The pandemic of COVID-19 across the globe triggered national lockdowns hampering normal working for all the essential services including healthcare. In order to reduce transmission and safety of patients and healthcare workers, the elective surgeries have been differed. The visits to the hospitals for follow-ups and consultations received temporary halt. However, we cannot halt the treatment for cancer patients who may or may not be COVID-19 positives. These are emergencies and should be treated ASAP. Conducting emergency surgeries during pandemic like COVID-19 is challenge for surgeons and the entire hospital infrastructure. The available information about COVID-19 and its propensity of contamination through droplets and aerosol need some modifications for conducting surgeries successfully without contaminating the hospital buildings, protecting healthcare teams and the patient. With these objectives, some modifications in the operating theater including surgical techniques for minimal access, laparoscopy, and robotic surgery are proposed in this review article. This review article also discusses the safety measures to be followed for the suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patient and the guidelines and recommendations for healthcare teams while treating these patients. Although there is little evidence of viral transmission through laparoscopic or open approaches, modifications to surgical practice such as the use of safe smoke evacuation and minimizing energy device used to reduce the risk of exposure to aerosolized particles to healthcare team are proposed in this review article.
Introduction: Pegfilgrastim is indicated in patients receiving myelosuppressive anticancer drugs to reduce the Duration of Severe Neutropenia (DSN) and incidence of Febrile Neutropenia (FN). The efficacy and safety of a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar should be compared with an approved biologic drug to establish therapeutic equivalence. Aim: To compare the efficacy of Lupin’s biosimilar Pegfilgrastim versus Neulastim® (Amgen Inc.) as an adjunct to chemotherapy in patients with non-myeloid malignancies. Materials and Methods: The present prospective, open-label, randomised phase lll clinical study was conducted on a total of 170 patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed non-myeloid malignancies eligible to receive a myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimen. The participants were administered Lupin’s Pegfilgrastim (n=86) or Neulastim® (n=84) 6 mg by subcutaneous injection, once in each chemotherapy cycle for a maximum of three cycles. Patients were chemotherapy naive or had not received myelosuppressive chemotherapy within last 12 months of screening. The primary efficacy endpoint was DSN (number of days on which absolute neutrophil count <0.5×109 /L) in cycle 1 of chemotherapy. Equivalence was confirmed if 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were within the equivalence margin of ±1 day. Safety evaluation included assessment of Adverse Events (AEs), rate of discontinuation due to AEs, vital signs, and laboratory parameters. Statistical analysis were done using SAS Enterprise guide 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, 2000). Results: Of the 170 patients balanced for demographic characteristics, 161 patients completed cycle 1, 151 patients completed cycle 2, and 142 patients completed cycle 3. The mean±Standard Deviation (SD) DSN in cycle 1 was 0.127±0.5533 days with Pegfilgrastim (n=63) and 0.197±0.6615 days with Neulastim® (n=66) in the Per Protocol (PP) assessment; and 0.174±0.636 days with Pegfilgrastim and 0.193±0.671 days with Neulastim® in the modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT) assessment. The mean DSN between the groups did not differ significantly (PP: p=0.5167, mITT: p=0.8554). The 95% CI of difference in mean DSN in PP (-0.2796 to 0.1481) and mITT (-0.2103 to 0.1889) assessments was contained within the predefined equivalence margin of ±1 day. Secondary outcomes and safety profiles were also comparable between the two groups. Conclusion: The present study establishes Lupin’s Pegfilgrastim as a therapeutically equivalent biosimilar alternative to Neulastim® in patients with non-myeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy
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.