There are few randomized trials comparing filgrastim and pegfilgrastim in peripheral blood stem cell mobilization (PBSCM). None of the trials studied the effects of the timing of pegfilgrastim administration on the outcomes of mobilization. We conducted a randomized triple blind control trial comparing the outcomes of filgrastim 5 µg/kg daily from day 3 onwards, 'early' pegfilgrastim 6 mg on day 3 and 'delayed' pegfilgrastim 6 mg on day 7 in cyclophosphamide PBSCM in patients with no previous history of mobilization. Peripheral blood (PB) CD34+ cell count was checked on day 8 and day 11 onward. Apheresis was started when PB CD34+ ≥ 10/µl from day 11 onward. The primary outcome was the successful mobilization rate, defined as cumulative collection of ≥ 2 × 10(6)/kg CD34+ cells in three or less apheresis. The secondary outcomes were the day of neutrophil and platelet engraftment post transplantation. There were 156 patients randomized and 134 patients' data analyzed. Pegfilgrastim 6 mg day 7 produced highest percentage of successful mobilization, 34 out of 48 (70.8%) analyzed patients, followed by daily filgrastim, 28 out of 44 (63.6%) and day 3 pegfilgrastim, 20 out of 42 (47.6%) (p = 0.075). Pegfilgrastim day 7 and daily filgrastim reported 1.48 (p = 0.014) and 1.49 (p = 0.013) times higher successful mobilization rate respectively as compared to pegfilgrastim day 3 after adjusting for disease, gender and exposure to myelotoxic agent. Multiple myeloma patients were three times more likely to achieve successful mobilization as compared to acute leukemia or lymphoma patients. Pegfilgrastim avoided the overshoot of white cells compared to filgrastim. There was no difference in the duration of both white cells and platelet recovery post transplantation between the three interventional arms.
Background The Spanish chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) guideline phenotypes patients according to the exacerbation frequency and COPD subtypes. In this study, we compared the patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL) according to their COPD phenotypes. Methods This was a cross-sectional study of COPD patients who attended the outpatient clinic of the Serian Divisional Hospital and Bau District Hospital from 23th January 2018 to 22th January 2019. The HRQoL was assessed using modified Medical Research Council (mMRC), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD (SGRQ-c). Results Of 185 patients, 108 (58.4%) were non-exacerbators (NON-AE), 51 (27.6%) were frequent exacerbators (AE), and the remaining 26 (14.1%) had asthma-COPD overlap (ACO). Of AE patients, 42 (82.4%) had chronic bronchitis and only 9 (17.6%) had emphysema. Of the 185 COPD patients, 65.9% had exposure to biomass fuel and 69.1% were ex- or current smokers. The scores of mMRC, CAT, and SGRQ-c were significantly different between COPD phenotypes (p < 0.001). There were significantly more patients with mMRC 2–4 among AE (68.6%) (p < 0.001), compared to those with ACO (38.5%) and NON-AE (16.7%). AE patients had significantly higher total CAT (p = 0.003; p < 0.001) and SGRQ-c (both p < 0.001) scores than those with ACO and NON-AE. Patients with ACO had significantly higher total CAT and SGRQ-c (both p < 0.001) scores than those with NON-AE. AE patients had significantly higher score in each item of CAT and component of SGRQ-c compared to those with NON-AE (all p < 0.001), and ACO [(p = 0.003–0.016; p = < 0.001–0.005) except CAT 1, 2 and 7. ACO patients had significantly higher score in each item of CAT and component of SGRQ-c (p = < 0.001–0.040; p < 0.001) except CAT 2 and activity components of SGRQ-c. Conclusions The HRQoL of COPD patients was significantly different across different COPD phenotypes. HRQoL was worst in AE, followed by ACO and NON-AE. This study supports phenotyping COPD patients based on their exacerbation frequency and COPD subtypes. The treatment of COPD should be personalised according to these two factors.
Background:The Spanish chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) guideline phenotypes patients according to the exacerbation frequency and COPD subtypes. In this study, we compared the patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL) according to their COPD phenotypes.Methods:This was a cross-sectional study of COPD patients who attended the outpatient clinic of the Serian Divisional Hospital and Bau District Hospital from 23th January 2018 to 22th January 2019. The HRQoL was assessed using modified Medical Research Council (mMRC), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD (SGRQ-c). Results:Of 185 patients, 108 (58.4%) were non-exacerbators (NON-AE), 51 (27.6%) were frequent exacerbators (AE), and the remaining 26 (14.1%) had asthma-COPD overlap (ACO). Of AE patients, 42 (82.4%) had chronic bronchitis and only 9 (17.6%) had emphysema. Of the COPD patients, 65.9% had exposure to biomass fuel and 69.1% were ex- or current smokers. The scores of mMRC, CAT, and SGRQ-c were significantly different between COPD phenotypes (p < 0.001). There were significantly more patients with mMRC 2 – 4 among AE (68.6%) (p < 0.001), compared to those with ACO (38.5%) and NON-AE (16.7%). AE patients had significantly higher total CAT (p = 0.003; p < 0.001) and SGRQ-c (both p < 0.001) scores than those with ACO and NON-AE. Patients with ACO also had significantly higher total CAT and SGRQ-c (both p < 0.001) scores than those with NON-AE. AE patients had significantly higher score in each item of CAT and component of SGRQ-c compared to those with NON-AE (all p < 0.001), and ACO [(p = 0.003 – 0.016; p = < 0.001 – 0.005) except CAT 1, 2 and 7. ACO patients had significantly higher score in each item of CAT and component of SGRQ-c (p = < 0.001 – 0.040; p < 0.001) except CAT 2 and activity components of SGRQ-c.Conclusions:The HRQoL of COPD patients was significantly different across COPD phenotypes. HRQoL was worst in AE, followed by ACO and NON-AE. This study supports phenotyping COPD patients based on their exacerbation frequency and COPD subtypes. The treatment of COPD should be personalised according to these two factors.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.