in the 3 mg pegfilgrastim group and 145 in the 6 mg pegfilgrastim group. No significant differences were found in the incidence of severe neutropenia (3 vs. 6 mg, 39.3% vs. 34.5%, P=0.401) and the incidence of FN (3 vs. 6 mg, 7.3% vs. 8.3%, P=0.830). Median recovery time was 2 days for both groups (P=0.485).
    CONCLUSIONS: 3 mg pegfilgrastim may be effective and safe for Chinese breast cancer patients as the primary prevention for FN. Prospective studies are needed to further confirm the prophylactic effect of 3 mg pegfilgrastim.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    Relapse is a major cause of treatment failure after allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) for high-risk acute myeloid leukemia (HR-AML). The aim of this study was to explore the effect of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) combined with minimal-dose decitabine (Dec) on the prevention of HR-AML relapse after allo-HSCT.
    We conducted a phase II, open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Two hundred four patients with HR-AML who had received allo-HSCT 60-100 days before randomization and who were minimal residual disease negative were randomly assigned 1:1 to either rhG-CSF combined with minimal-dose Dec (G-Dec group: 100 µg/m2 of rhG-CSF on days 0-5 and 5 mg/m2 of Dec on days 1-5) or no intervention (non-G-Dec group). The primary outcome was relapse after transplantation, and the secondary outcomes were chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD), safety of the treatment, and survival.
    The estimated 2-year cumulative incidence of relapse in the G-Dec group was 15.0% (95% CI, 8.0% to 22.1%), compared with 38.3% (95% CI, 28.8% to 47.9%) in the non-G-Dec group (P < .01), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.32 (95% CI, 0.18 to 0.57; P < .01). There was no statistically significant difference between the G-Dec and non-G-Dec groups in the 2-year cumulative incidence of cGVHD without relapse (23.0% [95% CI, 14.7% to 31.3%] and 21.7% [95% CI, 13.6% to 29.7%], respectively; P = .82), with an HR of 1.07 (95% CI, 0.60 to 1.92; P = .81). After rhG-CSF combined with minimal-dose Dec maintenance, increasing numbers of natural killer, CD8+ T, and regulatory T cells were observed.
    Our findings suggest that rhG-CSF combined with minimal-dose Dec maintenance after allo-HSCT can reduce the incidence of relapse, accompanied by changes in the number of lymphocyte subtypes.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    自体干细胞移植(ASCT)是多发性骨髓瘤(MM)的唯一可治愈的治疗方法,而其成功主要依赖于动员以获得足够的造血干/祖细胞(HPC)。虽然Pegfilgrastim(PEG)的作用,一种新的聚乙二醇化形式的重组G-CSF非格司亭(FIL),在动员上已经证明,目前尚不清楚这种方法在MM治疗中是否具有成本效益.这里,我们进行了真实世界分析,以评估PEG动员的疗效和成本在一组MM患者中,其中53%携带高风险细胞遗传学异常。共有91名患者接受了单剂量的PEG(6或12mg,n=42)或化疗后多次给药10μg/kg/天FIL(n=49)用于HPC动员。PEG组通过单采术收集的每毫升血液中的MNC和CD34细胞的产量明显高于FIL组(P=0.014和P=0.038)。与FIL相比,PEG动员产生的收集的CD34+细胞中位数明显更高(5.56vs.4.82×106/kg;P=0.038)。此外,PEG组移植后白细胞和血小板的平均恢复时间明显短于FIL组(白细胞,11.59±1.98vs12.93±2.83天,P=0.019;血小板,12.86±2.62vs14.80±5.47,P=0.085)。然而,使用PEG或FIL进行动员和单采手术的总费用相当(P=0.486).值得注意的是,用12mgPEG动员进一步缩短了白细胞的恢复时间(10.64±0.51vs.12.04±2.26天,P=0.05)和血小板(10.60±2.89vs.13.33±2.35天,P=0.031)与6mgPEG相比。我们的结果支持一个观点,即PEG(尤其是12mg)联合化疗是一种经济有效且方便的动员方案,这可能会改善MM中ASCT的结果。
    Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is the only curable therapy for multiple myeloma (MM), while its success primarily relies on mobilization to obtain sufficient hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells (HPC). Although the role of Pegfilgrastim (PEG), a novel PEGylated form of the recombinant G-CSF filgrastim (FIL), in mobilization has been demonstrated, it remains unclear whether this approach is cost-effective in MM treatment. Here, we performed a real-world analysis to evaluate the efficacy and cost of PEG for mobilization in a cohort of MM patients, of which 53% carried high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. A total of 91 patients who received either a single dose of PEG (6 or 12 mg, n = 42) or multiple dosing of 10 μg/kg/day FIL (n = 49) after chemotherapy for HPC mobilization were included. The yield of MNCs and CD34+ cells per milliliter of blood collected via apheresis was significantly greater in the PEG group than that in the FIL group (P = 0.014 and P = 0.038). Mobilization with PEG yielded significantly higher median number of collected CD34+ cells than FIL (5.56 vs. 4.82 × 106/kg; P = 0.038). Moreover, the average time-to-recovery of leukocytes and platelets after transplantation was markedly shorter in the PEG group than that in the FIL group (leukocyte, 11.59 ± 1.98 vs 12.93 ± 2.83 days, P = 0.019; platelet, 12.86 ± 2.62 vs 14.80 ± 5.47, P = 0.085). However, the total cost of mobilization and apheresis using PEG or FIL was comparable (P = 0.486). Of note, mobilization with 12 mg PEG further shortened time-to-recovery of leukocytes (10.64 ± 0.51 vs. 12.04 ± 2.26 days, P = 0.05) and platelets (10.60 ± 2.89 vs. 13.33 ± 2.35 days, P = 0.031) compared with 6 mg PEG. Our results support a notion that PEG (especially 12 mg) combined with chemotherapy is a cost-effective and convenient regimen of mobilization, which might improve the outcome of ASCT in MM.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    UNASSIGNED: Neutropenia is a common complication from chemotherapy. Mecapegfilgramtim (code name HHPG-19K), a long-acting recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF), has been developed. This study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mecapegfilgrastim for reducing neutropenia compared with filgrastim.
    UNASSIGNED: This was a randomized, controlled non-inferiority study. A total of 339 breast cancer patients who were eligible for (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy were randomized assigned into three groups to receive mecapegfilgrastim 100 µg/kg, mecapegfilgrastim fixed dose of 6 mg or filgrastim 5 µg/kg/day in the first cycle of chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was the duration of grade ≥3 neutropenia in cycle 1. The secondary endpoints included the duration of grade ≥3 neutropenia in cycles 2-4, incidence of grade ≥3 neutropenia, and febrile neutropenia (FN). The safety profile was also evaluated.
    UNASSIGNED: The mean duration of grade ≥3 neutropenia was 1.06 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65, 1.26] days in mecapegfilgrastim 100 µg/kg group, 1.23 (95% CI: 0.84, 1.88) days in mecapegfilgrastim 6 mg group, and 2.06 (95% CI: 1.66, 2.46) days in the filgrastim group. The mean difference between mecapegfilgrastim 100 µg/kg and filgrastim was -1.00 (95% CI: -1.52, -0.48), the mean difference between mecapegfilgrastim 6 mg and filgrastim was -0.83 (95% CI: -1.36, -0.30). The upper bounds of 95% CI for the difference between mecapegfilgrastim and filgrastim were all <1 day (the predefined non-inferiority margin). For the incidence of grade ≥3 and grade 4 neutropenia, the mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia, mecapegfilgrastim showed better performance compared with filgrastim. For the incidence of FN, there was no difference between patients treated with mecapegfilgrastim and filgrastim. For safety profile, mecapegfilgrastim of two doses groups were all well-tolerated. Fixed 6 mg dose of mecapegfilgrastim exhibited comparable efficacy and safety in comparison with 100 µg/kg during 4 cycles.
    UNASSIGNED: Long-acting mecapegfilgrastim (100 µg/kg and fixed 6 mg) is very effective and well tolerated when administered in the primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy induced neutropenia and in consecutive-cycle treatment. In some clinical parameters, mecafilgrastim is non-inferior and even superior to filgrastim. The fixed 6 mg-dose regimen showed similar efficacy and safety profile compared with 100 µg/kg regimen, and would be the preference in clinical practice, due to the convenient once-per-cycle administration and high-degree treatment compliance for the patients. This study provided new evidence for the novel long-acting rhG-CSF, mecapegfilgrastim, which would be a new alternative for clinical practice for prophylaxis of chemotherapy induced neutropenia.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

公众号