Abstract:

Objective To assess the effectiveness and safety of mecapegfilgrastimas（HHPG ⁃ 19K）in preventing neutropenia after chemotherapy in cancer patients systematically，aiming to provide evidence ⁃ based reference for clinical treatment. Methods The original research on mecapegfilgrastimas in the database from Cochrane Library，PubMed，EMBase，ClinicalTrials.gov，CBM，CNKI，VIP，Wanfang and ChiCTR was retrieved. The studies on mecapegfilgrastimas forprophylaxis of chemotherapy⁃induced neutropenia were collected. Literature screening and methodological quality assessment were completed by two reviewers independently. Meta ⁃ analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.3 software. Results Four RCTs were included，involving 671 patients whowere finally enrolled in this study.The Meta analysis revealedmecapegfilgrastimas significantly decreased the incidence of grade ≥ 4 neutropenia at cycle two（RR = 0.37，95%CI：0.21 ~ 0.65）and there was no significant differences at cycle one（RR = 0.56，95%CI：0.31 ~ 1.00）. There were no significant differences in the incidence rate of FN （RR = 0.42，95%CI：0.15 ~ 1.19）andbone pain（RR = 1.10，95%CI：0.48 ~ 2.51）between mecapegfilgrastimas group and the control group. The descriptive analysis showed that mecapegfilgrastimas markedly shortenedin the mean duration of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia at cycle one（P < 0.000 1）as compared with placebo. The efficacy of mecapegfilgrastim was equivalent to that of rhG⁃CSF. Conclusions Mecapegfilgrastim is superior to placebo in preventing chemotherapy⁃induced neutropenia. The efficacy of mecapegfilgrastim is better than that of rhG⁃CSF in prevention of the incidence of grade ≥ 4 neutropenia atchemotherapy cycletwo.Mecapegfilgrastim has the similar efficacy torhG ⁃CSF in prophylaxis ofthe incidence of grade ≥ 4 neutropenia at cycle one or theoccurrence of FN. The safety of mecapegfilgrastim is similar to that of rhG⁃CSF.

Key words: