-
Frontiers in Immunology 2024According to the PRISMA criteria, a systematic review has been conducted to investigate the clinical relevance between patients with severe congenital neutropenia (SCN)...
INTRODUCTION
According to the PRISMA criteria, a systematic review has been conducted to investigate the clinical relevance between patients with severe congenital neutropenia (SCN) and cyclic congenital neutropenia (CyN) induced by ELANE mutations.
METHODS
We have searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, CNKI, Wanfang Medicine, and VIP for ELANE mutation related literature published from 1997 to 2022. Using Microsoft Excel collect and organize data, SPSS 25, GraphPad Prism 8.0.1, and Omap analyze and plot statistical. Compare the gender, age, geography, mutation sites, infection characteristics, treatment, and other factors of SCN and CyN patients induced by ELANE mutations, with a focus on exploring the relationship between genotype and clinical characteristics, genotype and prognosis.
RESULTS
This study has included a total of 467 patients with SCN and 90 patients with CyN. The onset age of SCN and CyN are both less than 1 year old, and the onset and diagnosis age of SCN are both younger than CyN. The mutation of ELANE gene is mainly missense mutation, and hot spot mutations include S126L, P139L, G214R, c.597+1G>A. The high-frequency mutations with severe outcomes are A57V, L121H, L121P, c.597+1G>A, c.597+1G>T, S126L, C151Y, C151S, G214R, C223X. Respiratory tract, skin and mucosa are the most common infection sites, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli are the most common.
DISCUSSION
Patients with refractory G-CSF are more likely to develop severe outcomes. The commonly used pre-treatment schemes for transplantation are Bu-Cy-ATG and Flu-Bu-ATG. The prognosis of transplantation is mostly good, but the risk of GVHD is high.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/. PROSPERO, identifier CRD42023434656.
Topics: Humans; Neutropenia; Mutation; Congenital Bone Marrow Failure Syndromes; Prognosis; Male; Female; Clinical Relevance
PubMed: 38840904
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1349919 -
International Journal of Clinical... Jun 2024Febrile neutropenia represents a critical oncologic emergency, and its management is pivotal in cancer therapy. In several guidelines, the use of granulocyte...
Therapeutic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients with febrile neutropenia: a comprehensive systematic review for clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022 from the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.
BACKGROUND
Febrile neutropenia represents a critical oncologic emergency, and its management is pivotal in cancer therapy. In several guidelines, the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia is not routinely recommended except in high-risk cases. The Japan Society of Clinical Oncology has updated its clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF, incorporating a systematic review to address this clinical question.
METHODS
The systematic review was conducted by performing a comprehensive literature search across PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web, focusing on publications from January 1990 to December 2019. Selected studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, and cohort and case-control studies. Evaluated outcomes included overall survival, infection-related mortality, hospitalization duration, quality of life, and pain.
RESULTS
The initial search yielded 332 records. Following two rounds of screening, two records were selected for both qualitative and quantitative synthesis including meta-analysis. Regarding infection-related mortality, the event to case ratio was 5:134 (3.73%) in the G-CSF group versus 6:129 (4.65%) in the non-G-CSF group, resulting in a relative risk of 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-2.58; p = 0.54), which was not statistically significant. Only median values for hospitalization duration were available from the two RCTs, precluding a meta-analysis. For overall survival, quality of life, and pain, no suitable studies were found for analysis, rendering their assessment unfeasible.
CONCLUSION
A weak recommendation is made that G-CSF treatment not be administered to patients with febrile neutropenia during cancer chemotherapy. G-CSF treatment can be considered for patients at high risk.
Topics: Humans; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Febrile Neutropenia; Neoplasms; Japan; Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia; Medical Oncology; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 38696053
DOI: 10.1007/s10147-024-02541-z -
International Journal of Clinical... Jun 2024Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is widely used for the primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia (FN). Two types of G-CSF are available in Japan, namely... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
Comparison between a single dose of PEG G-CSF and multiple doses of non-PEG G-CSF: a systematic review and meta-analysis from Clinical Practice Guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022.
BACKGROUD
Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is widely used for the primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia (FN). Two types of G-CSF are available in Japan, namely G-CSF chemically bound to polyethylene glycol (PEG G-CSF), which provides long-lasting effects with a single dose, and non-polyethylene glycol-bound G-CSF (non-PEG G-CSF), which must be sequentially administrated for several days.
METHODS
This current study investigated the utility of these treatments for the primary prophylaxis of FN through a systematic review of the literature. A detailed literature search for related studies was performed using PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and the Cochrane Library. Data were independently extracted and assessed by two reviewers. A qualitative analysis or meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate six outcomes.
RESULTS
Through the first and second screenings, 23 and 18 articles were extracted for qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis, respectively. The incidence of FN was significantly lower in the PEG G-CSF group than in the non-PEG G-CSF group with a strong quality/certainty of evidence. The differences in other outcomes, such as overall survival, infection-related mortality, the duration of neutropenia (less than 500/μL), quality of life, and pain, were not apparent.
CONCLUSIONS
A single dose of PEG G-CSF is strongly recommended over multiple-dose non-PEG G-CSF therapy for the primary prophylaxis of FN.
Topics: Humans; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Polyethylene Glycols; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Febrile Neutropenia; Recombinant Proteins
PubMed: 38649648
DOI: 10.1007/s10147-024-02504-4 -
Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism &... May 2024Antiseizure medication (ASM) add-on to clozapine may be efficient to target clozapine-resistant mood or psychotic symptoms or clozapine-related adverse drug reactions...
INTRODUCTION
Antiseizure medication (ASM) add-on to clozapine may be efficient to target clozapine-resistant mood or psychotic symptoms or clozapine-related adverse drug reactions (ADR) such as seizures. We aimed to synthesize the information relevant for clinical practice on the risks and benefits of clozapine-ASM co-prescription.
AREAS COVERED
Articles were identified with MEDLINE, Web of Sciences and PsycINFO search from inception through October 2023. The review was restricted to ASM with mood-stabilizing properties or with potential efficacy for resistant psychotic symptoms (valproate (VPA), lamotrigine, topiramate, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine).
EXPERT OPINION
VPA add-on to clozapine is associated with a high risk of serious ADR (myocarditis, neutropenia, pneumonia) mostly explained by complex time-dependent drug-drug interactions. The initial inhibitory effects on clozapine metabolism require slow titration to avoid immuno-allergic reactions. After the titration period, VPA has mainly inductive effects on clozapine metabolism that are more marked in smokers requiring therapeutic drug monitoring. Lamotrigine and topiramate add-on may be recommended as the first-line treatment for clozapine-related seizures, but there is limited evidence regarding the efficacy of this strategy for clozapine-resistant psychotic symptoms. Carbamazepine should not be co-prescribed with clozapine because of its potential for agranulocytosis and for inducing clozapine metabolism.
Topics: Humans; Anticonvulsants; Antipsychotic Agents; Clozapine; Drug Interactions; Drug Monitoring; Drug Therapy, Combination; Psychotic Disorders; Seizures
PubMed: 38613254
DOI: 10.1080/17425255.2024.2343020 -
Mycoses Apr 2024Two approaches are used to manage invasive fungal disease (IFD) in febrile neutropenic patients viz. empirical therapy (without attempting to confirm the diagnosis), or...
BACKGROUND
Two approaches are used to manage invasive fungal disease (IFD) in febrile neutropenic patients viz. empirical therapy (without attempting to confirm the diagnosis), or pre-emptive therapy (after screening tests for IFD).
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review was undertaken to compare these approaches in children.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, Clinical Trial Registries and grey literature, for randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing empirical versus pre-emptive antifungal therapy in children with FN suspected to have IFD. We used the Cochrane Risk of bias 2 tool for quality assessment, and evaluated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
We identified 7989 citations. Stepwise screening identified only one relevant RCT that administered empirical (n = 73) or pre-emptive (n = 76) antifungal therapy. There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality (RR 1.56, 95% CI: 0.46, 5.31), IFD mortality (RR 1.04, 95% CI:0.15, 7.20) and other clinically important outcomes such as duration of fever, duration of hospitalization and proportion requiring ICU admission. There were no safety data reported. The number of days of antifungal therapy was significantly lower in the pre-emptive therapy arm. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes was 'moderate'.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review highlighted the paucity of data, comparing empirical versus pre-emptive antifungal therapy in children with febrile neutropenia having suspected invasive fungal disease. Data from a single included trial suggests that both approaches may be comparable in research settings. Robust trials are warranted to address the gap in existing knowledge about the optimal approach in clinical practice.
Topics: Child; Humans; Antifungal Agents; Febrile Neutropenia; Hospitalization; Invasive Fungal Infections
PubMed: 38606896
DOI: 10.1111/myc.13722 -
International Journal of Clinical... Jun 2024Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reportedly reduces the risk of neutropenia and subsequent infections caused by cancer chemotherapy. Although several...
Effectiveness of G-CSF in chemotherapy for digestive system tumors: a systematic review of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 delineated by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.
BACKGROUND
Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reportedly reduces the risk of neutropenia and subsequent infections caused by cancer chemotherapy. Although several guidelines recommend using G-CSF in primary prophylaxis according to the incidence rate of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN), the effectiveness of G-CSF in digestive system tumor chemotherapy remains unclear. To address these clinical questions, we conducted a systematic review as part of revising the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 published by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.
METHODS
This systematic review addressed two main clinical questions (CQ): CQ1: "Is primary prophylaxis with G-CSF effective in chemotherapy?", and CQ2: "Is increasing the intensity of chemotherapy with G-CSF effective?" We reviewed different types of digestive system tumors, including esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, biliary tract, colorectal, and neuroendocrine carcinomas. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web databases were searched for information sources. Independent systematic reviewers conducted two rounds of screening and selected relevant records for each CQ. Finally, the working group members synthesized the strength of evidence and recommendations.
RESULTS
After two rounds of screening, 5/0/3/0/2/0 records were extracted for CQ1 of esophageal/gastric/pancreatic/biliary tract/colorectal/ and neuroendocrine carcinoma, respectively. Additionally, a total of 2/6/1 records were extracted for CQ2 of esophageal/pancreatic/colorectal cancer, respectively. The strength of evidence and recommendations were evaluated for CQ1 of colorectal cancer; however, we could not synthesize recommendations for other CQs owing to the lack of records.
CONCLUSION
The use of G-CSF for primary prophylaxis in chemotherapy for colorectal cancer is inappropriate.
Topics: Humans; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Digestive System Neoplasms; Japan; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Medical Oncology; Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia; Antineoplastic Agents
PubMed: 38578596
DOI: 10.1007/s10147-024-02502-6 -
International Journal of Clinical... May 2024Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) decreases the incidence, duration, and severity of febrile neutropenia (FN); however, dose reduction or withdrawal is often... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor during dose-dense chemotherapy for urothelial cancer: Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022.
Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) decreases the incidence, duration, and severity of febrile neutropenia (FN); however, dose reduction or withdrawal is often preferred in the management of adverse events in the treatment of urothelial cancer. It is also important to maintain therapeutic intensity in order to control disease progression and thereby relieve symptoms, such as hematuria, infection, bleeding, and pain, as well as to prolong the survival. In this clinical question, we compared treatment with primary prophylactic administration of G-CSF to maintain therapeutic intensity with conventional standard therapy without G-CSF and examined the benefits and risks as major outcomes. A detailed literature search for relevant studies was performed using PubMed, Ichu-shi Web, and Cochrane Library. Data were extracted and evaluated independently by two reviewers. A qualitative analysis of the pooled data was performed, and the risk ratios with corresponding confidence intervals were calculated and summarized in a meta-analysis. Seven studies were included in the qualitative analysis, two of which were reviewed in the meta-analysis of dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (MVAC) therapy, and one randomized controlled study showed a reduction in the incidence of FN. Primary prophylactic administration of G-CSF may be beneficial, as shown in a randomized controlled study of dose-dense MVAC therapy. However, there are no studies on other regimens, and we made a "weak recommendation to perform" with an annotation of the relevant regimen (dose-dense MVAC).
Topics: Humans; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Cisplatin; Doxorubicin; Febrile Neutropenia; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Methotrexate; Urologic Neoplasms; Vinblastine
PubMed: 38517658
DOI: 10.1007/s10147-024-02491-6 -
International Journal of Clinical... May 2024Although granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the incidence, duration, and severity of neutropenia, its prophylactic use for acute myeloid leukemia... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF after induction therapy for acute myeloid leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022 from the Japan society of clinical oncology.
Although granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the incidence, duration, and severity of neutropenia, its prophylactic use for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains controversial due to a theoretically increased risk of relapse. The present study investigated the effects of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis for AML with remission induction therapy. A detailed literature search for related studies was performed using PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and the Cochrane Library. Data were independently extracted and assessed by two reviewers. A qualitative analysis of pooled data was conducted, and the risk ratio with corresponding confidence intervals was calculated in the meta-analysis and summarized. Sixteen studies were included in the qualitative analysis, nine of which were examined in the meta-analysis. Although G-CSF significantly shortened the duration of neutropenia, primary prophylaxis with G-CSF did not correlate with infection-related mortality. Moreover, primary prophylaxis with G-CSF did not affect disease progression/recurrence, overall survival, or adverse events, such as musculoskeletal pain. However, evidence to support or discourage the use of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis for adult AML patients with induction therapy remains limited. Therefore, the use of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis can be considered for adult AML patients with remission induction therapy who are at a high risk of infectious complications.
Topics: Humans; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Remission Induction; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Induction Chemotherapy; Japan; Neutropenia
PubMed: 38494578
DOI: 10.1007/s10147-023-02465-0 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2024Bispecific antibody (BsAbs) therapy represents a promising immunotherapeutic approach with manageable toxicity and noteworthy preliminary efficacy in treating patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Bispecific antibody (BsAbs) therapy represents a promising immunotherapeutic approach with manageable toxicity and noteworthy preliminary efficacy in treating patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-targeted BsAbs and non-BCMA-targeted BsAbs in the treatment of RRMM patients.
METHODS
PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and meeting libraries were searched from inception to August 16th, 2023. The efficacy evaluation included the complete objective response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, stringent CR (sCR) rate, partial response (PR) rate, and very good PR (VGPR) rate. The efficacy evaluation included any grade adverse events (AEs) and grade ≥ 3 AEs.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies with a total of 1473 RRMM patients were included. The pooled ORR of the entire cohort was 61%. The non-BCMA-targeted BsAbs group displayed a higher ORR than the BCMA-targeted BsAbs group (74% . 54%, < 0.01). In terms of hematological AEs, BCMA-targeted BsAbs therapy exhibited higher risks of neutropenia (any grade: 48% . 18%, < 0.01; grade ≥ 3: 43% . 15%, < 0.01) and lymphopenia (any grade: 37% . 8%, < 0.01; grade ≥ 3: 31% . 8%, = 0.07). Regarding non-hematological AEs, there were no significant differences in the risks of cytokine release syndrome (CRS, any grade: 64% . 66%, = 0.84; grade ≥ 3: 1% . 1%, = 0.36) and infections (any grade: 47% . 49%, = 0.86; grade ≥ 3: 24% . 20%, = 0.06) between the two groups. However, non-BCMA-targeted BsAbs therapy was associated with a higher risk of immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS, any grade: 11% . 2%, < 0.01) and lower risks of fatigue (any grade: 14% . 30%, < 0.01) and pyrexia (any grade: 14% . 29%, < 0.01).
CONCLUSION
This analysis suggest that non-BCMA-targeted BsAbs therapy may offer a more favorable treatment response and tolerability, while BCMA-targeted BsAbs therapy may be associated with diminished neurotoxic effects.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42018090768.
Topics: Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Antibodies, Bispecific; B-Cell Maturation Antigen; Prospective Studies; Neurotoxicity Syndromes; Neutropenia
PubMed: 38482019
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1348955 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Feb 2024This meta-analysis focused on systematically assessing the clinical value of mNGS for infection in hematology patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
This meta-analysis focused on systematically assessing the clinical value of mNGS for infection in hematology patients.
METHODS
We searched for studies that assessed the clinical value of mNGS for infection in hematology patients published in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CNKI from inception to August 30, 2023. We compared the detection positive rate of pathogen for mNGS and conventional microbiological tests (CMTs). The diagnostic metrics, antibiotic adjustment rate and treatment effective rate were combined.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies with 2325 patients were included. The positive rate of mNGS was higher than that of CMT (blood: 71.64% vs. 24.82%, P < 0.001; BALF: 89.86% vs. 20.78%, P < 0.001; mixed specimens: 82.02% vs. 28.12%, P < 0.001). The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 87% (95%CI: 81-91%) and 59% (95%CI: 43-72%), respectively. The reference standard/neutropenia and research type/reference standard may be sources of heterogeneity in sensitivity and specificity, respectively. The pooled antibiotic adjustment rate according to mNGS was 49.6% (95% CI: 41.8-57.4%), and the pooled effective rate was 80.9% (95% CI: 62.4-99.3%).
CONCLUSION
mNGS has high positive detection rates in hematology patients. mNGS can guide clinical antibiotic adjustments and improve prognosis, especially in China.
Topics: Humans; High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing; Neutropenia; Anti-Bacterial Agents; China; Hematology; Sensitivity and Specificity; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 38326763
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-024-09073-x