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

On-demand plerixafor added to high-dose cyclophosphamide and pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in the mobilization of patients with multiple myeloma: a treatment with high effectiveness, convenient, and affordable cost

Objective

The combination of high-dose cyclophosphamide (HD-Cy) (3g/m2) plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and on-demand plerixafor (PXF) has been considered an effective mobilization regimen of patients with multiple myeloma(MM). However, the daily multi-injection regimen of G-CSF poses challenges. This study delves into the efficiency and cost implications of a novel approach, using HD-Cy alongside pegylated G-CSF (PEG G-CSF) and on-demand PXF. Unlike G-CSF, which necessitates daily injections, the half-life of PEG G-CSF extended allows for a single injection.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 350 MM patients, which were categorized based on their mobilization regimens: Cy+PEG G-CSF+/-PXF (n=66), Cy+PEG G-CSF (n=91), Cy+ G-CSF (n=169), and G-CSF+PXF (n=24).

Results

Mobilization with Cy+PEG G-CSF+/-PXF(8.79)yielded a notably higher median CD34+ cell count compared to the other regimens: Cy+PEG G-CSF(4.96), Cy+G-CSF (4.65), and G-CSF+PXF (2.99) (P<0.001). The percentage of patients who achieved >6×106/kg CD34+ cells was significantly higher in the Cy+PEG G-CSF+/-PXF group (77.3%) than in the other mobilization regimens: Cy+PEG G-CSF (41.8%), Cy+ G-CSF (37.3%), and G-CSF+PXF (8.3%) (P<0.001). From a cost perspective, the Cy+PEG G-CSF+/-PXF approach was more economical than the G-CSF+PXF strategy but was marginally costlier than the other two methods. A multivariate assessment highlighted that the combination of Cy+PEG G-CSF with on-demand PXF had a superior potential to achieve the desired harvest (6×106/kg) compared to the Cy+PEG G-CSF protocol without PXF. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for each 1% increase in the probability of achieving a successful optimal harvest was $ 97.02 per patient. The incidence of neutropenic fever was 3.0% in the Cy+PEG G-CSF+/-PXF group.

Conclusion

The combination of on-demand PXF with HD-Cy and PEG G-CSF offers a cost-effective approach with a high mobilization success rate, manageable side effects, and the convenience of fewer injections. It stands as a promising mobilization strategy for MM patients.

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.

An innovation in stem cell harvesting: Heparin use

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Stem cell transplantation is a growing treatment strategy for most malignant and non- malignant hematological diseases. Plerixafor and granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) are usually used in mobilization regimens to increase the CD34⁺ cell count in the harvest. Heparin is a sulphated glycosaminoglycated polymer with 12-15 kDa mass. Heparin inhibits the CXCR4/SDF1 axis, as does plerixafor. In this study, our aim was to investigate the effect of using heparin on stem cell mobilization and harvesting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We administered 5000 units of unfractioned heparin intravenously in 150 mL (mL) of isotonic sodium chloride solution, 15 min before the stem cell harvesting procedure to 141 patients who underwent bone marrow transplantation between the years of 2018 and 2019 at our Stem Cell Transplantation Unit. Thirty patients were included as a control group, and they were not given heparin. The study population included patients with multiple myeloma and lymphoma equally in each group.

RESULTS

In all patients hematopoeitic stem cells were successfully harvested in a single cycle of apheresis. In multiple myeloma patients who received heparin, the mean collected CD34⁺ cell number was 8 × 10⁶/kg, and the mean CD34⁺ cell number yield was 12,555/μl. In the control group, the mean collected CD34⁺ cell number was 4,2 × 10⁶/kg, and mean CD34⁺ cell number in yield was 492/μl. In lymphoma patients who received heparin, the mean collected CD34⁺ cell number was 6,8 × 10⁶/kg, and the mean CD34⁺ cell number was 1421/μl. In the control group the mean collected CD34⁺ cell number was 4,3 × 10⁶/kg, and the mean CD34⁺ cell number was 358/μl. The effect of heparin on the collected stem cell number in both myeloma and lymphoma patients was statistically significant (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results have shown that heparin increases harvested stem cell numbers significantly. Heparin may be a promising agent for stem cell harvesting.

Use of plerixafor to mobilize haematopoietic progenitor cells in healthy donors

Increased transplant activity calls for improved stem cell collection, especially when peripheral blood is the preferred source of haematopoietic progenitor cells (HPCs). Plerixafor is a bicyclam molecule that mobilizes CD34+ cells by reversibly disrupting CXCR4-CXCL12-supported HPC retention. Plerixafor is given with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to help harvest autologous CD34+ cells for transplantation when mobilization with G-CSF fails. Mobilization protocols with the same doses of plerixafor and G-CSF have been used off-label in healthy allogeneic donors, with equal success and scarce side effects, both in adult and paediatric patients. Plerixafor has also been used as a sole mobilization agent. Plerixafor alone or coupled with G-CSF might lead to harvesting distinct cellular populations conferring improved engraftment properties and increased survival. Those characteristics might make plerixafor an especially attractive mobilization agent, particularly for non-related donations. However, available data are limited, and long-term follow-up is needed to clarify the best scenario for using plerixafor with or without G-CSF in healthy donors. In this review, we will summarize the evidence supporting this practice, highlighting the practical aspects and providing clues for an expanded use of plerixafor.

Use of Plerixafor for Stem Cell Mobilization in the Setting of Autologous and Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantations: An Update

Mobilization failure is an important issue in stem cell transplantations. Stem cells are yielded from the peripheral blood via apheresis. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is the most commonly used mobilization agent among patients and donors. G-CSF is administered subcutaneously for multiple days. However, patients with mobilization failure cannot receive autologous stem cell transplantation and, therefore, cannot be treated adequately. The incidence rate of mobilization failure among patients is about 6–23%. Plerixafor is a molecule that inhibits the binding of chemokine receptor-4 with stromal-cell-derived factor-1, thereby resulting in the release of CD34+ cells in the peripheral blood. Currently, plerixafor is used in patients with mobilization failure with G-CSF and is administered subcutaneously. Several studies conducted on different clinical settings have shown that plerixafor is effective and well tolerated by patients. However, more studies should be conducted to explore the optimal approach for plerixafor in patients with mobilization failure. The incidence of mobilization failure among donors is lower. However, plerixafor is not approved among donors with mobilization failure. Moreover, several clinical studies in donors have shown a beneficial effect of plerixafor. In addition, the adverse events of plerixafor are mild and transient, which can overcome the adverse events due to G-CSF. This review assessed the current role and effects of plerixafor in stem cell mobilization for autologous and allogeneic stem cell transplantations.

Getting blood out of a stone: Identification and management of patients with poor hematopoietic cell mobilization

Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) has become a primary treatment for many cancers. Nowadays, the primary source of hematopoietic cells is by leukapheresis collection of these cells from peripheral blood, after a forced egress of hematopoietic cells from marrow into blood circulation, a process known as "mobilization". In this process, mobilizing agents disrupt binding interactions between hematopoietic cells and marrow microenvironment to facilitate collection. As the first essential step of HCT, poor mobilization, i.e. failure to obtain a desired or required number of hematopoietic cell, is one of the major factors affecting engraftment or even precluding transplantation. This review summarizes the available mobilization regimens using granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and plerixafor, as well as the current understanding of the factors that are associated with poor mobilization. Strategies to mobilize patients or healthy donors who failed previous mobilization are discussed. Multiple novel agents are under investigation and some of them have shown the potential to enhance the mobilization response to G-CSF and/or plerixafor. Further investigation of the risk factors including genetic factors will offer an opportunity to better understand the molecular mechanism of mobilization and help develop new therapeutic strategies for successful mobilizations.

Justification for a Fixed Dose of Eflapegrastim, a Long-Acting G-CSF, in Patients Receiving Docetaxel-Cyclophosphamide Chemotherapy

Eflapegrastim (Rolontis) is a long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) produced by conjugating a human G-CSF analogue and a human immunoglobulin G4 Fc fragment, linked via a polyethylene glycol linker. Weight-based doses of 45 to 270 μg/kg eflapegrastim (12.3-73.6 μg/kg as G-CSF) were evaluated in a phase 2 study in patients. Based on these results, a fixed dose of 13.2 mg eflapegrastim (3.6 mg G-CSF) was compared with pegfilgrastim (6 mg G-CSF) in 2 phase 3 studies and in a pharmacokinetic single-arm multicenter study. Absolute neutrophil count (ANC) data from these 3 studies were evaluated in patients with early-stage breast cancer who were treated with docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (n = 669). Serum concentrations of eflapegrastim were determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Eflapegrastim systemic exposures were higher in cycle 1 than in cycle 3, likely attributable to the higher ANC in cycle 3, increasing neutrophil-mediated clearance. Eflapegrastim elicited a greater effect on ANC than pegfilgrastim in patients at ∼60% of the G-CSF dose. Body weight had no clinically significant effect on response, justifying administration of a fixed dose of eflapegrastim. The results from 2 phase 3 studies demonstrate that eflapegrastim at a fixed dose of 13.2 mg (3.6 mg G-CSF) administered once per chemotherapy cycle is effective in prophylactic treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.

Pegfilgrastim improves the outcomes of mobilization and engraftment in autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for the treatment of multiple myeloma

Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is the only curable therapy for multiple myeloma (MM), while its success primarily relies on mobilization to obtain sufficient hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells (HPC). Although the role of Pegfilgrastim (PEG), a novel PEGylated form of the recombinant G-CSF filgrastim (FIL), in mobilization has been demonstrated, it remains unclear whether this approach is cost-effective in MM treatment. Here, we performed a real-world analysis to evaluate the efficacy and cost of PEG for mobilization in a cohort of MM patients, of which 53% carried high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. A total of 91 patients who received either a single dose of PEG (6 or 12 mg, n = 42) or multiple dosing of 10 μg/kg/day FIL (n = 49) after chemotherapy for HPC mobilization were included. The yield of MNCs and CD34⁺ cells per milliliter of blood collected via apheresis was significantly greater in the PEG group than that in the FIL group (P = 0.014 and P = 0.038). Mobilization with PEG yielded significantly higher median number of collected CD34⁺ cells than FIL (5.56 vs. 4.82 × 10⁶/kg; P = 0.038). Moreover, the average time-to-recovery of leukocytes and platelets after transplantation was markedly shorter in the PEG group than that in the FIL group (leukocyte, 11.59 ± 1.98 vs 12.93 ± 2.83 days, P = 0.019; platelet, 12.86 ± 2.62 vs 14.80 ± 5.47, P = 0.085). However, the total cost of mobilization and apheresis using PEG or FIL was comparable (P = 0.486). Of note, mobilization with 12 mg PEG further shortened time-to-recovery of leukocytes (10.64 ± 0.51 vs. 12.04 ± 2.26 days, P = 0.05) and platelets (10.60 ± 2.89 vs. 13.33 ± 2.35 days, P = 0.031) compared with 6 mg PEG. Our results support a notion that PEG (especially 12 mg) combined with chemotherapy is a cost-effective and convenient regimen of mobilization, which might improve the outcome of ASCT in MM.

Cost burden of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Introduction: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common non-Hodgkin lymphoma and is a clinically heterogeneous disease. Treatment pathways for DLBCL are diverse and integrate established and novel therapies.Areas covered: We review the cost burden of DLBCL and the cost-effectiveness of DLBCL management including precision and cellular medicine. We utilized Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and keywords to search the National Library of Medicine online MEDLINE database (PubMed) for articles related to cost, cost burden, and cost-of-illness of DLBCL and cost-effectiveness of DLBCL management strategies published in English as of June 2019.Expert commentary: Available and developing DLBCL therapies offer improved outcomes and often curative treatment at considerable financial expense, and the total cost burden for DLBCL management is substantial for patients and the healthcare system. In the era of personalized medicine, CAR T cells and targeted therapies provide exciting avenues for current and future DLBCL care and can further increase treatment cost. Determinations of cost and cost-effectiveness in DLBCL treatment pathways should continue to guide care providers and systems in identifying cost reduction strategies to provide appropriate therapies to the greatest number of patients in treating DLBCL.