Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2006
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.
СтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dekker Allison, Bulley Sean, Beyene Joseph, Dupuis L Lee, Doyle John J, Sung Lillian
Аннотация
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.
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.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Anti-Bacterial AgentsBacterial InfectionsCost-Benefit AnalysisDrug CostsEuropeGraft vs Host DiseaseGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorGranulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating FactorHumansLength of StayNeutropeniaOdds RatioPrimary PreventionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk AssessmentStem Cell TransplantationSurvival AnalysisTime FactorsTransplantation, AutologousTransplantation, HomologousTreatment OutcomeUnited KingdomUnited States