Pinto Lionel, Liu Zhimei, Doan Quan, Bernal Myriam, Dubois Robert, Lyman Gary
Cerner Life Sciences, Beverly Hills, CA 90212, USA.
Curr Med Res Opin. 2007 Sep;23(9):2283-95. doi: 10.1185/030079907X219599.
While head-to-head clinical trials demonstrate pegfilgrastim to be as efficacious as filgrastim in reducing chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, these studies lacked the statistical power to demonstrate better outcomes with one therapy compared to the other. Our objective was to obtain a pooled estimate of the effect of pegfilgrastim compared with filgrastim on incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), and related outcomes among patients with solid tumors and malignant lymphomas receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.
We searched PubMed and EMBASE for articles published from January 1, 1990 to August 31, 2006 reporting on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy and safety of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim. We only accepted studies in which filgrastim (5 microg/kg/day) and pegfilgrastim (100 microg/kg or a fixed dose of 6 mg) were administered at approved doses indicated on the package insert. Pooled relative risk (RR) was estimated using the conservative random effects, empirical Bayesian method of Hedges and Olkin.
Rates of grade IV neutropenia and of FN, time to absolute neutrophil count (ANC) recovery, and bone pain.
We identified five RCTs, with a total of 617 patients, evaluating the efficacy of a single dose of pegfilgrastim per cycle versus daily filgrastim injections. Although only one study had a statistically significant difference in FN reductions favoring pegfilgrastim over filgrastim (relative risk reduction of 50%; p = 0.027), the pooled RR showed a statistically significant favorable result for pegfilgrastim (RR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.43-0.97). Grade IV neutropenia rates (for cycle 1: RR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91-1.08; cycle 2: RR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-1.11; cycle 3: RR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.47-1.36; cycle 4: RR = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.71-1.13), time to ANC (SMD = 0.11, 95% CI, -0.34-0.56), and incidence of bone pain (RR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.76-1.19) were similar between the two G-CSFs. The included trials varied in the type of cancer, chemotherapy regimen and type of trial.
A single dose of pegfilgrastim performed better than a median of 10-14 days of filgrastim in reducing FN rates for patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy.
虽然头对头临床试验表明聚乙二醇化重组人粒细胞刺激因子在降低化疗引起的中性粒细胞减少方面与重组人粒细胞刺激因子疗效相当,但这些研究缺乏统计学效力来证明一种疗法相对于另一种疗法有更好的结果。我们的目的是获得聚乙二醇化重组人粒细胞刺激因子与重组人粒细胞刺激因子相比对发热性中性粒细胞减少(FN)发生率及实体瘤和恶性淋巴瘤患者接受骨髓抑制性化疗相关结局影响的汇总估计。
我们检索了PubMed和EMBASE中1990年1月1日至2006年8月31日发表的关于比较聚乙二醇化重组人粒细胞刺激因子与重组人粒细胞刺激因子疗效和安全性的随机对照试验(RCT)的文章。我们仅纳入使用包装说明书上批准剂量给予重组人粒细胞刺激因子(5微克/千克/天)和聚乙二醇化重组人粒细胞刺激因子(100微克/千克或固定剂量6毫克)的研究。使用保守的随机效应、Hedges和Olkin的经验贝叶斯方法估计汇总相对风险(RR)。
IV级中性粒细胞减少率和FN发生率、绝对中性粒细胞计数(ANC)恢复时间及骨痛。
我们确定了5项RCT,共617例患者,评估了每个周期单剂量聚乙二醇化重组人粒细胞刺激因子与每日注射重组人粒细胞刺激因子的疗效。虽然只有一项研究在FN减少方面有统计学显著差异,表明聚乙二醇化重组人粒细胞刺激因子优于重组人粒细胞刺激因子(相对风险降低50%;p = 0.027),但汇总RR显示聚乙二醇化重组人粒细胞刺激因子有统计学显著的有利结果(RR = 0.64;95% CI,0.43 - 0.97)。两种粒细胞集落刺激因子(G - CSF)的IV级中性粒细胞减少率(第1周期:RR = 0.99;95% CI,0.91 - 1.08;第2周期:RR = 0.88;95% CI,0.70 - 1.11;第3周期:RR = 0.80;95% CI,0.47 - 1.36;第4周期:RR = 0.90;95% CI,0.71 - 1.13)、ANC恢复时间(标准化均数差 = 0.11,95% CI, - 0.34 - 0.56)和骨痛发生率(RR = 0.95;95% CI,0.76 - 1.19)相似。纳入的试验在癌症类型、化疗方案和试验类型方面存在差异。
对于接受骨髓抑制性化疗的患者,单剂量聚乙二醇化重组人粒细胞刺激因子在降低FN发生率方面比平均10 - 14天的重组人粒细胞刺激因子效果更好。