Administration of recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor to children undergoing allogeneic marrow transplantation: a prospective, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial

Comparison of transplant outcomes and economic costs between biosimilar and originator filgrastim in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

From January 2012 to September 2015, 49 patients received biosimilar filgrastim (BF) after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation (BMT, n = 31) or peripheral stem cell transplantation (PBSCT, n = 18) in our institution. To evaluate the clinical impact of BF on transplant outcomes of these patients, we compared hematological recovery, overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), transplantation-related mortality (TRM), cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR), and acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) with those of control patients who received originator filgrastim (OF) after BMT (n = 31) or PBSCT (n = 18). All cases were randomly selected from a clinical database in our institution. In both the BMT and PBSCT settings, neutrophil recovery (17 vs. 19 days in BMT; 13 vs. 15 days in PBSCT) and platelet recovery (27 vs. 31 days in BMT; 17 vs. 28 days in PBSCT) were essentially the same between BF and OF. They were also comparable in terms of OS, DFS, TRM, CIR, and the incidence of acute GVHD and chronic GVHD. On multivariate analysis, the use of BF in both BMT and PBSCT was not a significant factor for adverse transplant outcomes. Although BF significantly reduced filgrastim costs in both BMT and PBSCT, total hospitalization costs were not significantly different between BF and OF.

Prophylactic antibiotics or G(M)-CSF for the prevention of infections and improvement of survival in cancer patients receiving myelotoxic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia (FN) and other infectious complications are some of the most serious treatment-related toxicities of chemotherapy for cancer, with a mortality rate of 2% to 21%. The two main types of prophylactic regimens are granulocyte (macrophage) colony-stimulating factors (G(M)-CSF) and antibiotics, frequently quinolones or cotrimoxazole. Current guidelines recommend the use of colony-stimulating factors when the risk of febrile neutropenia is above 20%, but they do not mention the use of antibiotics. However, both regimens have been shown to reduce the incidence of infections. Since no systematic review has compared the two regimens, a systematic review was undertaken.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of G(M)-CSF compared to antibiotics in cancer patients receiving myelotoxic chemotherapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, databases of ongoing trials, and conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology (1980 to December 2015). We planned to include both full-text and abstract publications. Two review authors independently screened search results.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylaxis with G(M)-CSF versus antibiotics for the prevention of infection in cancer patients of all ages receiving chemotherapy. All study arms had to receive identical chemotherapy regimes and other supportive care. We included full-text, abstracts, and unpublished data if sufficient information on study design, participant characteristics, interventions and outcomes was available. We excluded cross-over trials, quasi-randomised trials and post-hoc retrospective trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the results of the search strategies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and analysed data according to standard Cochrane methods. We did final interpretation together with an experienced clinician.

MAIN RESULTS

In this updated review, we included no new randomised controlled trials. We included two trials in the review, one with 40 breast cancer patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy and G-CSF compared to antibiotics, a second one evaluating 155 patients with small-cell lung cancer receiving GM-CSF or antibiotics.We judge the overall risk of bias as high in the G-CSF trial, as neither patients nor physicians were blinded and not all included patients were analysed as randomised (7 out of 40 patients). We considered the overall risk of bias in the GM-CSF to be moderate, because of the risk of performance bias (neither patients nor personnel were blinded), but low risk of selection and attrition bias.For the trial comparing G-CSF to antibiotics, all cause mortality was not reported. There was no evidence of a difference for infection-related mortality, with zero events in each arm. Microbiologically or clinically documented infections, severe infections, quality of life, and adverse events were not reported. There was no evidence of a difference in frequency of febrile neutropenia (risk ratio (RR) 1.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 2.84). The quality of the evidence for the two reported outcomes, infection-related mortality and frequency of febrile neutropenia, was very low, due to the low number of patients evaluated (high imprecision) and the high risk of bias.There was no evidence of a difference in terms of median survival time in the trial comparing GM-CSF and antibiotics. Two-year survival times were 6% (0 to 12%) in both arms (high imprecision, low quality of evidence). There were four toxic deaths in the GM-CSF arm and three in the antibiotics arm (3.8%), without evidence of a difference (RR 1.32; 95% CI 0.30 to 5.69; P = 0.71; low quality of evidence). There were 28% grade III or IV infections in the GM-CSF arm and 18% in the antibiotics arm, without any evidence of a difference (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.86 to 2.80; P = 0.15, low quality of evidence). There were 5 episodes out of 360 cycles of grade IV infections in the GM-CSF arm and 3 episodes out of 334 cycles in the cotrimoxazole arm (0.8%), with no evidence of a difference (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.37 to 6.42; P = 0.55; low quality of evidence). There was no significant difference between the two arms for non-haematological toxicities like diarrhoea, stomatitis, infections, neurologic, respiratory, or cardiac adverse events. Grade III and IV thrombopenia occurred significantly more frequently in the GM-CSF arm (60.8%) compared to the antibiotics arm (28.9%); (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.41 to 3.12; P = 0.0002; low quality of evidence). Neither infection-related mortality, incidence of febrile neutropenia, nor quality of life were reported in this trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

As we only found two small trials with 195 patients altogether, no conclusion for clinical practice is possible. More trials are necessary to assess the benefits and harms of G(M)-CSF compared to antibiotics for infection prevention in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

Sequential administration of sargramostim and filgrastim in pediatric allogeneic stem cell transplantation recipients undergoing myeloablative conditioning

G-CSF and GM-CSF both hasten myeloid engraftment post-MA-alloSCT; however, GM-CSF is earlier acting and less expensive. The objective was to evaluate efficacy/safety of sequential administration of GM-CSF followed by G-CSF in children post-MA-alloSCT. From January 2001 to June 2005, 31 children received 32 MA-alloSCT: mean age 6.65 yr; MRD BM or PBSC vs. related or unrelated UCB 11:21; malignant vs. non-malignant disorders 22:10. GM-CSF (250 microg/m(2) IV QD) began on day of stem cell infusion. GM-CSF was switched to G-CSF (10 microg/kg IV QD) when WBC >or= 300/mm(3) x 2 days. G-CSF continued until ANC >or= 2500/mm(3) x 2 days, then tapered to maintain ANC >or= 1000/mm(3). Median time to myeloid engraftment (ANC >or= 500/mm(3) x 3 days) was 17 days [13 days vs. 24 days, MRD BM/PBSC vs. UCB (p < 0.0001)], occurring at a median time of two days after switch to G-CSF. Clinically relevant adverse events were bone pain (n = 8) and large pleural effusion (n = 1). It was estimated that sequential GM-CSF/G-CSF was cost-effective compared with G-CSF alone [cost-savings of $1311/patient ($41,952/study), 2007 Red Book Average Wholesale Price]. In summary, it was demonstrated that sequential administration of GM-CSF/G-CSF post-MA-alloSCT was safe, cost-effective and resulted in prompt myeloid engraftment.

Prophylactic antibiotics or G-CSF for the prevention of infections and improvement of survival in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia (FN) and other infectious complications are some of the most serious treatment-related toxicities of chemotherapy for cancer, with a mortality rate of 2% to 21%. The two main types of prophylactic regimens are granulocyte (G-CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factors (GM-CSF); and antibiotics, frequently quinolones or cotrimoxazole. Important current guidelines recommend the use of colony stimulating factors when the risk of febrile neutropenia is above 20% but they do not mention the use of antibiotics. However, both regimens have been shown to reduce the incidence of infections. Since no systematic review has compared the two regimens, a systematic review was undertaken.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of G-CSF or GM-CSF with antibiotics in cancer patients receiving myeloablative chemotherapy with respect to preventing fever, febrile neutropenia, infection, infection-related mortality, early mortality and improving quality of life.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, databases of ongoing trials, and conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology (1980 to 2007). We planned to include both full-text and abstract publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing prophylaxis with G-CSF or GM-CSF versus antibiotics in cancer patients of all ages receiving chemotherapy or bone marrow or stem cell transplantation were included for review. Both study arms had to receive identical chemotherapy regimes and other supportive care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial eligibility and quality assessment, data extraction and analysis were done in duplicate. Authors were contacted to obtain missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two eligible randomised controlled trials with 195 patients. Due to differences in the outcomes reported, the trials could not be pooled for meta-analysis. Both trials showed non-significant results favouring antibiotics for the prevention of fever or hospitalisation for febrile neutropenia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence for or against antibiotics compared to G(M)-CSFs for the prevention of infections in cancer patients.

GM-CSF inhibits glial scar formation and shows long-term protective effect after spinal cord injury

OBJECT

This study investigated the effects of granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) on the scar formation and repair of spinal cord tissues in rat spinal cord injury (SCI) model.

METHODS

Sprague-Dawley male rats (8 weeks old) were randomly divided into the sham-operated group, spinal cord injury group, and injury with GM-CSF treated group. A spinal cord injury was induced at T9/10 levels of rat spinal cord using a vascular clip. GM-CSF was administrated via intraperitoneal (IP) injection or on the dural surface using Gelfoam at the time of SCI. The morphological changes, tissue integrity, and scar formation were evaluated until 4 weeks after SCI using histological and immunohistochemical analyses.

RESULTS

The administration of GM-CSF either via IP injection or local treatment significantly reduced the cavity size and glial scar formation at 3-4 weeks after SCI. GM-CSF also reduced the expression of core proteins of chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans (CSPGs) such as neurocan and NG2 but not phosphacan. In particular, an intensive expression of glial fibriallary acidic protein (GFAP) and neurocan found around the cavity at 4 weeks was obviously suppressed by GM-CSF. Immunostaining for neurofilament (NF) and Luxol fast blue (LFB) showed that GM-CSF preserved well the axonal arrangement and myelin structure after SCI. The expression of GAP-43, a marker of regenerating axons, also apparently increased in the rostral grey matter by GM-CSF.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that GM-CSF could enhance long-term recovery from SCI by suppressing the glial scar formation and enhancing the integrity of axonal structure.

Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Prophylactic Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor and Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor After Autologous and Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation

Purpose

The primary objective of our meta-analysis was to determine whether prophylactic hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) after hematopoietic autologous and allogeneic stem-cell transplantation (SCT) reduced documented infections. Our secondary objectives were to determine whether prophylactic CSFs affected other outcomes including parenteral antibiotic therapy duration, infection-related mortality, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), or treatment-related mortality.

Methods

We included studies if there was random assignment between CSFs and placebo/no therapy and CSFs were given after SCT and before recovery of neutrophils. From 3,778 reviewed study articles, 34 were included based on predefined inclusion criteria. All analyses were conducted using a random effects model.

Results

CSFs reduced the risk of documented infections (relative risk [RR] 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.00; P = .05) and duration of parenteral antibiotics (weighted mean difference, −1.39 days, 95% CI, −2.56 to −0.22; P = .02) but did not reduce infection-related mortality (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.44; P = .4). CSFs did not increase grade 2 to 4 acute GVHD (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.31; P = .8) or treatment-related mortality (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.29; P = .98).

Conclusion

CSFs were associated with a small reduction in the risk of documented infections but did not affect infection or treatment-related mortality.

Granulocyte and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factors in allografts: Uses, misuses, misconceptions, and future applications

Despite more than 10 years experience using growth factors after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (ASCT), their state in this has not been elucidated. Most studies show that they accelerate myeloid recovery, regardless of whether they are instituted on day 0 or day 10 after transplant. However, this does not correlate with an improvement in the outcome. One disadvantage is that granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis is associated with slower platelet engraftment due to an increase in platelet aggregation. There is also no agreement as regards the value of G-CSF given as prophylaxis after ASCT, the effects on graft-vs-host disease (GVHD), and the survival rate. A large retrospective study from Europe showed that patients with acute leukemia who received bone marrow from HLA-identical siblings and were treated with G-CSF ran a higher risk of acute and chronic GVHD and transplant-related mortality, while the survival and the leukemia-free survival rates were reduced. In contrast, a meta-analysis of 18 small studies showed no evidence of an increase in acute and chronic GVHD, using G-CSF as prophylaxis after ASCT. Two studies from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research showed contradictory data. When G-CSF is given to the recipient as prophylaxis, the levels of soluble interleukin-2 receptor-alpha increase, which aggravates GVHD. When it is given to the donor, G-CSF polarizes T cells to produce T-helper cell-2 cytokines, which reduce GVHD after transplantation. G-CSF has no effect on relapse. Available findings suggest that there is no indication to use G-CSF as prophylaxis after ASCT.

Stem cell transplantation post invasive fungal infection is a feasible task

Between March 1997 and January 2002, 18 consecutive patients (18-47 years) with hematological malignancies and previous proven invasive fungal infection underwent stem cell transplantation (SCT) (10 matched sibling allograft, 6 autograft, and 2 haploidentical). All patients had full myeloablative conditioning. The fungal pathogens diagnosed were Aspergillus (14), Fusarium (2), Mucor (1), Exserohilum (1), and Candida (1), involving the lungs (15), sinuses (5), and liver (1). All patients were treated pre- and during transplant with systemic antifungal therapy. Eleven out of 18 (61%) patients survived the transplant. Only 1 of 5 patients who transplanted with an active fungal infection accompanied with active leukemia survived the transplant, compared with 10/13 (84%) survivals in patients who had no clinical and radiological signs of infection or active leukemia (P < 0.025). None of the autografted patients has died, compared with 7/12 allografted patients, of whom 5 underwent transplant with active hematological/active fungal disease. In only 3 patients was the cause of death reactivation of previous fungal infection. Both active fungal infection and active leukemia place patients at a very high risk for procedure-related mortality. Pre-transplant therapy of fungal infection, aiming to achieve a clinically undetectable state of infection, followed by an antifungal treatment during transplant may allow the SCT with no fungal reactivation in selected patients.

The effect of hematopoietic growth factors on the risk of graft-vs-host disease after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a meta-analysis

The effect of hematopoietic growth factors on neutrophil recovery after allogeneic transplantation is well-recognized. Recent laboratory studies demonstrated that these cytokines may also modify T-cell and dendritic cell function, but whether the effect is strong enough to alter the risk of GVHD is unclear. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the effect of G-CSF or GM-CSF on the risk of nonhematopoietic outcomes after allogeneic transplantation. A search of the literature from 1986 to present yielded 18 publications in which data were provided for cohorts receiving growth factor vs either placebo or no therapy. These included nine prospective randomized studies, eight retrospective cohort studies, and one case-control study comprising a total of 1198 patients. The publication types were heterogeneous with regard to demographic and treatment characteristics, although within publications, comparative groups were generally balanced. The pooled risk ratio estimates with use of growth factor was 1.08 (95% CI 0.87-1.33, P=0.48) for grades 2-4 acute GVHD, 1.22 (95% CI 0.80-1.86, P=0.99) for grades 3-4 acute GVHD, and 1.02 (95% CI 0.82-1.26, P=0.87) for chronic GVHD. This analysis did not detect a significant change in the risk of acute or chronic GVHD after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation when hematopoietic growth factors were used to shorten the initial period of neutropenia.

Clinical applications of hematopoietic growth factors in pediatric oncology

Myeloid growth factors are widely used in both pediatric and adult oncology. Although the literature supporting the use of growth factors in pediatric oncology is less extensive than the adult literature, some uses are clearly established. Both granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor shorten the duration of febrile neutropenia after myelosuppressive chemotherapy, effectively mobilize hematopoietic stem cells for transplantation, and enhance neutrophil engraftment after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Although some open-label, uncontrolled trials and retrospective analyses support growth factor use to ameliorate the number of infections, duration of hospitalizations, and duration of intravenous antibiotic use after myelosuppressive chemotherapy or to enhance dose intensity, randomized controlled trials supporting these practices are lacking.

Pediatric intestinal transplantation: the resected allograft

We reviewed the clinical and pathologic finding of 22 resected allografts from 19 of the 83 children who underwent a variety of small intestinal transplant procedures in the years 1990-2000 at the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh. Resections were compared with prior mucosal biopsies because resections allow for evaluation of the entire bowel thickness, including the feeding vessels, and obviate the problems of limited sampling. Partial resections that were done soon after the transplant, or soon after additional surgery, were for surgical problems such as leaks, adhesions, and volvulus. None had biopsy features suggestive of rejection or infection. Partial resections done late (6 months or more) after transplantation were more likely to be related to allograft immune biology; two had a sclerosing peritonitis that was confined to the allograft, and one had an obstructing carcinoma arising in the allograft mucosa. One patient had a localized stricture, demonstrated to be due to graft vascular disease at partial resection, and this patient went on to have the allograft removed a year later for chronic rejection. Early complete allograft enterectomies were for refractory acute cellular rejection, 1-2 months following transplant. One was removed for pancreatitis and liver failure from operative complications. Late allograft enterectomies were generally for chronic rejection, some with residual acute rejection, but there were also a number of patients who had multiple superimposed conditions such as cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus, and post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder in various combinations. One had idiopathic scarring and developed an adynamic bowel that remains unexplained. Examination of the resected specimens allows for dissection of the multiple contributions to graft failure, especially the vascular disease that can rarely be seen on mucosal biopsy. An unexpected finding was the impressive hypertrophy of neural elements, nerves, and ganglion cells in many of the patients, the significance of which requires further investigation.