Table 2 Response for efficacy (FN and SN) and tolerability (BP) in the pair-wise meta-analysis.

From: Efficacy and tolerability of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in cancer patients after chemotherapy: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

 

FN

SN

BP

Trial No.

Patients

Treatment (reponder/total)

OR [95% CI]

I2 (P value)

Trial No.

Patients

Treatment (reponder/total)

OR [95% CI]

I2 (P value)

Trial No.

Patients

Treatment (reponder/total)

OR [95% CI]

I2 (P value)

Filgrastim vs.

Pegfilgrastim

16

3399

184/1547 vs. 155/1852

1.46 [1.07, 1.99]

8%(0.36)

12

2860

782/1265 vs. 948/1595

1.07 [0.90, 1.27]

0%(1.00)

11

1843

137/829 vs. 127/1014

1.40 [0.81, 2.40]

46%(0.05)

L-G-CSF Biosimilar

2

115

5/59 vs. 7/56

0.66 [0.17, 2.56]

9%(0.30)

0

0

—

—

—

2

116

6/59 vs. 8/57

0.65 [0.18, 2.37]

—

S-G-CSF Biosimilar

6

1371

63/627 vs. 61/744

1.04[0.59, 1.84]

35%(0.18)

3

681

202/300 vs. 266/381

0.94 [0.63, 1.41]

31%(0.24)

3

607

16/203 vs. 54/404

0.54 [0.30, 0.99]

0%(0.81)

Empegfilgrastim

2

121

1/59 vs. 2/62

0.64 [0.08, 5.41]

0%(0.60)

2

120

46/58 vs. 44/62

1.52 [0.53, 4.35]

31%(0.23)

0

0

—

—

—

Leridistim

1

910

5/135 vs. 15/139

0.32 [0.11, 0.90]

—

1

274

98/135 vs. 105/139

0.86 [0.50, 1.47]

—

0

0

—

—

—

Placebo

16

2460

300/1300 vs. 434/1160

0.49 [0.38, 0.62]

32%(0.11)

8

1409

307/701 vs. 474/708

0.29 [0.22, 0.38]

0%(0.47)

10

1673

81/739 vs. 45/739

2.07 [1.08, 3.97]

36%(0.12)

Pegfilgrastim vs.

Balugrastim

3

517

8/260 vs. 7/257

1.07 [0.37, 3.12]

0%(0.63)

3

516

154/260 vs. 155/256

0.93 [0.62, 1.39]

14%(0.31)

3

598

30/262 vs. 43/336

0.87 [0.52, 1.46]

1%(0.36)

L-G-CSF Biosimilar

4

927

40/670 vs. 7/775

1.12 [0.71, 1.78]

0%(0.53)

1

227

35/65 vs. 95/162

0.82 [0.46, 1.47]

—

1

589

141/260 vs. 149/329

1.43 [1.03, 1.98]

—

Lipegfilgrastim

2

292

4/148 vs. 1/144

2.99 [0.46, 19.22]

0%(0.97)

2

292

77/148 vs. 60/144

1.52 [0.96, 2.41]

0%(0.49)

2

306

22/155 vs. 24/151

0.86 [0.46, 1.62]

0%(0.43)

Pegteograstim

1

115

9/59 vs. 11/56

0.74 [0.28, 1.94]

—

0

0

—

—

—

0

0

—

—

—

Placebo

7

3251

40/1627 vs. 269/1624

0.18 [0.06, 0.56]

89%(0.00)

6

2323

219/1164 vs. 620/1159

0.16 [0.06, 0.47]

91%(0.00)

6

3188

285/1595 vs. 197/1593

1.91 [1.27, 2.87]

56%(0.04)

Lenograstim vs.

Placebo

3

330

93/165 vs. 119/165

0.47 [0.29, 0.76]

0%(0.41)

1

164

43/82 vs. 60/80

0.37 [0.19, 0.72]

—

5

633

65/318 vs. 10/315

8.31 [4.11, 16.80]

0%(0.70)

Lipegfilgrastim vs.

Placebo

1

375

6/250vs. 7/125

0.41 [0.14, 1.26]

—

1

374

80/249vs. 74/125

0.33 [0.21, 0.51]

—

1

357

21/250 vs. 8/125

1.34 [0.58, 3.12]

—

Mecapegfilgrastim vs.

Placebo

1

139

0/93vs. 4/46

0.05 [0.00, 0.96]

—

1

139

8/93vs. 11/46

0.30 [0.11, 0.81]

—

1

139

4/93 vs. 1/46

2.02 [0.22, 18.63]

—

  1. Note: FN, febrile neutropenia; SN, severe neutropenia; BP, bone pain; OR, odds ratios; CI, confidence interval;
  2. OR with statistical significance are in bold.
Back to article page