Comparative study on the efficacy and safety between pegfilgrastim (PEG-rhG-CSF) and recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in promoting hematopoietic recovery after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation after hematological malignancy
10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2727.2017.10.002
- VernacularTitle: 聚乙二醇化G-CSF与重组人G-CSF促进恶性血液病异基因造血干细胞移植后造血恢复的对比研究
- Author:
Fan YANG
1
;
Xuedong SUN
;
Lei YUAN
;
Jinchao ZHANG
;
Jiangwei HU
;
Na LIU
;
Xiao LOU
;
Yongfeng SU
;
Zhiyong YU
;
Jianlin CHEN
;
Yuhang LI
;
Liangding HU
;
Hu CHEN
;
Min JIANG
1
Author Information
1. Department of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation, Affiliated Hospital to Academy of Military Medical Sciences, Beijing 100071, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Hematologic neoplasms;
Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation;
Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor
- From:
Chinese Journal of Hematology
2017;38(10):831-836
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To observe the efficacy and safety between Pegfilgrastim (PEG-rhG-CSF) and Recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) in hematological malignancy after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) .
Methods:157 patients after allo-HSCT were enrolled in this study from June 2015 to November 2016. Two agents of G-CSF were used to stimulate hematopoietic recovery after transplantation. There were 65 cases in PEG-rhG-CSF and 92 cases in rhG-CSF groups. Patients in PEG-rhG-CSF group were given a single subcutaneous dose of 6 mg on the first day and +8 d, while cases in rhG-CSF group were given in dose of 5 μg·kg-1·d-1 by subcutaneous injection from +1 d continuing to neutrophils more than 1.5×109/L, and then the indicators and survival rates in two groups after transplantation were compared.
Results:①There were no significant differences of the neutrophil implantation time[13.5 (8-12) d vs 13 (9-24) d, P=0.393] and platelet implantation time [14 (9-160) d vs 14 (9-92) d, P=0.094] between PEG-rhG-CSF and rhG-CSF groups respectively. There were no significant differences in terms of neutropenia period (P=0.435) , number of cases who got fever during neutropenia (P=0.622) , and the median time of fever in neutropenia period (P=0.460) , respectively between the two groups. There were no significant differences of erythrocyte and platelet transfusions (P=0.074, P=0.059) within 1 month after transplantation. ②There were no significant differences with regard to the incidences of acute GVHD[23.1% (15/65) vs 34.8% (32/92) , P=0.115], chronic GVHD[20.0% (13/65) vs 32.6% (32/92) , P=0.081], Ⅱ-Ⅳdegree of acute GVHD[30.0% (13/65) vs 30.4% (30/92) , P=0.287] and extensive chronic GVHD[9.2% (6/65) vs 20.7% (19/92) , P=0.135] between PEG-rhG-CSF and rhG-CSF groups. ③There were no significant differences in terms of disease free survival (DFS) (62.5% vs 61.4%, P=0.478) and overall survival (OS) (67.4% vs 67.3%, P=0.718) between PEG-rhG-CSF and rhG-CSF groups. ④There was no significant difference of the non-relapse mortality (NRM) between PEG-rhG-CSF and rhG-CSF groups[20.5% (95%CI 11.4%-37.0%) vs 32.6% (95%CI 22.2%-47.9%) , P=0.141]. The relapse rate was not statistically significant[14.9% (95%CI 7.4%-29.8%) vs 10.0% (95%CI 5.0%-20.0%) , P=0.299].
Conclusion:Compared with rhG-CSF, PEG-rhG-CSF could reduce the times of injection. There were no differences in terms of hematopoietic recovery, the incidence of GVHD, relapse rate, DFS and OS rates after allo-HSCT between two groups.
