ArticleBiology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation2015
Tbo-Filgrastim versus Filgrastim during Mobilization and Neutrophil Engraftment for Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation.
Article in Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma: challenges, strategies, and current developments.Annals of hematology · 2023Review
- Cost efficiency and effectiveness of biosimilar filgrastim in autologous transplant.Bone marrow transplantation · 2022Article
- Real World Clinical Experience of Biosimilar G-CSF (Grastofil) for Autologous Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Mobilization: Single Center Experience in Canada Following Early Adoption.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Article
- Extrapolation in Practice: Lessons from 10 Years with Biosimilar Filgrastim.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2019Review
- Use of Biosimilar Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor for Mobilization in Autologous and Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.Clinical hematology international · 2019Article
- A single-center, retrospective analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of filgrastim-sndz to filgrastim for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and for neutrophil recovery following autologous stem cell transplantation.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018Article
- Conversion from Filgrastim to Tbo-filgrastim: Experience of a Large Health Care System.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2017Article
- Peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma: Growth factors or chemotherapy?World journal of transplantation · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are limited data available supporting the use of the recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), tbo-filgrastim, rather than traditionally used filgrastim to mobilize peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) or to accelerate engraftment after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). We sought to compare the efficacy and cost of tbo-filgrastim to filgrastim in these settings. Patients diagnosed with lymphoma or plasma cell disorders undergoing G-CSF mobilization, with or without plerixafor, were included in this retrospective analysis. The primary outcome was total collected CD34(+) cells/kg. Secondary mobilization endpoints included peripheral CD34(+) cells/μL on days 4 and 5 of mobilization, adjunctive use of plerixafor, CD34(+) cells/kg collected on day 5, number of collection days and volumes processed, number of collections reaching 5 million CD34(+) cells/kg, and percent reaching target collection goal in 1 day. Secondary engraftment endpoints included time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment, number of blood product transfusions required before engraftment, events of febrile neutropenia, and length of stay. A total of 185 patients were included in the final analysis. Patients receiving filgrastim (n = 86) collected a median of 5.56 × 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg, compared with a median of 5.85 × 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg in the tbo-filgrastim group (n = 99; P = .58). There were no statistically significant differences in all secondary endpoints with the exception of apheresis volumes processed (tbo-filgrastim, 17.0 liters versus filgrastim, 19.7 liters; P < .01) and mean platelet transfusions (tbo-filgrastim, 1.7 units versus filgrastim, 1.4 units; P = .04). In conclusion, tbo-filgrastim demonstrated similar CD34(+) yield compared with filgrastim in mobilization and post-transplantation settings, with no clinically meaningful differences in secondary efficacy and safety endpoints. Furthermore, tbo-filgrastim utilization was associated with cost savings of approximately $1406 per patient utilizing average wholesale price.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.