Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Clinical effects of biologic response modifiers

S G Louie1, B Jung

  • 1Pharmacy Department, University of Southern California-Kenneth Norris Jr. Cancer Hospital, Los Angeles 90033.

American Journal of Hospital Pharmacy
|July 1, 1993
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Brain Charts for the Rhesus Macaque Lifespan.

bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology·2024
Same author

Systemic Activin Is Elevated in Patients With Severe Alcoholic Hepatitis.

Gastro hep advances·2022
Same author

[Successful rituximab treatment of recurrent glomerulonephritis associated with antibodies against the glomerular basement membrane].

Der Internist·2020
Same author

Effects of lysophospholipid supplementation to reduced energy, crude protein, and amino acid diets on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and blood profiles in broiler chickens.

Poultry science·2019
Same author

Effects of lysophospholipid on growth performance, carcass yield, intestinal development, and bone quality in broilers.

Poultry science·2019
Same author

Adgrf5 contributes to patterning of the endothelial deep layer in retina.

Angiogenesis·2019
Same journal

National health care reform, Part 2: Response to pharmacists.

American journal of hospital pharmacy·1994
Same journal

Validity of originality assessment.

American journal of hospital pharmacy·1994
Same journal

Unit dose dispensing of chromic phosphate P 32 suspension.

American journal of hospital pharmacy·1994
Same journal

Hydralazine injection still available.

American journal of hospital pharmacy·1994
Same journal

Improved extemporaneous formulation of cyclosporine ophthalmic drops.

American journal of hospital pharmacy·1994
Same journal

Paclitaxel diluent and the case of the slippery spike.

American journal of hospital pharmacy·1994
See all related articles

Colony-stimulating factors like filgrastim, sargramostim, and regramostim boost neutrophil production, reducing infections in patients undergoing chemotherapy or bone marrow transplants. Filgrastim shows better tolerance than other agents.

Area of Science:

  • Hematology
  • Immunology
  • Pharmacology

Background:

  • Hematopoietic stem cells give rise to all blood cells, regulated by modifiers like colony-stimulating factors.
  • Neutrophils are crucial for fighting infection; low levels increase risk of neutropenic infections.
  • Biologic response modifiers (BRMs) can activate lymphoid and myeloid cells.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To review the clinical applications of biologic response modifiers: filgrastim, sargramostim, and regramostim.
  • To highlight their role in managing neutropenia and related complications.
  • To compare their efficacy and safety profiles.

Main Methods:

  • Review of clinical studies and literature on filgrastim, sargramostim, and regramostim.
  • Analysis of their effects on neutrophil production and clinical outcomes.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Comparison with placebo or antimicrobial prophylaxis.

    • Main Results:

    • These colony-stimulating factors increase circulating neutrophils, benefiting patients with myelosuppressive therapy, bone marrow transplantation, or AIDS.
    • Clinical studies show reduced neutropenic hospitalizations and infections compared to placebo or prophylaxis.
    • Sargramostim and regramostim can cause adverse effects due to broad leukocyte stimulation; filgrastim is better tolerated.

    Conclusions:

    • Filgrastim, sargramostim, and regramostim are valuable in treating conditions associated with neutropenia.
    • Filgrastim offers a better safety profile, especially at higher doses.
    • BRMs show promise in reducing myelosuppressive complications and enhancing drug responses.