Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27759847›Full record

Trial reportClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2016

A phase III, randomized, non-inferiority study comparing the efficacy and safety of biosimilar filgrastim versus originator filgrastim for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in breast cancer patients.

Roberto Hegg, André Mattar, João Nunes de Matos-Neto, José Luiz Pedrini, Sabina Bandeira Aleixo, Roberto Odebrecht Rocha, Renato Peixoto Cramer-Junior, Sylvie van-Eyll-Rocha

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Comparative Safety Profiles of Oncology Biosimilars: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Clinical equivalence with G-CSF biosimilars: methodologic approach in a (neo)adjuvant setting in non-metastatic breast cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Roberto HeggHospital Pérola Byington, Centro de Referência da Saúde da Mulher, São Paulo/SP, Brazil.
André MattarHospital Pérola Byington, Centro de Referência da Saúde da Mulher, São Paulo/SP, Brazil.
João Nunes de Matos-NetoHospital Universitário de Brasília, Brasília/DF, Brazil.
José Luiz PedriniHospital Nossa Senhora da Conceição, Porto Alegre/RS, Brazil.
Sabina Bandeira AleixoHospital Evangélico de Cachoeiro de Itapemirim, Cachoeiro de Itapemirim/ES, Brazil.
Roberto Odebrecht RochaHospital Santa Marcelina, São Paulo/SP, Brazil.
Renato Peixoto Cramer-JuniorHospital Bruno Born, Lajeado/RS, Brazil.
Sylvie van-Eyll-RochaInstituto do Câncer Arnaldo Vieira de Carvalho, São Paulo/SP, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of two filgrastim formulations for controlling chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and to evaluate the non-inferiority of the test drug relative to the originator.

methods: This phase III non-inferiority study had a randomized, multicenter, and open-label design. The patients were randomized at a ratio of 1:1 with a follow-up period of 6 weeks for each patient. In both study arms, filgrastim was administered subcutaneously at a daily dose of 5 mg/kg body weight. The primary endpoint was the rate of grade 4 neutropenia in the first treatment cycle. The secondary endpoints were the duration of grade 4 neutropenia, the generation of anti-filgrastim antibodies, and the rates of adverse events, laboratory abnormalities, febrile neutropenia, and neutropenia of any grade.

results: The primary efficacy analysis demonstrated the non-inferiority of the test drug compared with the originator drug; the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the rate of neutropenia between the two groups (12.61%) was lower than the established margin of non-inferiority. The two treatments were similar with respect to the secondary endpoints and safety.

conclusion: The efficacy and safety profile of the test drug were similar to those of the originator product based on the rate of grade 4 neutropenia in the first treatment cycle. This study supports Anvisa's approval of the first biosimilar drug manufactured by the Brazilian industry (Fiprima¯).

Indexed as

AdultAntineoplastic AgentsBiosimilar PharmaceuticalsBreast NeoplasmsFemaleFilgrastimHematologic AgentsHumansLeukocyte CountMiddle AgedNeutropeniaReference ValuesReproducibility of ResultsSeverity of Illness IndexStatistics, NonparametricTreatment OutcomeAntineoplastic AgentsBiosimilar PharmaceuticalsFilgrastimHematologic Agents

Identifiers

PMID27759847
PMCPMC5054975

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.