The role of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in the post-transplant period

Revisiting the Utility of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Post-Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation for Outpatient-Based Transplantations

The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has been shown to reduce the time to neutrophil engraftment, as well as the duration of hospitalization post-transplantation. However, prior studies have focused on inpatient-based ASCT, where patients are routinely admitted for conditioning and frequently remain hospitalized until signs of neutrophil recovery. Given improvements in post-transplantation care, an increasing number of patients, particularly those receiving ASCT for multiple myeloma, are now undergoing transplantation in an outpatient setting. We hypothesized that the routine use of G-CSF for outpatient-based ASCT might not result in the same benefit with respect to a reduced duration of hospitalization and thus should be reconsidered in this setting. We performed a retrospective cohort study of 633 consecutive patients with multiple myeloma (MM; n = 484) or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL; n = 149) who underwent ASCT between September 2018 and February 2023. Outpatient ASCT comprised 258 (53%) of combined MM and NHL cases. Starting in September 2021, post-transplantation G-CSF was incorporated into the supportive care regimen for all ASCTs. A total of 410 patients (309 with MM, 101 with NHL) underwent ASCT during the pre-G-CSF policy period and 223 (175 with MM, 48 with NHL) did so in the post-G-CSF policy period. The primary outcome focused on the duration of hospitalization within the first 30 days following graft infusion. As expected, after implementation of the G-CSF policy, the time to neutrophil engraftment was reduced in the patients with MM (mean, -2.8 days; P < .0001) and patients with NHL (mean, -2.9 days; P < .0001). However, among the patients with MM, roughly one-half of whom underwent outpatient-based ASCT, the inpatient duration during the first 30 days was not reduced after G-CSF implementation (P = .40). Comparatively, the inpatient duration (mean, -1.8 days; P = .030) was reduced among patients with NHL, all of whom were electively admitted for ASCT. For patients with MM at an outpatient-based transplant center, incorporation of G-CSF post-ASCT resulted in reduced time to neutrophil engraftment but did not significantly reduce the time spent in the inpatient setting through day +30.

Application of latent class analysis in diagnosis of graft-versus-host disease by serum markers after allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is one of the major causes of morbidity and mortality in 25–70% of patients. The gold standard (GS) test to confirm the diagnosis of GVHD has some limitations. The current study was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of three serum markers in diagnosing GVHD without a GS. 94 patients who were hospitalized for allogeneic transplantation were studied. Mean levels from day of haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) to discharge of serum uric acid (UA), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and creatinine (Cr) were measured for all participants. We adapted a Bayesian latent class analysis to modelling the results of each marker and combination of markers. The Sensitivity, Specificity, and area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for LDH were as 51%, 81%, and 0.70, respectively. For UA, the Sensitivity, Specificity, and AUC were 54%, 75%, and 0.71, respectively. The estimated Sensitivity, Specificity, and AUC of Cr were 72%, 94%, and 0.86, respectively. Adjusting for covariates, the combined Sensitivity, Specificity, and AUC of the optimal marker combination were 76%, 83%, and 0.94, respectively. To conclude, our findings suggested that Cr had the strongest diagnosis power for GVHD. Moreover, the classification accuracy of the three-marker combination outperforms the other combinations.

A comparison of the effect of xinruibai versus filgrastim on hematopoietic reconstruction after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Background

To compare the effect of xinruibai (Pegfilgrastim) and filgrastim injections on white blood cell and platelet (PLT) recovery, adverse events, post-operative complications, and cost effectiveness after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT).

Methods

Children who underwent allo-HSCT at our hospital from January 2014 to May 2017 due to thalassemia major, aplastic anemia, leukemia, and mucopolysaccharidosis were included. Among the children, 53 received xinruibai injections and 33 received filgrastim injections.

Results

There were no significant differences in the average time to neutrophil and platelet recovery, the incidence of post-operative complications after allo-HSCT, the number of red blood cell and PLT infusions, or the incidence of adverse events related to the injection between two groups (P >  0.05). The pain score was 3.06 (SD 0.41) for the xinruibai group and 25.18 (SD 6.22) for the filgrastim group, indicating significant differences between the two groups (P <  0.001). No difference was found in the hospitalization cost. The cost of the granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) was 257.11 ± 61.87 Euro in the xinruibai group and 214.79 ± 0.00 Euro in the filgrastim group, showing significant difference (P <  0.001).

Conclusions

Xinruibai injection was more convenient, simple, effective, and safer than filgrastim.

Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Use after Autologous Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Transplantation: Comparison of Two Practices

Administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) after autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT) is generally recommended to reduce the duration of severe neutropenia; however, data regarding the optimal timing of G-CSFs post-transplantation are limited and conflicting. This retrospective study was performed at NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center between November 5, 2013, and August 9, 2016, of adult inpatient autologous PBSCT recipients who received G-CSF empirically starting on day +5 (early) versus on those who received G-CSF on day +12 only if absolute neutrophil count (ANC) was <0.5 × 10⁹/L (ANC-driven). G-CSF was dosed at 300 µg in patients weighing <75 kg and 480 µg in those weighing ≥75 kg. One hundred consecutive patients underwent autologous PBSCT using either the early (n = 50) or ANC-driven (n = 50) G-CSF regimen. Patient and transplantation characteristics were comparable in the 2 groups. In the ANC-driven group, 24% (n = 12) received G-CSF on day +12 and 60% (n = 30) started G-CSF earlier due to febrile neutropenia or at the physician's discretion, 6% (n = 3) started after day +12 at the physician's discretion, and 10% (n = 5) did not receive any G-CSF. The median start day of G-CSF therapy was day +10 in the ANC-driven group versus day +5 in the early group (P < .0001). For the primary outcome, the median time to neutrophil engraftment was 12 days (interquartile range [IQR] 11-13 days) in the early group versus 13 days (IQR, 12-14 days) in the ANC-driven group (P = .07). There were no significant between-group differences in time to platelet engraftment, 1-year relapse rate, or 1-year overall survival. The incidence of febrile neutropenia was 74% in the early group versus 90% in the ANC-driven group (P = .04); however, there was no significant between-group difference in the incidence of positive bacterial cultures or transfer to the intensive care unit. The duration of G-CSF administration until neutrophil engraftment was 6 days in the early group versus 3 days in the ANC-driven group (P < .0001). The median duration of post-transplantation hospitalization was 15 days (IQR, 14-19 days) in the early group versus 16 days (IQR, 15-22 days) in the ANC-driven group (P = .28). Our data show that early initiation of G-CSF (on day +5) and ANC-driven initiation of G-CSF following autologous PBSCT were associated with a similar time to neutrophil engraftment, length of stay post-transplantation, and 1-year overall survival.

Delays in postremission chemotherapy for Philadelphia chromosome negative acute lymphoblastic leukemia are associated with inferior outcomes in patients who undergo allogeneic transplant: An analysis from ECOG 2993/MRC UK ALLXII

Adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) have a poorer prognosis than children due to a high risk of relapse. One explanation may be variable adherence to dose-intense chemotherapy. However, little is known about risk factors for delays in therapy and their impact on survival. We conducted an analysis of ECOG 2993/UKALLXII trial to study delays in postremission chemotherapy in adults with newly diagnosed ALL. Logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for a very long delay (VLD, >4 weeks) in start of intensification therapy. Cox regression was used to evaluate the impact of delays on overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS). We evaluated 1076 Philadelphia chromosome negative (Ph-) patients who completed induction chemotherapy, achieved complete remission, and started intensification. Factors independently associated with VLD included duration of hospitalization (odds ratio [OR] = 1.2, P < 0.001) during Phase I; thrombocytopenia during Phase I (OR = 1.16, P = 0.004) or Phase II (OR 1.13, P = 0.001); chemotherapy dose reductions during Induction Phase I (OR = 1.72, P < 0.014); female sex (OR = 1.53, P = 0.010); Black (OR = 3.24, P = 0.003) and Asian (OR = 2.26, P = 0.021) race; and increasing age (OR = 1.31, P < 0.001). In multivariate Cox regression, patients who underwent allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloHCT) had significantly worse OS (HR 1.4, P = 0.03) and EFS (HR 1.4, P = 0.02) after experiencing a VLD compared to alloHCT patients who experienced ≤4 weeks delay. Specific populations (female, older, Black, and Asian patients) were more likely to experience delays in chemotherapy, as were those with significant toxicity during induction. VLDs in therapy negatively affected outcomes in patients undergoing allografting. Am. J. Hematol. 91:1107-1112, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Mesenchymal stem cells versus mesenchymal stem cells combined with cord blood for engraftment failure after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a pilot prospective, open-label, randomized trial

Engraftment failure (EF) after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation is a serious complication. We prospectively evaluated the effects and safeties of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) alone and MSCs combined with cord blood (CB) for EF. Twenty-two patients were randomized to receive MSCs (MSC group; n = 11) or MSCs plus CB (CB group; n = 11). Patients with no response (NR) to MSCs received the therapeutic schedule in the CB group, and those patients with partial response (PR) in the MSC group and patients without complete remission (CR) in the CB group received another cycle of MSC treatment. Patients who did not achieve CR after 2 cycles of treatments received other treatments, including allogeneic HSCT. After the first treatment cycle, response was seen in 7 of 11 patients in the MSC group and in 9 of 11 in the CB group (P = .635), with a significant difference in neutrophil reconstruction between the 2 groups (P = .030). After 2 treatment cycles, 16 patients achieved CR, 3 achieved PR, and 3 had NR. No patient experienced graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). With a median follow-up of 345 d (range, 129 to 784 d) post-transplantation, 18 patients remained alive and 4 had died (3 from primary disease relapse and 1 from cytomegalovirus pneumonia). The 2-year overall survival, disease-free survival, and cumulative incidence of tumor relapse post-transplantation were 75.2% ± 12.0%, 79.5% ± 9.4%, and 20.5% ± 9.4%, respectively. Our data indicate that the 2 strategies are effective for EF and do not result in GVHD or increase the risk of tumor relapse, but the MSC plus CB regimen has a superior effect on neutrophil reconstruction.

Cost effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with lymphoma and myeloma: an economic evaluation of the PALM Trial

BACKGROUND

Use of the recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) filgrastim accelerates neutrophil recovery following myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Since filgrastim requires multiple daily administrations, forms of rhG-CSF with a longer half life, including pegfilgrastim, have been developed. Pegfilgrastim is safe and effective in supporting neutrophil recovery and reducing febrile neutropenia after conventional chemotherapy. Pegfilgrastim has also been successfully used to support patients undergoing peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) transplantation for haematological malignancies. To our knowledge, no cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of pegfilgrastim in this setting has been published yet.

OBJECTIVE

We undertook a CEA to compare a single injection of pegfilgrastim versus repeated administrations of filgrastim in patients who had undergone PBSC transplantation for lymphoma or myeloma. The CEA was set in France and covered a period of 100 ± 10 days from transplant.

METHODS

The CEA was designed as part of an open-label, multicentre, randomized phase II trial. Costs were assessed from the hospital's point of view and are expressed in 2009 euros. Costs computation focused on inpatient, outpatient, and home care. Costs in the two arms of the study were compared using the Mann-Whitney test. When differences were statistically significant, multiple regression analyses were performed in order to identify cost drivers. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for the major endpoints of the trial; i.e., duration of febrile neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count [ANC] <0.5 × 10(9)/L and temperature ≥38 °C), duration of neutropenia (ANC <1.0 × 10(9)/L and ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L), duration of thrombopenia (platelets <50 × 10(9)/L and <20 × 10(9)/L), and days with a temperature ≥38 °C). Uncertainty around the ICER was captured by a probabilistic analysis using a non-parametric bootstrap method.

RESULTS

151 patients were enrolled at ten French centres from October 2008 to September 2009. The mean total cost in the pegfilgrastim arm of the study (n = 74) was <euro>25,024 (SD 9,945). That in the filgrastim arm (n = 76) was <euro>28,700 (SD 20,597). Pegfilgrastim strictly dominated filgrastim for days of febrile neutropenia avoided, days of neutropenia (ANC <1.0 × 10(9)/L) avoided, days of thrombopenia (platelets <20 × 10(9)/L) avoided, and days with temperature ≥38 °C) avoided. Pegfilgrastim was less costly and less effective than filgrastim for the number of days with ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L avoided and the number of days with platelets <50.0 × 10(9)/L avoided. Taking uncertainty into account, the probabilities that pegfilgrastim strictly dominated filgrastim were 67 % for febrile neutropenia, 86 % for neutropenia (ANC <1.0 × 10(9)/L), 59 % for thrombopenia (platelets <20 × 10(9)/L), 86 % for temperature ≥38 °C, 32 % for neutropenia (ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L), and 43 % for thrombopenia (platelets <50 × 10(9)/L). Conversely, the probability that filgrastim strictly dominated pegfilgrastim for neutropenia (ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L) is 5 %.

CONCLUSION

This study found no evidence that the use of pegfilgrastim is associated with greater cost in lymphoma and myeloma patients after high-dose chemotherapy and PBSC transplantation.

Effects of prophylactic hematopoietic colony stimulating factors on stem cell transplantations: meta-analysis

Hematopoietic growth factors are often given for prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN), infections, and other complications by hastening neutrophil recovery in the treatment of malignancies after high dose chemotherapy (HDCT). Although several meta-analyses have already demonstrated beneficial effects of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) administration, the effects of G-CSF have not been confirmed in cancer patients receiving stem cell transplantation (SCT) after HDCT. Therefore, we performed a statistical combination of controlled clinical trials to investigate the efficacy of prophylactic use of G-CSF in preventing the neutropenic complications associated with SCT following HDCT in cancer patients. We searched PubMed to identify potentially relevant references and finally selected seven randomized controlled trials that met all of the eligibility criteria. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that prophylactic G-CSF reduced the risk of documented infections and time to hematologic recovery manifested by days to absolute neutrophil count (ANC) ≥ 0.5 × 10(9)/L, days to ANC ≥ 1.0 × 10(9)/L, and days to platelets ≥ 20 × 10(9)/L in SCT patients with cancer following HDCT. The G-CSF treated group also showed a decrease in the length of hospital stay. However, there was no difference between G-CSF treatment group and placebo group in regard to all-cause mortality, infection-related mortality, grade 2∼4 acute graft-versus-host-disease, and episode of fever.

A risk-adapted protocol for delayed administration of filgrastim after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation

INTRODUCTION

The routine use of recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (auto-SCT) is associated with increased costs. We prospectively explored a strategy that used prophylactic delayed filgrastim only in patients with risk factors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This sequential cohort analysis compared the outcomes of consecutive patients, treated on the risk-adapted protocol (RAP) (risk factors: prior febrile neutropenia; age >60 years; and CD34+ cell infused dose of <2 × 10(6/)/kg), who received filgrastim from day +6 after auto-SCT with a historical cohort (historical day-1 cohort [HD1]), who received filgrastim from day +1.

RESULTS

Eighty-two patients were treated in the RAP cohort and compared with 115 patients in the HD1 cohort. There were no differences in median age (55 years) or median CD34+ cell dose (5.21 × 10(6)/kg [range, 2-62.2 × 10(6)/kg] vs. 5.24 × 10(6)/kg [range, 2.4-29.8 × 10(6)/kg]). Filgrastim was used for 6 fewer days in the RAP cohort (median 5 days [range, 0-11 days] vs. 11 days [range, 9-47 days]). There was a small absolute but significant difference in median time to neutrophil recovery in the HD1 cohort for the whole group, 10 days (range, 8-46 days) vs. 11 days (range, 9-22 days) (P = .03) and in patients with myeloma; 10 days (range, 9-14 days) vs. 11 days (range, 9-18 days) (P < .0001) as compared to the RAP cohort. There was no difference in median inpatient duration, 13 days (range, 10-26 days) vs. 12 days (range, 1-38 days) (P = .22) and 3-year survival (79% vs. 83% [P = .43]) between HD1 and RAP cohorts respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a RAP to identify patients likely to benefit from prophylactic filgrastim is safe and results in cost savings. Patients with myeloma benefit from earlier introduction of filgrastim in terms of neutrophil recovery; this disease-specific observation is an important consideration for future studies.

Early versus late administration of pegfilgrastim after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

PURPOSE

Single-dose pegylated filgrastim (pegfilgrastim) after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) showed similar efficacy compared to daily lenograstim. To address the question of the optimal application time, we randomly assigned patients (pts) to pegfilgrastim on day + 1 (Peg1) or day + 4 (Peg4) after AHSCT.

METHOD

Fifty-three pts with different hematological malignancies were included in this prospective randomized multicenter study. Primary endpoint of this study was time to neutrophil recovery (>500 Gpt/l), and secondary endpoint was time to neutrophil recovery (>1,000 Gpt/l), platelet recovery (>20,000 Gpt/l), number and duration of febrile episodes, i.v. antibiotics, and number of transfusions. Time to engraftment endpoints were estimated according to Kaplan-Meier.

RESULTS

Median time to neutrophil recovery (>500 Gpt/l) was 10 days (95% CI: 10-11) in Peg1 versus 10 days (95% CI: 10-11) in Peg4 (P = 0.68, logrank test; hazard ratio: 0.93). The corresponding mean values were 10.2 and 10.4 days. Median time to platelet recovery (>20,000 Gpt/l) was 10 (95% CI: 10-11) in Peg1 versus 10 (95% CI: 9-11) in Peg4, again not significantly different (P = 0.54). There was no difference regarding the incidence (67% vs. 60%, P = 0.77, Fisher's exact test) or duration of febrile neutropenia episodes in both groups (median: 1 vs. 1; mean: 2.8 vs. 2.4 days; P = 0.73, Wilcoxon test).

CONCLUSION

In terms of neutrophil or platelet recovery after AHSCT, number and duration of febrile episodes, the use of i.v. antibiotics, early and late administration of pegfilgrastim are equally effective.

Delayed administration of filgrastim (G-CSF) following autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (APBSCT) in pediatric patients does not change time to neutrophil engraftment and reduces use of G-CSF

BACKGROUND

Delayed initiation of granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cell (APBSCT) in adult patients does not affect time to neutrophil or platelet engraftment, duration of fever, incidence of bacteremia, duration of non-prophylactic antibiotic therapy, and length of hospitalization when compared to early initiation. This study compares the effect of delayed (day +6) versus early (day +1) administration of G-CSF in pediatric patients on time to neutrophil engraftment (TNE), duration and cost of G-CSF therapy, incidence of blood stream infections, duration of febrile-neutropenia, duration of non-prophylactic antibiotic therapy, and duration of hospitalization due to febrile-neutropenia.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of 65 patients who engrafted after receiving APBSCT and G-CSF between 1993 and 2006. They were divided into the delayed group (day +6) (n = 46) and the early group (day +1) (n = 19).

RESULTS

The median ages were 4.7 and 5.3 years in the early and delayed groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in TNE (P = 0.06) between the two groups. The duration of G-CSF administration was significantly less in the delayed group (P = 0.003). No significant differences were observed in the duration of neutropenia, time to platelet engraftment, the incidence of blood stream infections, and duration of fevers. Duration of hospitalization due to febrile-neutropenia was significantly lower in the delayed group (P = 0.01). Significant cost savings were observed by delaying G-CSF administration.

CONCLUSION

Delayed administration of G-CSF after APBSCT in children has no adverse effect on TNE or other clinical outcomes when compared to early administration and may incur substantial cost savings.

Pegfilgrastim compared to lenograstim after allogeneic peripheral blood stem-cell transplantation from unrelated donors

We compared a single, subcutaneous fixed dose of 6 mg pegfilgrastim on day +5 with daily lenograstim 263 microg from day +5 and continued until neutrophils were >or=0.5 x 10(9)/L after allogeneic peripheral blood stem-cell transplantation (PBSCT) from unrelated donors for various hematological disorders. Neutrophil engraftment was significantly faster (p = 0.006) in the pegfilgrastim than in the lenograstim group. There was also a tendency towards achieving a faster platelet engraftment (p = 0.06) in the pegfilgrastim group (median 16 vs. 19 days). The duration of thrombocytopenia (<20 x 10(9)/L) was shorter in the pegfilgrastim group (p = 0.05). There were no significant differences in the duration of neutropenia (p = 0.14) and febrile neutropenia (p = 0.25). Differences were not observed in the treatment related mortality, disease free and overall survival between both groups. We conclude that Pegfilgrastim ensured rapid neutrophil engraftment after unrelated allogeneic peripheral SCT, which was at least as effective as daily lenograstim.

Implications of the European Organisation for Research And Treatment Of Cancer (EORTC) guidelines on the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for lymphoma care

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a potentially life-threatening complication of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) guidelines recommend use of primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis if the overall FN risk to a patient is >or=20%, or if a reduction in chemotherapy dose intensity correlates with a poorer outcome. Many of the regimens used for treatment of lymphoma, including R-CHOP (rituximab combined with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisolone), are associated with an FN risk of approximately 20% or higher. Individual patient factors that may increase the risk of FN such as advanced age or advanced disease should be taken into account when assessing the need for G-CSF support. Predictive models are being developed to facilitate individual risk assessment. Additional anti-infective prophylaxis may be indicated in some settings. There is now much evidence for the benefits of G-CSF in reducing the incidence of FN and facilitating delivery of chemotherapy, including dose-escalated and dose-dense (interval-reduced) regimens. If given according to guidelines, G-CSF has the potential to reduce FN and related morbidity. Furthermore, by facilitating delivery of planned chemotherapy, use of G-CSF may potentially influence survival in the curative setting. Implementation of the EORTC guidelines will lead to a greater proportion of patients receiving G-CSFs, but the costs involved should be at least partly offset by a reduction in FN and its associated costs, including those of hospitalization.

Optimal use of G-CSF administration after hematopoietic SCT. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2009;43:895-908. [PMID: 19363527 DOI: 10.1038/bmt.2009.75]

After hematopoietic SCT (HSCT), G-CSF is commonly used to enhance stem cell engraftment to minimize the morbidity and mortality associated with prolonged neutropenia. However, there is no consensus on the optimal use of G-CSF after high-dose chemotherapy followed by HSCT. This review was performed to evaluate the evidence regarding the use of G-CSF after autologous and allogeneic HSCT. Studies investigating the use of G-CSF in comparison to control (observation or placebo), early vs delayed initiation of G-CSF, and other approaches driven by patient-specific parameters to identify optimal use of G-CSF have been reviewed. Various outcomes such as neutrophil and platelet engraftment, post-transplant length of hospital stay, post-transplant complications such as infection and GVHD, and survival have been assessed. Finally, we provide the level of evidence for each of the outcomes analyzed while evaluating strategies for using G-CSF in patients undergoing autologous or allogeneic HSCT.

Pegfilgrastim compared with filgrastim after autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in patients with solid tumours and lymphomas

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of pegfilgrastim administered as haematological support after autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation, we compared 44 patients with solid tumours and lymphomas receiving a 6-mg single dose of pegfilgrastim on day +5 after transplantation to a historical control group of 25 patients receiving filgrastim 5 microg kg(-1) day(-1) starting on day +5. There were no significant differences in haematological recovery nor in the incidence and duration of neutropenic fever. Median duration of grade 4 neutropenia in the pegfilgrastim and filgrastim group was similar. The incidence of grade III-IV mucositis was lower in pegfilgrastim than in filgrastim group due to the significant difference observed among the patients with solid tumours (p = 0.00). The only adverse event considered to be cytokine related was mild to moderate bone pain occurring during haematological recovery. According to the present study design and taking into account the current prices in our institution, the cost of the two drugs was similar in both treatment groups. In conclusion, a single injection of pegfilgrastim administered at day +5 post-transplantation shows comparable safety and efficacy profiles to daily injections of filgrastim and may be cost effective.

CD34+ dose-driven administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor after high-dose chemotherapy in lymphoma patients

Our goal was to optimize use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous peripheral blood stem-cell transplantation in lymphoma patients, limiting G-CSF administration to patients infusing a suboptimal CD34(+) cell number. Of 124 consecutive patients with histologically proven Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma from January 2001 to June 2004, 60 patients (group 1) given > or = 5 x 10(6)/kg CD34(+) cells received no G-CSF; 64 patients (group 2) given < or = 5 x 10(6)/kg CD34(+) cells received G-CSF from day +5 after stem-cell reinfusion. The median times to reach 0.5 x 10(9)/L and 1.0 x 10(9)/L neutrophils were, respectively, 3 and 4 d shorter in G-CSF group and this difference was statistically significant (P = 0.0014; P = 0.0001). In terms of antibiotic and antimycotic requirements, gastrointestinal toxicity, days of hospitalization, and transfusion requirements, no differences were demonstrated between the two groups. No statistically significant difference was demonstrated for the total number of febrile episodes (52 for group 1; 53 for group 2; P = 0.623) and the median number of febrile days (2 d for both groups). Myeloid reconstitution values for both groups agree with published results for autotransplanted patients treated with G-CSF from 7 to 14 d. Also, major clinical events, antibiotic, antimycotic, and transfusion requirements, and hospital stay were similar to published findings. Our data suggest that G-CSF administration can be safely optimized, used only for patients infused with a suboptimal CD34(+) cell dose.

Individually determined dosing of filgrastim after autologous peripheral stem cell transplantation in patients with malignant lymphoma ? results of a prospective multicentre controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To explore the safety and effectiveness of the individually determined application granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) after autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (ASCT).

METHODS

The administration of G-CSF from day +5 (arm A) was compared in a randomised, controlled trial with delayed, individually determined administration (G-CSF started when WBC >or= 0.5 x 10(9)/L and ANC >or= 0.1 x 10(9)/L or at day +10; arm B), and with placebo (arm C).

RESULTS

One hundred and six patients, median age 45 (range 21-64), all with malignant lymphoma treated with BEAM chemotherapy were analysed. A significant difference in the time to neutrophil engraftment and in the duration of neutropenia <0.5 x 10(9)/L and <1.0 x 10(9)/L was observed between the arms (P = 0.04-<0.0001) with a 1-d prolongation of the median durations in arm B in comparison with arm A but a 2-4-d prolongation in the placebo arm C in comparison with arm B. The median number and range of days to neutrophil engraftment >0.5 x 10(9)/L after graft re-infusion was 10 (9-14) in arm A; 11 (9-19) in arm B; and 14 (10-30) in arm C (P < 0.0001). Engraftment of platelets to >20 x 10(9)/L and >50 x 10(9)/L was significantly delayed in the arms using G-CSF in comparison with placebo (P = 0.04-0.002) without any increase in bleeding or in transfusion requirement. There was no difference in the incidence and duration of transplant-related complications and their treatment between the arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study has confirmed the safety of individually determined administration of G-CSF. The optimal timing of G-CSF application after ASCT in patients with good-quality grafts is shortly before expected spontaneous engraftment.

Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Prophylactic Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor and Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor After Autologous and Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation

Purpose

The primary objective of our meta-analysis was to determine whether prophylactic hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) after hematopoietic autologous and allogeneic stem-cell transplantation (SCT) reduced documented infections. Our secondary objectives were to determine whether prophylactic CSFs affected other outcomes including parenteral antibiotic therapy duration, infection-related mortality, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), or treatment-related mortality.

Methods

We included studies if there was random assignment between CSFs and placebo/no therapy and CSFs were given after SCT and before recovery of neutrophils. From 3,778 reviewed study articles, 34 were included based on predefined inclusion criteria. All analyses were conducted using a random effects model.

Results

CSFs reduced the risk of documented infections (relative risk [RR] 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.00; P = .05) and duration of parenteral antibiotics (weighted mean difference, −1.39 days, 95% CI, −2.56 to −0.22; P = .02) but did not reduce infection-related mortality (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.44; P = .4). CSFs did not increase grade 2 to 4 acute GVHD (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.31; P = .8) or treatment-related mortality (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.29; P = .98).

Conclusion

CSFs were associated with a small reduction in the risk of documented infections but did not affect infection or treatment-related mortality.

Pegfilgrastim compared with filgrastim after high-dose melphalan and autologous hematopoietic peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma patients

We undertook a comparative study of Pegfilgrastim vs. Filgrastim after high-dose melphalan and autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (APBSCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Thirty-seven consecutive patients were randomly assigned to receive a single 6 mg dose of Pegfilgrastim on day 1 post-transplant (n = 18 patients) vs. daily subcutaneous injections of Filgrastim 5 microg/kg (n = 19 patients) starting on day 5 post-transplant. The median duration of grade 4 neutropenia in the Pegfilgrastim and Filgrastim groups was 5 and 6 d, respectively (P = ns). The results for the two groups were also not significantly different for time to neutrophil and platelet recovery, but incidence of febrile neutropenia (61.1% vs. 100%, P = 0.003) and duration of febrile neutropenia (1.5 d vs. 4 d, P = 0.005), were lower in the Pegfilgrastim arm. After initial haematopoietic reconstitution, we observed significantly higher value of leukocytes x 10(9) L on day 15 (6.0 vs. 2.7, P = 0.004), in the Pegfilgrastim group compared with the Filgrastim group. This study shows that a single injection Pegfilgrastim can be used with safety and efficacy similar to those provided by daily injections of Filgrastim and it is associated with a decrease incidence of infectious events after APBSCT in MM patients.

Pegfilgrastim compared with Filgrastim after autologous hematopoietic peripheral blood stem cell transplantation

In order to assess the effect of Pegfilgrastim on the duration of neutropenia and clinical outcome of patients after autologous peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) transplantation, we compared 20 consecutive patients with lymphoma or multiple myeloma receiving a single 6-mg dose of Pegfilgrastim on day 1 posttransplant to an historical control group of 60 patients receiving daily Filgrastim 5 microg/kg starting on day 1 posttransplant. The duration of neutropenia was similar in the Pegfilgrastim group compared with the control group. There were no differences in time to neutrophil, erythroid, or platelet engraftment nor in the incidence of fever and infections. The duration of antibiotic therapy, transfusion support, and time to hospital discharge were similar in the two groups. However, after initial hematopoietic reconstitution, we observed significantly higher values of lymphocytes (e.g., 1,660+/-1,000 versus 970+/-460 on day 80, p=0.0002), neutrophils (e.g., 3,880+/-2,030 versus 2,420+/-1,500 on day 25, p=0.0004), reticulocytes (e.g., 148,160+/-90,590 versus 87,140+/-65,920 on day 25, p<0.0001), and platelets (e.g., 210,700+/-116,090 versus 150,240+/-58,230 on day 55, p=0.0052) up to day 100 in the Pegfilgrastim group compared with the Filgrastim group. These observations had no impact on clinical outcome of the patients after day 30 due to the low incidence of infectious events after engraftment in autologous PBSC transplantation. We conclude that the effect of Pegfilgrastim administrated on day 1 posttransplant is comparable to that of daily Filgrastim on initial hematopoietic reconstitution. The possibly superior effect of Pegfilgrastim on cell counts we observed after initial engraftment should be further tested in a prospective randomized trial.

Evidence-based guidelines for the management of neutropenia following outpatient hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) involves the transfer of stem cells to establish hematopoiesis in patients who have received myeloablative chemotherapy with or without whole body irradiation. Following high-dose therapy and HSCT, all patients experience a period of neutropenia. Outpatient care delivery models place expanded responsibilities on patients and their families for the management of this treatment side effect. Proactive management of neutropenia is critical to decrease the depth and duration of neutropenia following HSCT, limit exposure to opportunistic and nosocomial pathogens, and ensure prompt intervention should febrile neutropenia or infection develop. Patient and family education, psychosocial support, and coordination of care are key nursing responsibilities.

Lenograstim after autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation: results of a double-blind, randomized trial

A phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center trial was conducted in order to compare the incidence of microbiologically defined infections occurring after high-dose chemotherapy (HDT) and ASCT in 98 patients given lenograstim (Granocyte) and 94 patients given placebo after transplantation. Hematopoietic recovery, the use of i.v. antibiotics, the numbers of red blood cell and platelet transfusions, the days spent in hospital, and the days on parenteral nutrition were also compared. The incidence of infections until neutrophil recovery was significantly less in patients who received lenograstim after HDT and ASCT as compared to patients who received placebo (66 of 98 vs 86 of 94 patients, P<0.001). Lenograstim also significantly reduced the use of i.v. antibiotics (P<0.001) and the median duration of i.v. antibiotic treatment (8 days vs 10 days, P=0.04), improved neutrophil recovery (absolute neutrophil count >0.5 x 10(9)/l: 11 days vs 15 days, P<0.001) and reduced the number of days spent in hospital (15 days vs 17 days, P<0.001). The administration of lenograstim after HDT and ASCT significantly reduces the incidence of microbiologically defined infections until neutrophil recovery. It also leads to less use of antibiotics and earlier discharge from hospital.

Combined administration of alpha-erythropoietin and filgrastim can improve the outcome and cost balance of autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with lymphoproliferative disorders

We compared the use of G-CSF plus EPO in a group of 32 multiple myeloma and lymphoma patients with historical controls receiving G-CSF alone. Haemopoietic reconstitution was significantly faster in patients receiving G-CSF+EPO (group B), with a median time of 10 days to achieve an ANC count >0.5 x 10(9)/l, compared to 11 days in the historical group (A). The median duration of severe neutropenia (ANC count <100/ml) was significantly shorter in group B compared to group A; platelet counts >20 x 10(9) and >50 x 10(9)/l were achieved at days + 13 and + 17, respectively in group B, compared to days + 14 and + 24, respectively, in group A (P = 0.015, 0.002) patients. The transfusion requirement was reduced in group B, with 0 (0-6) RBC units and 1 (0-5) platelet unit transfused in group B vs 2 RBC (0-9) and 2 platelet units (0-8) in group A. Median days of fever, antibiotic therapy and hospital stay were reduced in group B (9.5 days vs 22). The mean cost of autotransplantation per group A patient was 23,988 Euro, compared with 18,394 Euro for a group B patient. Our study suggests that the EPO + G-CSF combination not only accelerates engraftment kinetics, but can also improve the clinical course of ASCT.

Clinical applications of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: an update and summary

The discovery of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and its potential to regulate neutrophil production and function in the inflammatory process has opened an exciting new era for the supportive care of patients with hematological and malignant diseases. Extensive experience has been gained worldwide with G-CSF therapy, and G-CSF is widely employed clinically, primarily because the safety profile appears to be fairly innocuous. A broad consensus has emerged regarding the clinical utility of G-CSF in neutropenic conditions due to chemotherapy. Furthermore, much interest has focused on the use of G-CSF to mobilize CD34+ hematopoietic stem cells from the marrow to the peripheral blood for use in hematopoietic transplantation. The promising results with G-CSF have promoted further studies, e.g., in immunocompetent patients or in granulocyte transfusion therapy. Here, we review the potential clinical role of G-CSF and describe its future perspectives.