天津医药

天津医药 ›› 2026, Vol. 54 ›› Issue (10): 1099-1103.doi: 10.11958/20260134

• 药物临床观察 • 上一篇    下一篇

硫培非格司亭与艾贝格司亭α注射液对肿瘤化疗后中性粒细胞减少症的治疗效果评价

徐丹1(), 刘倩1, 汪丽钰2, 续广娟1, 丁信园1, 吴娟1,△()   

  1. 1 南京医科大学附属苏州医院/苏州市立医院药学部 （邮编 215001）
    2 南京医科大学附属苏州医院/苏州市立医院肿瘤内科 （邮编 215001）
  • 收稿日期:2026-01-09 修回日期:2026-05-22 出版日期:2026-10-15 发布日期:2026-10-10
  • 通讯作者: △E-mail：13656210930@139.com
  • 作者简介:徐丹（1989），女，主管药师，主要从事抗肿瘤药物合理使用方面研究。E-mail：1253377645@qq.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家卫生健康委医院管理研究所医院药学高质量发展研究项目(NIHAZX202430)

Evaluation of the therapeutic effect of mecapegfilgrastim and efbemalenograstim alfa injection in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia

XU Dan1(), LIU Qian1, WANG Liyu2, XU Guangjuan1, DING Xinyuan1, WU Juan1,△()   

  1. 1 Department of Pharmacy, the Affiliated Suzhou Hospital of Nanjing Medical University/Suzhou Municipal Hospital, Suzhou 215001, China
    2 Department of Medical Oncology, the Affiliated Suzhou Hospital of Nanjing Medical University/Suzhou Municipal Hospital, Suzhou 215001, China
  • Received:2026-01-09 Revised:2026-05-22 Published:2026-10-15 Online:2026-10-10
  • Contact: △E-mail：13656210930@139.com

RichHTML

3

PDF (PC)

30

摘要：

目的 比较硫培非格司亭与艾贝格司亭α注射液治疗肿瘤化疗后中性粒细胞减少症（CIN）的有效性、安全性及经济性，并结合化疗方案风险进行亚组分析，为临床合理用药提供循证依据。方法 回顾性纳入163例恶性肿瘤化疗后CIN患者，分为硫培非格司亭组（77例，硫培组）和艾贝格司亭α注射液组（86例，艾贝组），比较2组用药后不良反应、≥3级CIN和发热性中性粒细胞减少症（FN）发生率以及治疗费用。结果 安全性方面，硫培组不良事件总发生率和疲劳率显著低于艾贝组；有效性方面，艾贝组第1周期≥3级CIN发生率显著低于硫培组，但2组第2—4周期中≥3级CIN发生率及总体FN发生率差异无统计学意义；经济性方面，2组额外使用短效粒细胞集落刺激因子（G-CSF）与取血检测次数差异无统计学意义，但硫培组住院费用显著降低。按化疗方案风险分层分析显示，高风险组艾贝组更易出现疲劳，而硫培组住院费用均显著降低；高风险方案第1周期艾贝组疗效更优，第2—4周期中硫培组更优，而中风险方案2组疗效相当。结论 艾贝格司亭α注射液初始起效更快，但疲劳等不良反应较多；硫培非格司亭长期安全性更佳且住院成本更低。

关键词: 化疗致发热性中性粒细胞减少, 非格司亭, 硫培非格司亭, 艾贝格司亭α注射液

Abstract:

Objective To compare the efficacy, safety and pharmacoeconomics of mecapegfilgrastim and efbemalenograstim alfa in the management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) in cancer patients, and to perform a subgroup analysis stratified by chemotherapy regimen risk, thereby providing evidence-based support for rational clinical drug selection. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted, enrolling 163 patients with malignant tumors who developed CIN after chemotherapy. Patients were divided into the mecapegfilgrastim group (n=77) and the efbemalenograstim alfa injection group (n=86). The incidence of adverse reactions after medication, incidence of grade ≥3 CIN，febrile neutropenia (FN) and treatment costs were compared between the two groups. Results In terms of safety, the overall AE rate (particularly fatigue) in the mecapegfilgrastim group was significantly lower than that in the efbemalenograstim alfa group. For efficacy, the efbemalenograstim alfa group exhibited a significantly lower incidence of grade ≥3 CIN in the first chemotherapy cycle, but no significant differences were observed in FN incidence during cycles 2-4 or overall between the two groups. Pharmacoeconomic analysis revealed no significant differences in the number of additional short-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) injection or blood test frequency. However, the hospitalization costs were significantly reduced in the mecapegfilgrastim group. Subgroup analysis by chemotherapy regimen risk showed that fatigue was more prevalent in the efbemalenograstim alfa group in the high-risk regimen subgroup, while hospitalization costs were consistently lower in the mecapegfilgrastim group. For high-risk regimens, efbemalenograstim alfa demonstrated superior efficacy in the first cycle, whereas mecapegfilgrastim performed better in cycles 2-4. For medium-risk regimens, the efficacy of the two agents was comparable. Conclusion Efbemalenograstim alfa has a faster initial onset of action (especially in high-risk regimens), but it is associated with more adverse effects such as fatigue. Mecapegfilgrastim offers better long-term safety and lower hospitalization costs.

Key words: chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia, Filgrastim, Mecapegfilgrastim, Efbemalenograstim alfa

中图分类号: