Pharmacotherapy · 2000
Comparative safety of filgrastim versus sargramostim in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка 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.
Milkovich G, Moleski R J, Reitan J F, Dunning D M, Gibson G A, Paivanas T A, Wyant S, Jacobs R J
Аннотация
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare rates of adverse events with filgrastim versus sargramostim when given prophylactically to patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.
DESIGN: Retrospective review with center crossover.
SETTING: Ten United States outpatient chemotherapy centers.
PATIENTS: Four hundred ninety patients treated for lung, breast, lymphatic system, or ovarian tumors.
INTERVENTION: Prophylactic use of filgrastim or sargramostim, with dosages at investigator discretion.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The frequency and severity of adverse events and the frequency of switching to the alternative CSF were assessed. There was no difference in infectious fever. Fever unexplained by infection was more common with sargramostim (7% vs 1%, p<0.001), as were fatigue, diarrhea, injection site reactions, other dermatologic disorders, and edema (all p<0.05). Skeletal pain was more frequent with filgrastim (p=0.06). Patients treated with sargramostim switched to the alternative agent more often (p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: Adverse events were less frequent with filgrastim than with sargramostim, suggesting that quality of life and treatment costs also may differ.
DESIGN: Retrospective review with center crossover.
SETTING: Ten United States outpatient chemotherapy centers.
PATIENTS: Four hundred ninety patients treated for lung, breast, lymphatic system, or ovarian tumors.
INTERVENTION: Prophylactic use of filgrastim or sargramostim, with dosages at investigator discretion.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The frequency and severity of adverse events and the frequency of switching to the alternative CSF were assessed. There was no difference in infectious fever. Fever unexplained by infection was more common with sargramostim (7% vs 1%, p<0.001), as were fatigue, diarrhea, injection site reactions, other dermatologic disorders, and edema (all p<0.05). Skeletal pain was more frequent with filgrastim (p=0.06). Patients treated with sargramostim switched to the alternative agent more often (p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: Adverse events were less frequent with filgrastim than with sargramostim, suggesting that quality of life and treatment costs also may differ.