Literature DB >> 33172550

[Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a prospective control trial].

Wen-Yu Yang1, Tian-Feng Liu, Xiao-Juan Chen, Ye Guo, Ting Li, Ben-Quan Qi, Fang Liu, Li-Xian Chang, Min Ruan, Xiao-Ming Liu, Li Zhang, Yao Zou, Yu-Mei Chen, Xiao-Fan Zhu.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To study the pharmacokinetic characteristics, clinical effect, and safety of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF) in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).
METHODS: A prospective study was performed on children with ALL who cyclophosphamide, cytarabine, and 6-mercaptopurine were used for consolidation therapy. PEG-rhG-CSF (PEG-rhG-CSF group) or rhG-CSF (rhG-CSF group) was injected after chemotherapy. The plasma concentration of PEG-rhG-CSF was measured, and clinical outcome and safety were observed for both groups.
RESULTS: A total of 17 children with ALL were enrolled, with 9 children in the PEG-rhG-CSF group and 8 children in the rhG-CSF group. In the PEG-rhG-CSF group, the peak concentration of PEG-rhG-CSF was 348.2 ng/mL (range 114.7-552.0 ng/mL), the time to peak was 48 hours (range 12-72 hours), and the half life was 14.1 hours (range 11.1-18.1 hours). The plasma concentration curve of PEG-rhG-CSF was consistent with the mechanism of neutrophil-mediated clearance. Compared with the rhG-CSF group, the PEG-rhG-CSF group had a significantly shorter median time to absolute neutrophil count (ANC) recovery (P<0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in ANC nadir, incidence rate of febrile neutropenia, duration of grade IV neutropenia, incidence rate of infection, and length of hospital stay. No bone pain or muscle soreness was observed in either group (P>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacokinetic characteristics of PEG-rhG-CSF in children with ALL receiving consolidation chemotherapy are consistent with the mechanism of neutrophil-mediated clearance, with a short half life and fast recovery of ANC, and there are no significant differences in safety between PEG-rhG-CSF and rhG-CSF.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 33172550      PMCID: PMC7666389     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi        ISSN: 1008-8830


  13 in total

1.  2000 update of recommendations for the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors: evidence-based, clinical practice guidelines. American Society of Clinical Oncology Growth Factors Expert Panel.

Authors:  H Ozer; J O Armitage; C L Bennett; J Crawford; G D Demetri; P A Pizzo; C A Schiffer; T J Smith; G Somlo; J C Wade; J L Wade; R J Winn; A J Wozniak; M R Somerfield
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2000-10-15       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 2.  Filgrastim (r-metHuG-CSF): the first 10 years.

Authors:  K Welte; J Gabrilove; M H Bronchud; E Platzer; G Morstyn
Journal:  Blood       Date:  1996-09-15       Impact factor: 22.113

3.  A randomized double-blind multicenter phase III study of fixed-dose single-administration pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Authors:  M D Green; H Koelbl; J Baselga; A Galid; V Guillem; P Gascon; S Siena; R I Lalisang; H Samonigg; M R Clemens; V Zani; B C Liang; J Renwick; M J Piccart
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 32.976

Review 4.  Prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia with pegfilgrastim: pharmacokinetics and patient outcomes.

Authors:  Bing-Bing Yang; Michael A Savin; Michael Green
Journal:  Chemotherapy       Date:  2012-12-28       Impact factor: 2.544

Review 5.  Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of pegfilgrastim.

Authors:  Bing-Bing Yang; Anna Kido
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 6.447

6.  Randomized, dose-escalation study of SD/01 compared with daily filgrastim in patients receiving chemotherapy.

Authors:  E Johnston; J Crawford; S Blackwell; T Bjurstrom; P Lockbaum; L Roskos; B B Yang; S Gardner; M A Miller-Messana; D Shoemaker; J Garst; G Schwab
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Comparison of effectiveness of biosimilar filgrastim (Nivestim™), reference Amgen filgrastim and pegfilgrastim in febrile neutropenia primary prevention in breast cancer patients treated with neo(adjuvant) TAC: a non-interventional cohort study.

Authors:  M Brito; S Esteves; R André; M Isidoro; A Moreira
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2015-06-27       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 8.  Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.

Authors:  T Kuwabara; S Kobayashi; Y Sugiyama
Journal:  Drug Metab Rev       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 4.518

9.  Randomized trial and pharmacokinetic study of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim after dose-intensive chemotherapy in young adults and children with sarcomas.

Authors:  Elizabeth Fox; Brigitte C Widemann; Douglas S Hawkins; Nalini Jayaprakash; Ramzi Dagher; Alberta A Aikin; Donna Bernstein; Lauren Long; Crystal Mackall; Lee Helman; Seth M Steinberg; Frank M Balis
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 12.531

10.  A randomized, double-blind trial of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim for the management of neutropenia during CHASE(R) chemotherapy for malignant lymphoma.

Authors:  Kohmei Kubo; Yasuhiko Miyazaki; Tohru Murayama; Ryutaro Shimazaki; Noriko Usui; Akio Urabe; Tomomitsu Hotta; Kazuo Tamura
Journal:  Br J Haematol       Date:  2016-04-12       Impact factor: 6.998

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.