1.
Impact of G-CSF administration post-allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation on outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Gupta, A. K., Meena, J. P., Haldar, P., Tanwar, P., Seth, R.
American journal of blood research. 2021;11(5):544-563
Abstract
Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) have been used post hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) for earlier neutrophil engraftment. The use of G-CSFs, and their effect on other post-HSCT outcomes remains debatable. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Google Scholar, and IndMed using a predefined search strategy. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRSs) reporting data on G-CSF administration post-HSCT, published in the English language from their inception until Jan 31, 2021. The primary outcome of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the time to neutrophil engraftment (NE). The secondary outcomes were probability of NE, time to platelet engraftment (PE), the incidence of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), duration of hospital stay (HS), and overall survival (OS). The review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020206989). Fourteen studies were extracted (n=9850), of which five were RCTs, and nine were NRSs. As per Egger's test, publication bias was not present for any outcome. After meta-analysis, we found that the duration of NE favouring G-CSF arm from RCTs was -0.94 days (SMD) [(95% CI: -1.38, -0.51); I(2)=35%], and from NRSs -1.2 days (SMD) [(95% CI: -1.43, -0.96); I(2)=74%]. For the outcome of GVHD, the relative risks (RR) of incidence for chronic GVHD and overall GVHD were not significant for the RCTs, and these were 1.11 (RR) [(95% CI: 1.00, 1.22); I(2)=43%] and 1.10 (RR) [(95% CI: 1.03, 1.18); I(2)=48%], respectively for NRSs. There was no difference in the incidence of GVHD (acute or chronic) in both arms. No significant difference was found between the two arms for the outcomes of PE, HS, and OS. For NE, there was a marginal benefit of around one day with the use of G-CSF. The use of G-CSF did not alter time to PE, the incidence of GVHD, HS, and OS in both arms.
2.
Impact on acute myeloid leukemia relapse in granulocyte colony-stimulating factor application: a meta-analysis
Feng, X., Lan, H., Ruan, Y., Li, C.
Hematology (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2018;:1-9
Abstract
OBJECTIVES This meta-analysis evaluated the impact of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) added to chemotherapy on treatment outcomes including survival and disease recurrence in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). METHODS Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases were searched until 19 September 2016 using search terms. Studies that investigated patients with AML who underwent stem-cell transplantation were included. RESULTS The overall analysis revealed a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) (P = .019) and disease-free survival (DFS) (P = .002) for patients receiving G-CSF with chemotherapy. Among patients without prior AML treatment, there was a significant improvement in DFS (P = .014) and reduction in incidence of relapse (P = .015) for those who received G-CSF. However, subgroup analyses found no significant difference between G-CSF (+) and G-CSF (-) treatments in rates of OS (P = .104) and complete remission (CR) (P = .572) for patients without prior AML treatment. Among patients with relapsed/refractory AML, there was no significant difference found between G-CSF (+) and G-CSF (-) groups for OS (P = .225), DFS (P = .209), and CR (P = .208). DISCUSSION Treatment with chemotherapy plus G-CSF appears to provide better survival and treatment responses compared with chemotherapy alone, particularly for patients with previously untreated AML. ABBREVIATIONS AML, acute myeloid leukemia; CI, confidence interval; CR, complete remission; DFS, disease-free survival; G-CSF, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor; GM-CSF, granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor; HR, hazard ratio; MDS, myelodysplastic syndrome; OR, odds ratio; OS, overall survival; RCTs, randomized control trials; RR, relative risk.
3.
Pegfilgrastim vs. filgrastim for supportive care after autologous stem cell transplantation: can we decide? Review
Ziakas, Panayiotis D., Kourbeti, Irene S.
Clin Transplant. 2012;26(1):16-22
Abstract
Granulocyte-colony-stimulating factors are helpful for the support of patients receiving autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, resulting in faster neutrophil recovery and lower incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN). Our aim was to evaluate the use of pegfilgrastim vs. filgrastim with regard to absolute neutrophil count (ANC) recovery, risk, and duration of FN and length of hospital stay. Mean difference was the summary effect for continuous data, and odds ratio for binary data, using random-effects modeling. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Registry of Randomized Controlled Trials were included in the search. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), case-control studies, and studies with historical control group for filgrastim were eligible. Of the initial 114 studies screened, 12 studies were analyzed (four were RCTs, including one phase III trial). The use of pegfilgrastim resulted in a one d gain in ANC recovery (mean difference -0.82, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.57, p < 0.001) and duration of FN (-0.67, 95% CI -1.28 to -0.06, p < 0.001) but had no effect on the risk of FN or length of stay. Pegfilgrastim was more expensive (baseline marginal cost 116.97, p < 0.001), which was largely determined by the treatment duration and pegfilgrastim cost. Non-randomized setting attenuated the effect on duration of FN whereas delayed onset of filgrastim injections (to pegfilgrastim) overestimated the protective effect on the risk of FN. Both drugs are at least equally effective, though methodology and disease stratification in published trials warrant further improvement.Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S.