Table 5.1GRADE profile: Is primary prophylaxis with G(M)-CSF (with or without antibiotics) more effective than no primary prophylaxis with G(M)-CSF (with or without antibiotics) at improving outcomes in patients at risk of neutropenic sepsis

Quality assessmentNo of patientsEffectQuality
No of studiesDesignRisk of biasInconsistencyIndirectnessImprecisionOther considerationsG(M)-CSFNo G(M)-CSFRelative
(95% CI)
Absolute
Mortality
80randomised trialsno serious risk of bias1no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessno serious imprecisionNone465/6146
(7.6%)
472/5913
(8%)
RR 0.95 (0.84 to 1.08)4 fewer per 1000 (from 13 fewer to 6 more)HIGH
Mortality (paediatric patients)
7randomised trialsserious2no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious3None6/301
(2%)
4/303
(1.3%)
RR 1.46 (0.42 to 5.11)6 more per 1000 (from 8 fewer to 54 more)VERY LOW
Mortality (adult patients)
34randomised trialsserious4no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious5None105/1986
(5.3%)
117/1780
(6.6%)
RR 0.85 (0.66 to 1.11)10 fewer per 1000 (from 22 fewer to 7 more)LOW
Mortality (elderly patients)
8randomised trialsno serious risk of bias1no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessno serious imprecisionNone311/3778
(8.2%)
317/3586
(8.8%)
RR 1.04 (0.87 to 1.24)4 more per 1000 (from 11 fewer to 21 more)HIGH
Mortality (prophylactic antibiotics used)
15randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious5None51/1045
(4.9%)
59/1056
(5.6%)
RR 0.92 (0.64 to 1.32)4 fewer per 1000 (from 20 fewer to 18 more)MODERATE
Mortality (prophylactic antibiotics not mandated)
66randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessno serious imprecisionnone414/5101
(8.1%)
413/4857
(8.5%)
RR 0.96 (0.84 to 1.09)3 fewer per 1000 (from 14 fewer to 8 more)HIGH
Mortality (leukaemia studies)
30randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessno serious imprecision5None263/2725
(9.7%)
277/2597
(10.7%)
RR 0.95 (0.81 to 1.12)5 fewer per 1000 (from 20 fewer to 13 more)HIGH
Mortality (lymphoma or solid tumour studies)
27randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious5None109/2204
(4.9%)
113/2155
(5.2%)
RR 0.91 (0.64 to 1.28)5 fewer per 1000 (from 19 fewer to 15 more)MODERATE
Mortality (stem cell transplant studies)
21randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious5None93/1098
(8.5%)
79/1044
(7.6%)
RR 1.02 (0.77 to 1.34)2 more per 1000 (from 17 fewer to 26 more)MODERATE
Mortality (G-CSF studies)
46randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessno serious imprecisionNone267/3726
(7.2%)
265/3531
(7.5%)
RR 0.98 (0.83 to 1.15)2 fewer per 1000 (from 13 fewer to 11 more)HIGH
Mortality (GM-CSF studies)
34randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessno serious imprecisionNone193/1957
(9.9%)
193/1917
(10.1%)
RR 0.95 (0.84 to 1.08)5 fewer per 1000 (from 16 fewer to 8 more)HIGH
Infection related mortality
67randomised trialsno serious risk of bias1,6no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious5,7none150/4901
(3.1%)
179/4673
(3.8%)
RR 0.82 (0.66 to 1.02)7 fewer per 1000 (from 13 fewer to 1 more)MODERATE
Infection related mortality (prophylactic antibiotics used)
14randomised trialsserious8no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessSerious5None18/1177
(1.5%)
42/1181
(3.6%)
RR 0.47 (0.28 to 0.8)19 fewer per 1000 (from 7 fewer to 26 fewer)LOW
Infection related mortality (prophylactic antibiotics not mandated)
53randomised trialsserious9no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessno serious imprecisionNone132/3724
(3.5%)
137/3492
(3.9%)
RR 0.91 (0.72 to 1.16)4 fewer per 1000 (from 11 fewer to 6 more)MODERATE
Febrile neutropenia
49randomised trialsserious10no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessno serious imprecisionNone1293/4529
(28.5%)
1649/4470
(36.9%)
RR 0.71 (0.63 to 0.8)107 fewer per 1000 (from 74 fewer to 136 fewer)MODERATE
Febrile neutropenia (leukaemia studies)
10randomised trialsseriousno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessno serious imprecisionNone389/867
(44.9%)
339/808
(42%)
RR 0.81 (0.66 to 0.99)80 fewer per 1000 (from 4 fewer to 143 fewer)MODERATE
Febrile neutropenia (lymphoma or solid tumour studies)
32randomised trialsserious9no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessno serious imprecisionNone730/3381
(21.6%)
1070/3412
(31.4%)
RR 0.64 (0.53 to 0.76)113 fewer per 1000 (from 75 fewer to 147 fewer)MODERATE
Febrile neutropenia (stem cell transplant studies)
3randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious5none135/193
(69.9%)
127/172
(73.8%)
RR 0.94 (0.74 to 1.2)44 fewer per 1000 (from 192 fewer to 148 more)MODERATE
Documented infection
60randomised trialsserious9no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessno serious imprecisionNone1874/5921
(31.7%)
2043/5704
(35.8%)
Rate ratio 0.85 (0.79 to 0.92)54 fewer per 1000 (from 29 fewer to 75 fewer)MODERATE
Resistance to the antibiotic used for prophylaxis - not reported
0-----None----
Length of hospital stay (Better indicated by lower values)
43randomised trialsno serious risk of bias11no serious inconsistencyserious indirectness12no serious imprecisionNone0--Mean difference 2.41 days less with G(M)-CSF (3.13 to 1.7 lower)MODERATE
Quality of life - not reported
0-----None----
1

This review included 80 trials: 26/80 trials had adequate allocation concealment and 35/80 had double blinding. Sensitivity analyses according to allocation concealment and double blinding, did not show a significant effect of CSF treatment on mortality, infectious mortality or febrile neutropenia.

2

None of the 7 paediatric mortality studies had adequate allocation concealment, 2/7 had double blinding

3

Low number of events

4

11/34 adult mortality studies had adequate allocation concealment, 15/34 had double blinding.

5

Low number of events

6

67 trials reported infection related mortality: 19/67 had adequate allocation concealment and 29/67 had double blinding.

7

The confidence interval for the pooled estimate spans both no effect and significant benefit.

8

2/14 trials had adequate allocation concealment, 4/14 double blinding.

9

Most of the trials did not have adequate allocation concealment or double blinding

10

Of the studies reporting febrile neutropenia 9/49 had adequate allocation concealment and 15/49 had double blinding.

11

The quality of studies of duration of hospital stay was not reported.

12

Hospital discharge criteria in these studies were likely to incorporate neutrophil count and thus influenced by the use of colony stimulating factors.

From: 5, Reducing the risk of septic complications of anticancer treatment

Cover of Neutropenic Sepsis: Prevention and Management of Neutropenic Sepsis in Cancer Patients
Neutropenic Sepsis: Prevention and Management of Neutropenic Sepsis in Cancer Patients.
NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 151.
National Collaborating Centre for Cancer (UK).
Copyright © National Collaborating Centre for Cancer, 2012.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.