ArticleInternational journal of hematology2022
Comparison between filgrastim biosimilar and filgrastim original for the management of neutropenia after salvage chemotherapy for malignant lymphoma.
Article in International journal of hematology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, the efficacy and safety of filgrastim biosimilar (F-BS) were retrospectively compared to those of filgrastim original in the treatment of malignant lymphoma with CHASE (± R) or DeVIC(± R) in 78 patients. The median number of filgrastim doses was 11 in the F-BS group and 8 in the filgrastim group after CHASE (± R) (p = 0.8), and 10 in the F-BS group and 10 in the filgrastim group after DeVIC (± R) (p = 0.45). The median days until neutrophil recovery to ≥ 1000/μL was 10 days with F-BS versus 10 days with filgrastim after CHASE ± R (p = 0.59), and 9 days with F-BS versus 10 days with filgrastim after DeVIC ± R (p = 0.828). Febrile neutropenia (FN) was observed in 5 patients (41.7%) in the F-BS group and 9 (52.9%) in the filgrastim group after CHASE ± R therapy (p = 0.616), and in 11 patients (36.7%) in the F-BS group and 9 (47.4%) in the filgrastim group after DeVIC ± R (p = 0.462). The present results suggest that the efficacy and safety of F-BS are comparable to those of filgrastim original, with no significant differences in clinical factors. Use of F-BS also reduced medical costs per course of CHASE ± R therapy by 170.22 US dollars.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35976562What 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.