PURPOSE: Pegfilgrastim was introduced over a decade ago. Other long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) have recently been developed. We systematically reviewed the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of neutropenia prophylaxis with long-acting G-CSFs in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases, and abstracts from key congresses. Studies of long-acting G-CSFs for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) and febrile neutropenia (FN) were identified by two independent reviewers. Abstracts and full texts were assessed for final inclusion; risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane's tool. Effectiveness and safety results were extracted according to study type and G-CSF used. RESULTS: Of the 839 articles identified, 41 articles representing different studies met the eligibility criteria. In five randomised controlled trials, 11 clinical trials and 17 observational studies across several tumour types and chemotherapy regimens, pegfilgrastim was used alone or compared with daily G-CSF, no G-CSF, no upfront pegfilgrastim or placebo. Studies generally reported lower incidence of CIN (4/7 studies), FN (11/14 studies), hospitalisations (9/13 studies), antibiotic use (6/7 studies) and adverse events (2/5 studies) with pegfilgrastim than filgrastim, no upfront pegfilgrastim or no G-CSF. Eight studies evaluated other long-acting G-CSFs; most (5/8) were compared to pegfilgrastim and involved patients with breast cancer receiving docetaxel-based therapy. Efficacy and safety profiles of balugrastim and lipegfilgrastim were comparable to pegfilgrastim in phase 3 studies. Efficacy and safety of other long-acting G-CSFs were mixed. CONCLUSIONS: Pegfilgrastim reduced the incidence of FN and CIN compared with no prophylaxis. Most studies showed better efficacy and effectiveness for pegfilgrastim than filgrastim. Efficacy and safety profiles of lipegfilgrastim and balugrastim were similar to pegfilgrastim.
PURPOSE: Pegfilgrastim was introduced over a decade ago. Other long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) have recently been developed. We systematically reviewed the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of neutropenia prophylaxis with long-acting G-CSFs in cancerpatients receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases, and abstracts from key congresses. Studies of long-acting G-CSFs for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) and febrile neutropenia (FN) were identified by two independent reviewers. Abstracts and full texts were assessed for final inclusion; risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane's tool. Effectiveness and safety results were extracted according to study type and G-CSF used. RESULTS: Of the 839 articles identified, 41 articles representing different studies met the eligibility criteria. In five randomised controlled trials, 11 clinical trials and 17 observational studies across several tumour types and chemotherapy regimens, pegfilgrastim was used alone or compared with daily G-CSF, no G-CSF, no upfront pegfilgrastim or placebo. Studies generally reported lower incidence of CIN (4/7 studies), FN (11/14 studies), hospitalisations (9/13 studies), antibiotic use (6/7 studies) and adverse events (2/5 studies) with pegfilgrastim than filgrastim, no upfront pegfilgrastim or no G-CSF. Eight studies evaluated other long-acting G-CSFs; most (5/8) were compared to pegfilgrastim and involved patients with breast cancer receiving docetaxel-based therapy. Efficacy and safety profiles of balugrastim and lipegfilgrastim were comparable to pegfilgrastim in phase 3 studies. Efficacy and safety of other long-acting G-CSFs were mixed. CONCLUSIONS: Pegfilgrastim reduced the incidence of FN and CIN compared with no prophylaxis. Most studies showed better efficacy and effectiveness for pegfilgrastim than filgrastim. Efficacy and safety profiles of lipegfilgrastim and balugrastim were similar to pegfilgrastim.
Authors: Denise A Yardley; John Zubkus; Brooke Daniel; Roger Inhorn; Cassie M Lane; Elizabeth R Vazquez; Yuval Naot; Howard A Burris; John D Hainsworth Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2010-10-01 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Constantin Volovat; Oleg A Gladkov; Igor M Bondarenko; Steve Barash; Anton Buchner; Peter Bias; Liat Adar; Noa Avisar Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2013-10-25 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: P Viens; C Chabannon; P Pouillard; M Janvier; W Brugger; J Y Blay; F Oberling; R Capdeville; C Newman; V Méresse; Z X Xu; E Platzer; P Van der Auwera; D Maraninchi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jan Braess; Karsten Spiekermann; Peter Staib; Andreas Grüneisen; Bernhard Wörmann; Wolf-Dieter Ludwig; Hubert Serve; Albrecht Reichle; Rudolf Peceny; Daniel Oruzio; Christoph Schmid; Xaver Schiel; Marcus Hentrich; Christina Sauerland; Michael Unterhalt; Michael Fiegl; Wolfgang Kern; Christian Buske; Stefan Bohlander; Achim Heinecke; Herrad Baurmann; Dietrich W Beelen; Wolfgang E Berdel; Thomas Büchner; Wolfgang Hiddemann Journal: Blood Date: 2009-01-08 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Isabel Puértolas; Alberto Frutos Pérez-Surio; María Aránzazu Alcácera; Raquel Andrés; María Del Tránsito Salvador Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2017-11-19 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Rachel Wuerstlein; Nadia Harbeck; Eva-Maria Grischke; Dirk Forstmeyer; Raquel von Schumann; Petra Krabisch; Kerstin Lüdtke-Heckenkamp; Andrea Stefek; Oliver Stoetzer; Andrea Grafe; Gabriele Kaltenecker; Helmut Forstbauer; Doris Augustin; Iris Schrader; Joke Tio; Ulrike Nitz; Oleg Gluz; Ronald E Kates; Monika Karla Graeser Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 2.860