Pharmacoeconomic impact of up-front use of plerixafor for autologous stem cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma

Cost-Effectiveness of Preemptive Plerixafor Versus Rescue Plerixafor for Mobilization and Collection of Hematopoietic Stem Cells in Patients With Multiple Myeloma and Lymphoma

BACKGROUND

Plerixafor combined with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) has shown superior efficacy in mobilizing hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs). However, its widespread use is constrained by high costs, and there is ongoing debate regarding the effectiveness of mobilization strategies. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of preemptive versus rescue plerixafor in patients from the Brazilian Public Health Care System with multiple myeloma or lymphoma eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT).

METHODS

This observational study assessed the costs and clinical outcomes of preemptive and rescue plerixafor strategies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated for the percentage of patients with successful optimal or minimal HSC collections, who underwent ASCT and the number of leukapheresis sessions.

RESULTS

The study included 285 patients, 82 in the preemptive and 203 in the rescue group. Preemptive plerixafor resulted in a lower mobilization failure rate, a decreased need for remobilization, a higher proportion of patients progressing to ASCT, and a shorter interval between the beginning of mobilization and ASCT. The incremental cost of preemptive versus rescue plerixafor was US$ 1532.44. The incremental effectiveness observed was 10.1% for minimally successful harvest (ICER US$ 151.28), 4.7% for optimal harvest (ICER US$ 326.05), and 13.1% for patients progressing to ASCT (ICER US$ 116.18). Regarding the number of leukapheresis sessions, preemptive plerixafor was dominated.

SUMMARY

Preemptive plerixafor is a cost-effective strategy compared to rescue plerixafor, offering higher efficacy and lower ICER values, making it a clinically beneficial option despite its higher cost.

How to manage poor mobilisers

Autologous hematopoietic progenitor cell transplantation (ASCT) has been used for more than five decades to treat malignant and non-malignant diseases. Successful engraftment after high-dose chemotherapy relies on the ability to collect sufficient CD34 + hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPCs), typically from peripheral blood after mobilization. Commonly, either granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) alone as a single agent (i.e. steady-state mobilization) or G-CSF after chemotherapy is administered to collect adequate numbers of HPCs (minimum ≥2 × 106 CD34 + cells/kg for one ASCT; optimal up to 5 × 106 CD34 + cells/kg). However, a significant proportion of patients fail successful HPC mobilization, which is commonly defined as a CD34+ cell count below 10-15/µL after at least 4 days of 10 µg/kg b.w. G-CSF alone, or after chemo-mobilization in combination with 5-10 µg/kg b.w. G-CSF. In these situations plerixafor, a chemokine receptor inhibitor (CXCR4) can be used to enhance HPC collection in patients with multiple myeloma and malignant lymphoma whose cells mobilize poorly. Risk factors for poor mobilization have been evaluated and several strategies (e.g. plerixafor to rescue the mobilization approach or pre-emptive use) have been suggested to optimize mobilization, especially in patients at risk. This manuscript discusses the risk factors of poor CD34+ mobilization and summarizes the current strategies to optimize mobilization and HPC collection.

Economic evaluation of plerixafor addition in the mobilization and leukapheresis of hematopoietic stem cells for autologous transplantation: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Although plerixafor in association with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) can improve mobilization and collection of hematopoietic stem cells (HSC) by leukapheresis, cost may limit its clinical application. The present study systematically reviews economic evaluations of plerixafor plus G-CSF usage compared to G-CSF alone and compares different strategies of plerixafor utilization in multiple myeloma and lymphoma patients eligible for autologous HSC transplantation.

AREAS COVERED

Relevant economic evaluations, partial or complete, were searched on PubMed, Embase, LILACS, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for a period ending 30 June 2021. This systematic review was reported following the PRISMA Statement. Six economic evaluations were included, considering the use of upfront or just-in-time plerixafor compared to G-CSF alone or other plerixafor strategies. Most comparisons showed both increased cost and health benefits with the addition of plerixafor. Most analyses favored just-in-time plerixafor compared to upfront plerixafor, with a probable preference for broader cutoffs for just-in-time plerixafor initiation.

EXPERT OPINION

Plerixafor is a potentially cost-effective technology in the mobilization of HSC in patients with multiple myeloma and lymphomas eligible for autologous HSC transplantation. There is a decreased number of leukapheresis sessions and remobilizations and a higher yield of CD34+ cells.

Are we choosing mobilization regimens for autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma wisely: A single center comparison of GCSF+/-plerixafor vs cyclophosphamide/GCSF+/-plerixafor

BACKGROUND

Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is a standard consolidation treatment for eligible patients with multiple myeloma (MM). There is no standardized mobilization regimen for collection of CD34+ stem cells, which is crucial to the success of ASCT. Cyclophosphamide/GCSF is an effective regimen, although reported associated toxicities include risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). Since plerixafor was introduced in Canada, this mobilization agent has been increasingly used as needed with GCSF at Kingston Health Science Centre (KHSC), with elimination of cyclophosphamide. This single center, retrospective, quality improvement study evaluates mobilization and ASCT outcomes of MM patients who had undergone stem cell mobilization at KHSC with cyclophosphamide/GCSF+/-plerixafor without antibiotics, cyclophosphamide/GCSF+/-plerixafor with antibiotics, and GCSF+/-plerixafor without antibiotics.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted evaluating 137 patients. The primary outcome measure was FN rates with mobilization. Balancing measures include CD34+ cell collected, plerixafor usage, days of apheresis and transplant outcomes. Chi-square, ANOVA, or Kruskal-Wallis methods were used to test statistical significance where appropriate.

RESULTS

Our study noted a higher total and day one CD34+ count in the two groups utilizing cyclophosphamide in mobilization. All nine cases of FN occurred in these two groups (P < .05). Addition of antibiotics decreased, but did not eliminate risk of FN. There were no significant differences in the rate of plerixafor usage and number of apheresis days. Difference in transplant outcomes, including engraftment and transfusion support, were statistically but not clinically significant. A larger sample size may be needed to explore this fully. There was no significant difference in length of transplant hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

The elimination of cyclophosphamide from mobilization regimens for MM appears to significantly reduce FN rates, without increasing balancing measures such as total number of apheresis days, plerixafor usage, duration of transplant hospitalization or mortality outcomes.

Medical database analysis of japanese multiple myeloma patients with planned stem cell transplantation (MEDALIST) - a focus on healthcare resource utilization and cost

This study explored the burden associated with stem cell mobilization, with or without cyclophosphamide (CPA), in patients who intended to receive autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) for multiple myeloma (MM). A Japanese health care claims database (MDV) was used to analyze the health care resource utilization patterns and medical cost between 2013 and 2016 (pre-plerixafor launch). The patients were further categorized into groups who received granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) alone or G-CSF + CPA group and analyzed in both mobilization and ASCT phases of treatment. Overall, there were more MM patients who were treated with G-CSF + CPA combination therapy than G-CSF alone. Length-of-stay was 1.6 times longer in the combination group during the mobilization phase. A reverse trend was observed during the ASCT phase. Direct cost was approximately 1.2 million yen during the mobilization phase and 2.3 million yen during the ASCT phase, with hospitalization basic fee accounting for the highest proportion in both groups and phases. A substantial amount of healthcare resource and cost was consumed in both phases. This study may serve as a basic reference for further health technology assessment of new medicines such as plerixafor. Further investigation of differences between treatment groups is warranted.

Efficacy and safety of stem cell mobilization following gemcitabine, dexamethasone, cisplatin (GDP) salvage chemotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory lymphoma

High-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) remains a cornerstone of treatment in relapsed/refractory (R/R) aggressive-histology lymphomas. This retrospective study examined efficacy and safety of peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) mobilization using cyclophosphamide/etoposide and GCSF (CE + GCSF, n = 129) versus gemcitabine, dexamethasone and cisplatin and GCSF (GDP + GCSF, n = 210). All patients received first salvage with GDP. Patients mobilized with CE + GCSF required fewer days of leukapheresis (median 1 vs 2 day; p = .001) and achieved higher total CD34+ yield than GDP + GCSF patients (8.5 vs 7.1 × 10⁶ CD34+ cells/kg, p = .001). Rates of febrile neutropenia and CD34+ collection ≥5 × 10⁶ CD34+ cells/kg were similar (OR 1.19, 95% CI: 0.54-2.6, p = .66). In multivariable analysis, days to engraftment and admission duration were not statistically different between the two mobilization strategies. While CE + GCSF appeared more efficacious for mobilization after GDP salvage, this did not translate to significant differences in clinical outcomes.

Plerixafor in poor mobilizers with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: a multi-center time-motion analysis

High-dose chemotherapy alongside peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) infusion has become the standard of care in different hematologic malignancies. The goal of PBSC mobilization is to allow collection of sufficient CD34+ cells to proceed to transplantation. The current mobilization regimen with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), alone or in combination with chemotherapy, still fails in 10-25% of patients. Plerixafor is able to rescue most of these patients from mobilization failure. In this study, we investigated the impact of plerixafor on the cost and time spent on apheresis in patients who were considered poor mobilizers, with <20 × 10⁶/µl peripheral CD34+ cells after mobilization but prior to apheresis. Patient hospital records from ten centers in three European countries were reviewed and compared during two time periods, namely prior and after plerixafor introduction to the market. During the plerixafor period, patients spent less time on apheresis (350 vs. 461  min). Poor mobilizers given plerixafor collected more CD34+ cells during the first apheresis session, leading to a decrease in the average number of apheresis sessions needed. The total apheresis yield was unaffected. This analysis shows that the use of plerixafor lessens the time-effort associated with the management of poor mobilizers and reduces apheresis costs.

Peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma: Growth factors or chemotherapy?

High-dose therapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) transplant is considered standard of care for eligible patients with multiple myeloma. The optimal collection strategy should be effective in procuring sufficient HSC while maintaining a low toxicity profile. Currently available mobilization strategies include growth factors alone, growth factors in combination with chemotherapy, or growth factors in combination with chemokine receptor antagonists; however, the optimal strategy has yet to be elucidated. Herein, we review the risks and benefits of each approach.

How to manage poor mobilizers for high dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation?

Today, peripheral blood stem cells are the preferred source of stem cells over bone marrow. Therefore, mobilization plays a crutial role in successful autologous stem cell transplantation. Poor mobilization is generally defined as failure to achieve the target level of at least 2×10⁶ CD34⁺ cells/kg body weight. There are several strategies to overcome poor mobilization: 1) Larger volume Leukapheresis (LVL) 2) Re-mobilization 3) Plerixafor 4) CM+Plerixafor (P)+G-CSF and 5) Bone Marrow Harvest. In this review, the definitions of successful and poor mobilization are discussed. Management strategies for poor mobilization are defined. The recent research on new agents are included.

How do we mobilize and collect autologous peripheral blood stem cells?

Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) with mobilized peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) has become a widely applied therapeutic approach for many hematologic and nonhematologic diseases. Adequate PBSC mobilization is critical to the success of ASCT. However, many factors can contribute to poor mobilization. Plerixafor is an effective yet costly adjunct agent that has been increasingly used to improve mobilization in a variety of diagnoses and clinical settings. However, to achieve both optimal cell collection yields and cost-effectiveness, the role of plerixafor in PBSC mobilization needs to be well defined in terms of triggers for initiating its use and criteria for monitoring response. As one of the largest hematopoietic transplant centers in the country, we have developed an approach to PBSC mobilization and collection that incorporates patient laboratory assessments, monitoring of the collection yields, and judicious use of plerixafor as well as various patient support and education programs. These measures have resulted in an increase in our collection success rate and a decrease in the mean number of collection days. In this article we describe our approach to autologous PBSC mobilization and collection. Pertinent reports in the literature are also reviewed and discussed.

Plerixafor for autologous stem-cell mobilization and transplantation for patients in Ontario

BACKGROUND

High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation (asct) is an accepted part of standard therapy for patients with hematologic malignancies. Usually, stem-cell mobilization uses granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (g-csf); however, some patients are not able to be mobilized with chemotherapy and g-csf, and such patients could be at higher risk of failing mobilization. Plerixafor is a novel mobilization agent that is absorbed quickly after subcutaneous injection and, at the recommended dose of 0.24 mg/kg, provides a sustained increase in circulating CD34+ cells for 10-18 hours. The main purpose of the present report was to evaluate the most current evidence on the efficacy of plerixafor in enhancing hematopoietic stem-cell mobilization and collection before asct for patients in Ontario so as to make recommendations for clinical practice and to assist Cancer Care Ontario in decision-making with respect to this intervention.

METHODS

The medline and embase databases were systematically searched for evidence from January 1996 to March 2015, and the best available evidence was used to draft recommendations relevant to the efficacy of plerixafor in enhancing hematopoietic stem-cell mobilization and collection before asct. Final approval of this practice guideline report was obtained from both the Stem Cell Transplant Steering Committee and the Report Approval Panel of the Program in Evidence-Based Care.

RECOMMENDATIONS

These recommendations apply to adult patients considered for asct: ■ Adding plerixafor to g-csf is an option for initial mobilization in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma or multiple myeloma who are eligible for asct when chemotherapy cannot be used and only g-csf mobilization is available.■ For patients with a low peripheral blood CD34+ cell count (for example, <10/μL) at the time of anticipated stem-cell harvesting, or with an inadequate first-day apheresis collection, it is recommended that plerixafor be added to the mobilization regimen to maximize stem-cell collection and to prevent the need for remobilization.■ It is recommended that patients who have failed a previous mobilization attempt undergo remobilization with g-csf and plerixafor, with or without chemotherapy.