Decitabine as epigenetic priming with CLAG induce improved outcome of relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia in children.

BACKGROUND: Decitabine (DAC), a DNA methyltransferase inhibitor, has shown efficacy combined with chemotherapy for relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in adults, but less is known about its efficacy in children. Accordingly, we conducted a study which involved a priming regimen consisting of DAC with cladribine, cytarabine, and granulocyte-stimulating factor (DAC-CLAG) and compared the efficacy and safety of this regimen with CLAG alone. METHODS: A total of 39 R/R AML children who received the CLAG or DAC-CLAG regimen in Shanghai Children's Hospital were retrospectively enrolled in this non-randomized study. These regimens were studied sequentially over time. Twenty-two patients received CLAG from 2015, while 17 patients were administered epigenetic priming with DAC before CLAG from 2020. Patients were subsequently bridged to stem cell transplantation (SCT) or consolidation chemotherapy. Complete remission (CR) and adverse effects were analyzed by Fisher's exact test, and survival was analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: DAC-CLAG conferred a numerically higher CR compared to CLAG (70.59% vs 63.64%; P = 0.740). High CR rates occurred in patients with good cytogenetics (P = 0.029) and prior induction without cladribine (P = 0.099). The 1-year event-free survival (EFS) was 64.71% ± 11.59% and 63.31% ± 10.35% in the DAC-CLAG and CLAG group (P = 0.595), and 1-year overall survival (OS) was 81.45% ± 9.72% and 77.01% ± 9.04%, respectively (P = 0.265). The 1-year OS and EFS after SCT were higher in the DAC-CLAG than in the CLAG cohort (100% vs 92.31% ± 7.39%, P = 0.072; 92.31% ± 7.39% vs 85.71% ± 9.35%, P = 0.158). Univariate analysis revealed that a good prognosis included good cytogenetics (P = 0.002), non-complex karyotype (P = 0.056), CR on reinduction (P < 0.0001), and bridging to SCT (P = 0.0007). Use of a hypomethylating agent (P = 0.049) and bridging to SCT (P = 0.011) were independent prognostic factors. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity and infection were the main adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: DAC prior to the CLAG regimen improved remission in pediatric R/R AML, and was feasible and well tolerated. CLAG ± DAC as a salvage therapy prior to SCT induced improved survival.

The value of G-CSF in women experienced at least one implantation failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: Despite the developments of in vitro fertilization (IVF) protocols, implantation failure remains a challenging problem, owing to the unbalance between the embryo, endometrium, and immune system interactions. Effective treatments are urgently required to improve successful implantation. Recently, many researchers have focused on granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to regulate immune response and embryo-endometrium cross-talk. However, previous studies have reported inconsistent findings on the efficacy of G-CSF therapy on implantation failure. The objective of this review was to further explore the effects of G-CSF according to administration dosage and timing among women who experienced at least one implantation failure. Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials of G-CSF on implantation failure up to July 21, 2023. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and the heterogeneity of the studies with the I2 index was analyzed. Results: We identified a total of 2031 studies and finally included 10 studies in the systematic review and meta-analysis. G-CSF administration improved the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), implantation rate (IR), biochemical pregnancy rate (BPR), and live birth rate (LBR) in women with at least one implantation failure. Subgroup analyses showed that G-CSF treatment could exert good advantages in improving CPR [OR=2.49, 95%CI (1.56, 3.98), I2 = 0%], IR [OR=2.82, 95%CI (1.29, 6.15)], BPR [OR=3.30, 95%CI (1.42, 7.67)] and LBR [OR=3.16, 95%CI (1.61, 6.22), I2 = 0%] compared with the blank control group. However, compared with placebo controls, G-CSF showed beneficial effects on CPR [OR=1.71, 95%CI (1.04, 2.84), I2 = 38%] and IR [OR=2.01, 95%CI (1.29, 3.15), I2 = 24%], but not on LBR. In addition, >150µg of G-CSF treatment increased CPR [OR=2.22, 95%CI (1.47, 3.35), I2 = 0%], IR [OR=2.67, 95%CI (1.47, 4.82), I2 = 0%] and BPR [OR=2.02, 95%CI (1.17, 3.47), I2 = 22%], while ≤150µg of G-CSF treatment improved miscarriage rate (MR) [OR=0.14, 95%CI (0.05, 0.38), I2 = 0%] and LBR [OR=2.65, 95%CI (1.56, 4.51), I2 = 0%]. Moreover, G-CSF administration on the day of embryo transfer (ET) could increase CPR [OR=2.81, 95%CI (1.37, 5.75), I2 = 0%], but not on the day of ovum pick-up (OPU) or human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) injection. Conclusion: G-CSF has a beneficial effect on pregnancy outcomes to some extent among women who experienced at least one implantation failure, and the administration dosage and timing influence the effect size.Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023447046.

Balancing Benefits and Risks: A Literature Review on Hypersensitivity Reactions to Human G-CSF (Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor).

Human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is a granulopoietic growth factor used in the treatment of neutropenia following chemotherapy, myeloablative treatment, or healthy donors preparing for allogeneic transplantation. Few hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) have been reported, and its true prevalence is unknown. We aimed to systematically characterize G-CSF-induced HRs while including a comprehensive list of adverse reactions. We reviewed articles published before January 2024 by searching in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases using a combination of the keywords listed, selected the ones needed, and extracted relevant data. The search resulted in 68 entries, 17 relevant to our study and 7 others found from manually searching bibliographic sources. A total of 40 cases of G-CSF-induced HR were described and classified as immediate (29) or delayed (11). Immediate ones were mostly caused by filgrastim (13 minimum), with at least 9 being grade 5 on the WAO anaphylaxis scale. Delayed reactions were mostly maculopapular exanthemas and allowed for the continuation of G-CSF. Reactions after first exposure frequently appeared and were present in at least 11 of the 40 cases. Only five desensitization protocols have been found concerning the topic at hand in the analyzed data. We believe this study brings to light the research interest in this topic that could benefit from further exploration, and propose regular updating to include the most recently published evidence.

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.

Immune effector cell-associated haematotoxicity after CAR T-cell therapy: from mechanism to management.

Genetically engineered chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells have become an effective treatment option for several advanced B-cell malignancies. Haematological side-effects, classified in 2023 as immune effector cell-associated haematotoxicity (ICAHT), are very common and can predispose for clinically relevant infections. As haematopoietic reconstitution after CAR T-cell therapy differs from chemotherapy-associated myelosuppression, a novel classification system for early and late ICAHT has been introduced. Furthermore, a risk stratification score named CAR-HEMATOTOX has been developed to identify candidates at high risk of ICAHT, thereby enabling risk-based interventional strategies. Therapeutically, growth factor support with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is the mainstay of treatment, with haematopoietic stem cell (HSC) boosts available for patients who are refractory to G-CSF (if available). Although the underlying pathophysiology remains poorly understood, translational studies from the past 3 years suggest that CAR T-cell-induced inflammation and baseline haematopoietic function are key contributors to prolonged cytopenia. In this Review, we provide an overview of the spectrum of haematological toxicities after CAR T-cell therapy and offer perspectives on future translational and clinical developments.

Leveraging G-CSF prescribing in the outpatient setting: considerations beyond clinical factors-a questionnaire study.

PURPOSE: This study aims to delineate G-CSF treatment practices, assess decision criteria, and measure their implementation in ambulatory settings for patients with breast (BC), lung (LC), or gastrointestinal cancers (GIC), beyond standard recommendations. METHODS: In this non-interventional, cross-sectional, multicenter study, clinical cases were presented using conversational interfaces (chatbots), simulating a conversation with one or more virtual interlocutors through voice or text exchange. The clinical simulations were configured by four parameters: types of cancer, risk of FN related to chemotherapy and comorbidities, access to care, and therapy setting (adjuvant/neoadjuvant/metastatic). RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 102 physicians. Most practitioners (84.5%) reported prescribing G-CSF, regardless of tumor type. G-CSF was prescribed more frequently for adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy than for metastatic cases. The type of chemotherapy was cited as the first reason for prescribing G-CSF, with access to care being the second. Regarding the type of chemotherapy, physicians do not consider this factor alone, but combined with comorbidities and age (56.7% of cases). Pegfilgrastim long-acting was prescribed in most cases of BC and LC (70.1% and 86%, respectively), while filgrastim short-acting was named in the majority of cases of GIC (61.7%); 76.3% of physicians prescribed G-CSF as primary prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that recommended practices are broadly followed. In the majority of cases, G-CSF is prescribed as primary prophylaxis. In addition, physicians seem more inclined to prescribe G-CSF to adjuvant/neoadjuvant patients rather than metastatic patients. Finally, the type of chemotherapy tends to be a more significant determining factor than the patient's background.

Uterine infusion strategies for infertile patients with recurrent implantation failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intra-uterine infusion treatments were reported to be beneficial to embryo implantation and pregnancy outcomes, and considered as potential therapies for infertile patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF). Nevertheless, their efficiencies were controversial and there lack of consensus on which intrauterine treatment is the most effective. METHODS: All prospective trials (in Chinese or English) were searched in Databases PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and CNKI from July 2013 to July 2023. We included studies that investigated various uterine infusions, including chorionic gonadotropin, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, monocytes, platelet-rich plasma, etc. during IVF treatment and reported subsequent pregnancy outcomes. RESULTS: We finally included 56 researches, including 40 randomized controlled trials, 14 non-randomized controlled trials, and 3 prospective cohort studies. This study included a total of 11 uterine perfusion methods: Placebo, Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG), Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (G-CSF), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cell (PBMC), Growth hormone (GH), dexamethasone (DEX), Embryo culture supernatant (ESC), PRP combined with G-CSF (PRP + G-CSF), RPR combined with subcutaneous injection of G-CSF (RPR + G-CSFsc), G-CSF combined with subcutaneous injection of AXaIU (G-CSF + AXaIUsc). Intrauterine infusion of HCG, PBMC, G-CSF, and PRP significantly improves pregnancy outcomes in patients with repeated implantation failure compared with blank controls or placebo, and PRP improved the clinical pregnancy and live birth most. GH and ESC infusion might improve the pregnancy outcomes, but uterine infusion of DEX was shown with high miscarriage. The combination therapy did not show a significant advantage over the mono-therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Intrauterine infusion of HCG, PBMC, G-CSF, and PRP are promising strategies for improving pregnancy outcomes for infertile patients with recurrent implantation failure. Among these treatments, PRP may be the best. More researches are required to explore the effect of drug combinations and less commonly used drugs as well. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Our study was registered in PROSPERO and the ID was CRD42023467188.

Comparison of two autologous hematopoietic stem cell mobilization strategies in patients with multiple myeloma: CE plus G-CSF versus G-CSF only: A single-center retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent advances in the treatment of multiple myeloma, high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) remains an essential therapeutic keystone. As for the stem cell mobilization procedure, different regimens have been established, usually consisting of a cycle of chemotherapy followed by application of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), although febrile neutropenia is a common complication. Following national guidelines, our institution decided to primarily use G-CSF only mobilization during the COVID-19 pandemic to minimize the patients' risk of infection and to reduce the burden on the health system. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In this retrospective single-center analysis, the efficacy and safety of G-CSF only mobilization was evaluated and compared to a historic control cohort undergoing chemotherapy-based mobilization by cyclophosphamide and etoposide (CE) plus G-CSF. RESULTS: Although G-CSF only was associated with a higher need for plerixafor administration (p < .0001) and a higher number of apheresis sessions per patient (p = .0002), we were able to collect the target dose of hematopoietic stem cells in the majority of our patients. CE mobilization achieved higher hematopoietic stem cell yields (p = .0015) and shorter apheresis sessions (p < .0001) yet was accompanied by an increased risk of febrile neutropenia (p < .0001). There was no difference in engraftment after ASCT. DISCUSSION: G-CSF only mobilization is a useful option in selected patients with comorbidities and an increased risk of serious infections, especially in the wintertime or in future pandemics.

Associations of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor with toxicities and efficacy of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Few studies have reported the associations of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) with cytokine release syndrome (CRS), neurotoxic events (NEs) and efficacy after chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). We present a retrospective study of 67 patients with R/R B-ALL who received anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, 41 (61.2%) patients received G-CSF (G-CSF group), while 26 (38.8%) did not (non-G-CSF group). Patients had similar duration of grade 3-4 neutropenia between the two groups. The incidences of CRS and NEs were higher in G-CSF group, while no differences in severity were found. Further stratified analysis showed that the incidence and severity of CRS were not associated with G-CSF administration in patients with low bone marrow (BM) tumor burden. None of the patients with low BM tumor burden developed NEs. However, there was a significant increase in the incidence of CRS after G-CSF administration in patients with high BM tumor burden. The duration of CRS in patients who used G-CSF was longer. There were no significant differences in response rates at 1 and 3 months after CAR T-cell infusion, as well as overall survival (OS) between the two groups. In conclusion, our results showed that G-CSF administration was not associated with the incidence or severity of CRS in patients with low BM tumor burden, but the incidence of CRS was higher after G-CSF administration in patients with high BM tumor burden. The duration of CRS was prolonged in G-CSF group. G-CSF administration was not associated with the efficacy of CAR T-cell therapy.

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.

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.

How to manage poor mobilisers.

Autologous hematopoietic progenitor cell transplantation (ASCT) has been used for more than five decades to treat malignant and non-malignant diseases. Successful engraftment after high-dose chemotherapy relies on the ability to collect sufficient CD34 + hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPCs), typically from peripheral blood after mobilization. Commonly, either granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) alone as a single agent (i.e. steady-state mobilization) or G-CSF after chemotherapy is administered to collect adequate numbers of HPCs (minimum ≥2 × 106 CD34 + cells/kg for one ASCT; optimal up to 5 × 106 CD34 + cells/kg). However, a significant proportion of patients fail successful HPC mobilization, which is commonly defined as a CD34+ cell count below 10-15/µL after at least 4 days of 10 µg/kg b.w. G-CSF alone, or after chemo-mobilization in combination with 5-10 µg/kg b.w. G-CSF. In these situations plerixafor, a chemokine receptor inhibitor (CXCR4) can be used to enhance HPC collection in patients with multiple myeloma and malignant lymphoma whose cells mobilize poorly. Risk factors for poor mobilization have been evaluated and several strategies (e.g. plerixafor to rescue the mobilization approach or pre-emptive use) have been suggested to optimize mobilization, especially in patients at risk. This manuscript discusses the risk factors of poor CD34+ mobilization and summarizes the current strategies to optimize mobilization and HPC collection.

Revolutionizing Stroke Recovery: Unveiling the Promise of Stem Cell Therapy.

Stem cells, renowned for their unique regenerative capabilities, present significant hope in treating stroke, a major cause of disability globally. This review offers a detailed analysis of stem cell applications in stroke (ischemic and hemorrhagic) recovery. It examines therapies based on autologous (patient-derived), allogeneic (donor-derived), and Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) based stem cells, focusing on cell types such as Mesenchymal Stem/Stromal Cells (MSCs), Bone Marrow Mononuclear Stem Cells (BMMSCs), and Neural Stem/Progenitor Cells (NSCs). The paper compiles clinical trial data to evaluate their effectiveness and safety and addresses the ethical concerns of these innovative treatments. By explaining the mechanisms of stem cell-induced neurological repair, this review underscores stem cells' potential in revolutionizing stroke rehabilitation and suggests avenues for future research.

A randomized trial of Bacteroides fragilis 839 on preventing chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression and gastrointestinal adverse effects in breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the potential benefits of Bacteroides fragilis 839 (BF839), a next-generation probiotics, in reducing myelosuppression and gastrointestinal toxicity associated with chemotherapy in breast cancer patient. METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN: 40 women with early breast cancer were randomly assigned to the BF839 (n=20) or placebo (n=20) during the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy (4 cycles of epirubicin 100mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 600mg/m2). Myelosuppression and gastrointestinal adverse effects were monitored in both groups. RESULTS: Throughout the four treatment cycles, the percentage of patients experiencing myelosuppression was 42.5% in the BF839 group, significantly lower than the 66.3% observed in the control group (p=0.003). Two patients in the BF839 group and three patients in the placebo group received recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) due to leuko-penia/neutropenia. When considering an ITT analysis, which included all patients regardless of rhG-CSF treatment, the BF839 group exhibited less reduction from baseline in white blood cells (-0.31±1.19 vs -1.15±0.77, p=0.012) and neutrophils (0.06±1.00 vs -0.84±0.85, p=0.004) compared to the placebo group. The difference became even more significant when excluding the patients who received rhG-CSF injections. Throughout the four treatment cycles, compared to the placebo group, the BF839 group had significantly lower rates of 3-4 grade nausea (35.0% vs 71.3%, p=0.001), vomiting (20.0% vs 45.0%, p=0.001), and diarrhea (15.0% vs 30.0%, p=0.023). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that BF839 has the potential to effectively mitigate myelosuppression and gastrointestinal toxicity associated with chemotherapy in breast cancer patients.

An updated systematic review of neuroprotective agents in the treatment of spinal cord injury.

This systematic review aims to summarize the findings from all clinical randomized trials assessing the efficacy of potential neuroprotective agents in influencing the outcomes of acute spinal cord injuries (SCI). Following the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted comprehensive searches in four electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) up to September 5th, 2023. Our analysis included a total of 30 studies. We examined the effects of 15 substances/drugs: methylprednisolone, tirilazad mesylate, erythropoietin, nimodipine, naloxone, Sygen, Rho protein antagonist, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, autologous macrophages, autologous bone marrow cells, vitamin D, progesterone, riluzole, minocycline, and blood alcohol concentration. Notable improvements in neurological outcomes were observed with progesterone plus vitamin D and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. In contrast, results for methylprednisolone, erythropoietin, Sygen, Rho Protein, and Riluzole were inconclusive, primarily due to insufficient sample size or outdated evidence. No significant differences were found in the remaining evaluated drugs. Progesterone plus vitamin D, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, methylprednisolone, Sygen, Rho Protein, and Riluzole may enhance neurological outcomes in acute SCI cases. It is worth noting that different endpoints or additional subgroup analyses may potentially alter the conclusions of individual trials. Therefore, certain SCI grades may benefit more from these treatments than others, while the overall results may remain inconclusive.

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.

Optimal timing of prophylactic pegylated G-CSF after chemotherapy administration for patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis from Clinical Practice Guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022.

INTRODUCTION: The timing of prophylactic pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration during cancer chemotherapy varies, with Day 2 and Days 3-5 being the most common schedules. Optimal timing remains uncertain, affecting efficacy and adverse events. This systematic review sought to evaluate the available evidence on the timing of prophylactic pegylated G-CSF administration. METHODS: Based on the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development, we searched the PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and Cochrane Library databases for literature published from January 1990 to December 2019. The inclusion criteria included studies among the adult population using pegfilgrastim. The search strategy focused on timing-related keywords. Two reviewers independently extracted and assessed the data. RESULTS: Among 300 initial search results, only four articles met the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis for febrile neutropenia incidence suggested a potential higher incidence when pegylated G-CSF was administered on Days 3-5 than on Day 2 (odds ratio: 1.27, 95% CI 0.66-2.46, p = 0.47), with a moderate certainty of evidence. No significant difference in overall survival or mortality due to infections was observed. The trend of severe adverse events was lower on Days 3-5, without statistical significance (odds ratio: 0.72, 95% CI 0.14-3.67, p = 0.69) and with a moderate certainty of evidence. Data on pain were inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: Both Day 2 and Days 3-5 were weakly recommended for pegylated G-CSF administration post-chemotherapy in patients with cancer. The limited evidence highlights the need for further research to refine recommendations.

Effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis of G-CSF during chemotherapy for prostate cancer, Japanese clinical guideline for appropriate use of G-CSF: clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel (DTX) is commonly used as a primary chemotherapy, and cabazitaxel (CBZ) has shown efficacy in patients who are DTX resistant. Primary prophylactic granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) therapy is currently used with CBZ treatment in routine clinical care in Japan. METHODS: In this study, we performed a systematic review following the Minds guidelines to investigate the effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF during chemotherapy for prostate cancer and to construct G-CSF guidelines for primary prophylaxis use during chemotherapy. A comprehensive literature search of various electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi) was performed on January 10, 2020, to identify studies published between January 1990 and December 31, 2019 that investigate the impact of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF during CBZ administration on clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Ultimately, nine articles were included in the qualitative systematic review. Primary G-CSF prophylaxis during CBZ administration for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer was difficult to assess in terms of correlation with overall survival, mortality from infection, and patients' quality of life. These difficulties were owing to the lack of randomized controlled trials comparing patients with and without primary prophylaxis of G-CSF during CBZ administration. However, some retrospective studies have suggested that it may reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia. CONCLUSION: G-CSF may be beneficial as primary prophylaxis during CBZ administration for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer, and we made a "weak recommendation to perform" with an annotation of the relevant regimen.

Reduced toxicity matched sibling bone marrow transplant results in excellent outcomes for severe congenital neutropenia.

Severe congenital neutropenia (SCN) is caused by germline mutations, most commonly in ELANE, impacting neutrophil maturation and leading to high risk of life-threatening infections. Most patients with ELANE-mutant SCN can achieve safe neutrophil counts with chronic Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factor (G-CSF). However, up to 10% of patients have neutropenia refractory to G-CSF and require allogeneic stem cell transplant. Traditional conditioning for these patients includes busulfan and cyclophosphamide which is associated with significant toxicities. We present five patients with SCN without myeloid malignancy transplanted using a reduced toxicity regimen of busulfan, fludarabine and thymoglobulin. 5 pediatric patients with SCN underwent matched sibling donor bone marrow transplant (MSD-BMT) between 2014-2022 on or per CHP14BT057 (NCT02928991), a prospective, single center trial testing elimination of cyclophosphamide from conditioning in pediatric patients with single lineage inherited BMF syndromes. All patients had MSDs and no evidence of MDS. Conditioning consisted of PK-adjusted busulfan, fludarabine, and thymoglobulin, with calcineurin inhibitor and mycophenolate mofetil GVHD prophylaxis. With median follow-up of 48.4 months, overall and event-free survival were 100%. There was no acute GVHD and one instance of chronic limited GVHD. Patients exhibited >95% donor myeloid chimerism at 5 years post-BMT. Two patients experienced CMV reactivation without end-organ disease, and no other viral reactivation or significant infections occurred. MSD-BMT with reduced toxicity myeloablation for SCN provides excellent outcomes while minimizing toxicity. These data suggest that busulfan, fludarabine, and ATG can be considered an efficacious, low-toxicity standard of care regimen for patients with SCN undergoing MSD-BMT.