ArticleDrugs - real world outcomes2022
Effectiveness and Safety of Filgrastim (Neupogen™) versus Filgrastim-aafi (Nivestim™) in Primary Prophylaxis of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia: An Observational Cohort Study.
Article in Drugs - real world outcomes, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the demonstrated efficacy and safety of biosimilar filgrastim-aafi (Nivestim™), few studies have compared its use in real-life clinical practice to the originator filgrastim (Neupogen™).
objectivesThis study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of filgrastim and filgrastim-aafi for the primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy induced-febrile neutropenia in the real-life setting. PATIENTS AND
methodsA retrospective cohort study included all adult cancer patients at the King Hussein Cancer Centre requiring primary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia between 2014 and 2016. Two cohorts were selected: patients who received filgrastim and those who received filgrastim-aafi. The primary endpoint was the incidence of febrile neutropenia; the secondary endpoints were the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), hospital admissions due to febrile neutropenia, and the mean length of hospitalization. Chi-squared tests were performed to evaluate differences between groups. Logistic regression was conducted to adjust for confounding factors.
resultsA total of 268 patients were identified, with 88 in the filgrastim cohort and 180 in the filgrastim-aafi cohort; 64%were females. The mean age was 47 (±15) years. The incidence of febrile neutropenia was 21.6% in the filgrastim cohort and 15% in the filgrastim-aafi cohort (P = 0.179). No statistically significant differences were detected in the incidence of hospital admission (P = 0.551) or ADRs (P = 0.623) between the two cohorts. Upon adjusting for the confounding factors, results remained statistically insignificant.
conclusionFilgrastim and filgrastim-aafi had comparable effectiveness and safety as primary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. More extensive prospective studies with additional insight on the cost implications are required.
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.