Article3 Biotech2025
Analytical assessment of safety and efficacy of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim formulations for treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.
Article in 3 Biotech, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A recombinant preparation of human granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (rh-GCSF), filgrastim and its advanced form pegfilgrastim i.e., pegylated form have widely been employed in the management of neutropenia caused by cancer chemotherapy. Their formulations from different manufacturers are commercially available in the market for patient use. Though regulatory guidelines worldwide have laid down methodology for ensuring quality control testing of such products before entering into the market, yet, the quality data of copy products are seldom available. In this 8 year retrospective analysis carried out on seven products each of both the molecules, a comparison of quality parameters based on their safety and efficacy studies is presented to understand any variability. The utilization of orthogonal techniques was done for the filgrastim and pegfilgrastim products of different manufacturers to address the critical quality attributes for identity, purity, potency and bioactivity. The quality of the batches was analyzed based on compendial guidelines for filgrastim products and manufacturers' method of analysis for pegfilgrastim products. The products were evaluated for presence of endotoxin, aggregate impurities (monomer > 97%), related proteins (< 3.5%), and other impurities with different molecular masses (no separate band in SDS-PAGE) and were found within limits. The products were also assessed for their potency though cell-based proliferation assay (80-125%) and protein content (80-125%). They were found to be of standard quality with no substantial differences in quality parameters among batches of a product (intra-variability) and among all different products (intervariability).
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.