Filgrastim-alone versus pegylated filgrastim-alone for autologous peripheral blood stem cells mobilization in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients

Effectiveness of single-dose 6 mg pegfilgrastim in mobilizing peripheral blood stem cells in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation donors

A single injection of 12 mg pegfilgrastim was used to mobilize peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPCs) from healthy donors in some studies. The purpose of this study was to determine if 6 mg of pegfilgrastim was effective and safe for mobilizing CD34+ cells in donors for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. We conducted a retrospective case-matched design. A single dosage of 6 mg pegfilgrastim was used to mobilize PBPCs from 60 healthy donors. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF, 10 μg/kg) was administered daily to the matched donors. Leukapheresis was scheduled to commence on day 4 of the mobilization regimen. The median yielded CD34+ cell in the pegfilgrastim group was higher than those in the G-CSF group, at 5.06 × 106/kg recipient weight. The 73.3% of donors mobilized with pegfilgrastim yielded >4 × 106 cells/kg CD34+ cells in a single apheresis procedure when compared to the 33.3% of donors mobilized with G-CSF (P < 0.001). The myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC) proportion in the pegfilgrastim group was significantly higher than that in the G-CSF group (P < 0.001). The cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) was higher in the G-CSF group than that in the pegfilgrastim group (26.7% vs. 11.7%), without statistical difference. In comparison to the G-CSF group, the pegfilgrastim group had a reduced median pain intensity numerical rating scale score (1 vs. 2). A single 6 mg dosage of pegfilgrastim is effective and safe for allogeneic PBPCs collection from healthy donors. Pegfilgrastim may decrease the incidence of aGVHD by boosting MDSCs, which need further investigation.

Higher efficacy of Etoposide + Cytarabine Plus Pegfilgrastim in poorly mobilizing Multiple Myeloma and lymphoma Patients

BACKGROUND AIMS

An optimal strategy for mobilizing hematopoietic stem cells in poorly mobilizing patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and lymphoma has not yet been determined.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the efficacy and safety of etoposide combined with cytarabine (etoposide 75 mg/m2, daily d1∼2; Ara-C 300 mg/m2, every 12 h d1∼2), plus pegfilgrastim (6 mg d6) in 32 patients with MM or lymphoma, among whom 53.1% were defined as "proven poor mobilizers."

RESULTS

This approach resulted in adequate mobilization (≥2.0 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg) in 93.8% of patients and optimal mobilization (≥5.0 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg) in 71.9% of patients. A total of 100% of patients with MM reached at least 5 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg collected, the amount required for double autologous stem cell transplant. In total, 88.2% of patients with lymphoma reached at least 2 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg collected, the amount required for a single autologous stem cell transplant. This was achieved with a single leukapheresis in 78.1% of cases. A median peak number of 42.0/μL circulating CD34+ cells and a median number of blood CD34+ cells counts in 6.7 × 106/L were collected among 30 successful mobilizers. Approximately 6.3% of patients required plerixafor rescue, which was successful. Nine (28.1%) of the 32 patients suffered grade 2∼3 infections, and 50% required platelet transfusions.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that chemo-mobilization with etoposide, Ara-C and pegfilgrastim in poorly mobilizing patients with MM or lymphoma is very effective and has acceptable toxicity.

A novel PEGylated form of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, mecapegfilgrastim, for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in patients with hematologic malignancies

BACKGROUND

The Pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF) has longer half-life and is given once only, which is more comfortable for patients. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of mecapegfilgrastim for hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) mobilization in patients with hematologic malignancies and to explore the potential factors related to HSC mobilization.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on patients who underwent HSC mobilization in the hematology department of Mianyang Central Hospital from April 2016 to November 2022. The number of CD34 + cells collected was compared between the patients receiving mecapegfilgrastim (PEG group) and those receiving recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF group), and the possible factors for mobilization failure were analyzed.

RESULTS

The success rates of collecting CD34 + cells in the PEG group and rhG-CSF group were 80.6% and 67.7%, respectively (χ = 1.444, P = 0.229). The median CD34 + cell counts were 3.62 × 10^6/kg and 2.92 × 10^6/kg (P = 0.178), respectively. After combination with plerixafor for mobilization, the median number of CD34 + cells collected in the PEG group and rhG-CSF group were 3.64 × 10^6/kg and 3.92 × 10^6/kg, respectively, with no significant difference (P = 0.754). There was no significant difference in hematopoietic cell recovery or infection between the groups (P > 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that more than 5 cycles of chemotherapy (OR = 15.897, 95% CI: 1.766-143.127, P = 0.014), a precollection WBC count < 32 × 10^9/L (OR = 14.441, 95% CI: 2.180-95.657, P = 0.006) and a precollection to premobilization lymphocyte ratio < 1.7 (OR = 11.388, 95% CI: 2.129-60.915, P = 0.004) were independent risk factors for HSC mobilization failure.

CONCLUSIONS

The HSC mobilization efficacy of mecapegfilgrastim in patients with hematologic malignancies was comparable to that of rhG-CSF, and combination with plerixafor for mobilization was feasible and effective. Patients with more than 5 cycles of chemotherapy before HSC mobilization, a precollection WBC count lower than 32 × 10^9/L, and a precollection lymphocyte count less than 1.7 times the premobilization lymphocyte count have a high probability of HSC mobilization failure.

Efficacy of hematopoietic stem cell mobilization regimens in patients with hematological malignancies: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Efficient mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) from bone marrow niche into circulation is the key to successful collection and transplantation in patients with hematological malignancies. The efficacy of various HSCs mobilization regimens has been widely investigated, but the results are inconsistent.

METHODS

We performed comprehensive databases searching for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that comparing the efficacy of HSCs mobilization regimens in patients with hematological malignancies. Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed with WinBUGS. Standard dose of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF SD) was chosen as the common comparator. Estimates of relative treatment effects for other regimens were reported as mean differences (MD) or odds ratio (OR) with associated 95% credibility interval (95% CrI). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) were obtained to present rank probabilities of all included regimens.

RESULTS

Databases searching and study selection identified 44 eligible RCTs, of which the mobilization results are summarized. Then we compared the efficacy of mobilization regimens separately for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) by including 13 eligible trials for network meta-analysis, involving 638 patients with MM and 592 patients with NHL. For patients with MM, data are pooled from 8 trials for 6 regimens, including G-CSF in standard dose (SD) or reduced dose (RD) combined with cyclophosphamide (CY), intermediate-dose cytarabine (ID-AraC) or plerixafor. The results show that compared with G-CSF SD alone, 3 regimens including ID-AraC + G-CSF SD (MD 14.29, 95% CrI 9.99-18.53; SUCRA 1.00), G-CSF SD + Plerixafor SD (MD 4.15, 95% CrI 2.92-5.39; SUCRA 0.80), and CY + G-CSF RD (MD 1.18, 95% CrI 0.29-2.07; SUCRA 0.60) are associated with significantly increased total number of collected CD34+ cells (× 106/kg), among which ID-AraC + G-CSF SD ranked first with a probability of being best regimen of 100%. Moreover, ID-AraC + G-CSF SD and G-CSF SD + Plerixafor SD are associated with significantly higher successful rate of achieving optimal target (collecting ≥ 4-6 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg). For patients with NHL, data are pooled from 5 trials for 4 regimens, the results show that compared with G-CSF SD alone, G-CSF SD + Plerixafor SD (MD 3.62, 95% CrI 2.86-4.38; SUCRA 0.81) and G-CSF SD plus the new CXC chemokine receptor-4 (CXCR-4) antagonist YF-H-2015005 (MD 3.43, 95% CrI 2.51-4.35; SUCRA 0.69) are associated with significantly higher number of total CD34+ cells collected. These 2 regimens are also associated with significantly higher successful rate of achieving optimal target. There are no significant differences in rate of achieving optimal target between G-CSF SD + Plerixafor SD and G-CSF + YF-H-2015005.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, ID-AraC plus G-CSF is associated with the highest probability of being best mobilization regimen in patients with MM. For patients with NHL, G-CSF in combination with plerixafor or YF-H-2015005 showed similar improvements in HSCs mobilization efficacy. The relative effects of other chemotherapy-based mobilization regimens still require to be determined with further investigations.

Efficacy and Safety of Filgrastim and Its Biosimilars to Prevent Febrile Neutropenia in Cancer Patients: A Prospective Study and Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

Febrile neutropenia is the serious side-effect associated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Filgrastim, the first granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of neutropenia. Subsequently, pegfilgrastim (long-acting G-CSF) and filgrastim biosimilars were developed to have comparable efficacy to filgrastim. Therefore, it is necessary to produce a systematic review and meta-analysis that provides evidence that filgrastim is more efficacious than placebo/no-treatment, as it provides evidence on the comparable efficacy of filgrastim versus pegfilgrastim and biosimilar filgrastim.

Abstract

Background: The aim of this review and meta-analysis was to identify, assess, meta-analyze and summarize the comparative effectiveness and safety of filgrastim in head-to-head trials with placebo/no treatment, pegfilgrastim (and biosimilar filgrastim to update advances in the field. Methods: The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses PRISMA statement were applied, and a random-effect model was used. Primary endpoints were the rate and duration of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, and an incidence rate of febrile neutropenia. Secondary endpoints were time to absolute neutrophil count ANC recovery, depth of ANC nadir (lowest ANC), neutropenia-related hospitalization and other neutropenia-related complications. For filgrastim versus biosimilar filgrastim comparison, the primary efficacy endpoint was the mean difference in duration of severe neutropenia DSN. Results: A total of 56 studies were considered that included data from 13,058 cancer patients. The risk of febrile neutropenia in filgrastim versus placebo/no treatment was not statistically different. The risk ratio for febrile neutropenia was 0.58, a 42% reduction in favor of filgrastim. The most reported adverse event with FIL was bone pain. For pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim, no statistically significant difference was noted. The risk ratio was 0.90 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.12). The overall difference in duration of severe neutropenia between filgrastim and biosimilar filgrastim was not statistically significant. The risk ratio was 1.03 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.13). Conclusions: Filgrastim was effective and safe in reducing febrile neutropenia and related complications, compared to placebo/no treatment. No notable differences were found between pegfilgrastim and filgrastim in terms of efficacy and safety. However, a similar efficacy profile was observed with FIL and its biosimilars.

Trends in peripheral stem/progenitor cell manipulation and clinical application

Transplants using peripheral blood hemopoietic stem/progenitor (PBHS) cells are widely performed for the treatment of patients with hematologic disorders in routine practice and clinical trials. Although the process from mobilization to infusion of PBHS cells has been mostly established, optimal conditions for each process remain undetermined. Adverse reactions caused by PBHS cell infusions have not been systematically recorded. In transplants using PBHS cells, a number of problems still exist. In this section, the current status of and future perspectives regarding PBHS cells are described.

Mobilization of Hematopoietic Progenitor Cells for Autologous Transplantation Using Pegfilgrastim and Plerixafor: Efficacy and Cost Implications

Filgrastim (FIL) is the most common growth factor combined with plerixafor for autologous hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization, but requires daily, multi-injection administration. We adopted a standardized mobilization regimen with pegfilgrastim (PEG) and upfront plerixafor, allowing for a single injection given the long half-life and slow elimination of PEG. Between 2015 and 2017, a total of 235 patients with lymphoma or plasma cell dyscrasias underwent mobilization with PEG 6 mg on day 1 and upfront plerixafor 24 mg on day 3, followed by apheresis on day 4 regardless of peripheral blood CD34⁺ cells. The median CD34⁺ cells/mm³ in peripheral blood on first day of collection was 48 and median collection yield was 7.27 × 10⁶ CD34⁺ cells/kg (range, 0.32 to 39.6 × 10⁶ CD34⁺ cells/kg) after a mean of 1.6 apheresis collections. Overall, 83% of patients achieved the mobilization target, and 95% reached the minimum necessary CD34⁺ cell yield to proceed with transplantation (2 × 10⁶ CD34⁺ cells/kg). Because FIL is weight-based and dosed daily, the cost comparison with PEG is influenced by patient weight and number of apheresis sessions required. A cost simulation using actual patient data indicates that PEG is associated with lower cost than FIL for the majority of patients. Autologous hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization with PEG and plerixafor is practical, effective, and not associated with increased cost compared with FIL mobilization.