[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]
F Yang,X D Sun,L Yuan,J C Zhang,J W Hu,N Liu,X Lou,Y F Su,Z Y Yu,J L Chen,Y H Li,L D Hu,H Chen,M Jiang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2727.2017.10.002
2017-10-14
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 1.5×10(9)/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.