Impact of Plerixafor Use at Different Peripheral Blood CD34+ Thresholds on Autologous Stem Cell Collection in Patients with Multiple Myeloma

Fever glove hand-shake method safe blood collection from children's fingertips in COVID-19 fever clinic

BACKGROUND

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic, the fever clinic is an important link for screening and diagnosing whether a patient is infected with the novel coronavirus. Blood collection from children’s fingertips is a commonly used detection method; however, in children, the blood collection process may cause discomfort and resistance. To address this problem, the use of heating gloves combined with hand swinging can be considered for fingertip blood collection in children.

AIM

To explore the application of fever gloves with the handshaking method for fingertip blood collection from children in fever clinics during the COVID-19 epidemic.

METHODS

A total of 100 children were selected for fingertip blood collection at the fever clinic of our hospital from June 2022 to June 2023 and were divided into two groups using a randomized numerical table method, with 50 cases in each group, including the control and observation groups. The patients in the control group followed the doctor's instructions to cooperate with the routine fingertip blood collection method, and the patients in the observation group followed the doctor's instructions to cooperate with the static fever gloves with the shaking hands method of children's fingertip blood collection. The level of the six blood routine and collection indexes, and the satisfaction of the examination of the patients in the peripheral blood group and the fever gloves with the shaking hands method of the children's fingertip blood collection group were compared.

RESULTS

The red and white blood cell count, hemoglobin, and red blood cell pressure volume in the observation group were higher than those in the control group (P < 0.05); the platelet count in the control group was lower than that in the observation group (P < 0.05); the number of times of squeezing the fingertip, the average time of blood collection, and the score of puncture pain in the observation group were significantly better than those in the control group (P < 0.05); and satisfaction with the routine blood examination in the observation group was greater than that in the control group.

CONCLUSION

The application value of the fever gloves with shaking hands method for children's fingertip blood collection was better, the accuracy of examination indexes was higher, and patient satisfaction with the examination was greater.

Stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma: challenges, strategies, and current developments

Among hematological malignancies, multiple myeloma (MM) represents the leading indication of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HCT). Auto-HCT is predominantly performed with peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs), and the mobilization and collection of PBSCs are essential steps for auto-HCT. Despite the improved success of conventional methods with the incorporation of novel agents for PBSC mobilization in MM, mobilization failure is still a concern. The current review comprehensively summarizes various mobilization strategies for mobilizing PBSCs in MM patients and the evolution of these strategies over time. Moreover, existing evidence substantiates that the mobilization regimen used may be an important determinant of graft content. However, limited data are available on the effects of graft characteristics in patient outcomes other than hematopoietic engraftment. In this review, we discussed the effect of graft characteristics on clinical outcomes, mobilization failure, factors predictive of poor mobilization, and potential mobilization regimens for such patients.

The effect of preemptive use of plerixafor on stem cell mobilization in patients with lymphoma and multiple myeloma

ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of the preemptive use of plerixafor in patients with lymphoma and multiple myeloma which was administered as a preemptive single dose to the patients who were determined to have a CD34+ cell count of

Stem Cell Mobilization with Ixazomib and G-CSF in Patients with Multiple Myeloma

(1) Background: High-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard consolidation strategy for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) and for a subset of patients with relapsed/refractory disease. For stem cell mobilization, G-CSF alone or in combination with chemotherapy mobilizing agents and/or plerixafor are commonly used. Ixazomib is an oral proteasome inhibitor with less neurotoxic potential, which previously showed the ability to mobilize stem cells in preclinical studies. (2) Methods: Prospective single-center phase 1 study assessing the efficacy and safety of stem cell mobilization with ixazomib and G-CSF in patients with newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory MM undergoing HDCT and ASCT. Primary endpoint was percentage of patients achieving a yield of at least 6.0 × 10⁶/kg CD34+ cells within the first apheresis. G-CSF (filgrastim) 10 μg/kg/day was administered subcutaneously (s.c.) from day 1 to day 5 (planned apheresis) and ixazomib 4 mg orally at day 4. Plerixafor 24 mg s.c. was administered if the stem cell mobilization with ixazomib and G-CSF was not sufficient. (3) Results: 19 patients were treated within the study between 06/2020 and 02/2021. The primary endpoint was reached in 17 (89%) patients, with a median of 7.1 × 10⁶/kg CD34+ cells collected within the first apheresis, comparable to previously published results, and only 2 (11%) patients required a second apheresis. Median number of circulating CD34+ cells was 14.0 × 10⁶/L (2.0-95.2) before the administration of ixazomib, and 33.0 × 10⁶/L (4.2-177.0) pre-apheresis. However, 9 (47%) patients required the addition of plerixafor to ensure optimal stem cell collection. (4) Conclusions: The combination of ixazomib and G-CSF showed promising stem cell mobilizing activity in patients with MM prior to HDCT and ASCT. Future larger studies might further investigate the role of ixazomib in stem cell mobilization regimens for MM.

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.

Prolonged Lenalidomide Induction Does Not Significantly Impair Stem Cell Collection in Multiple Myeloma Patients Mobilized With Cyclophosphamide or Plerixafor: A Report From The Covid Era

Introduction

Induction therapy for multiple myeloma is traditionally capped at 6 cycles of lenalidomide due to concerns that longer treatment compromises the ability to collect sufficient stem cells for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many of our patients received prolonged lenalidomide induction due to concerns about proceeding to ASCT. We investigated whether prolonged induction with lenalidomide affects the efficacy of stem cell collection among patients mobilized with cyclophosphamide and/or plerixafor.

Patients and methods

This single center, retrospective study included patients who were treated with lenalidomide induction regimens, received mobilization with cyclophosphamide or plerixafor, and underwent apheresis in preparation for ASCT. 94 patients were included, 40 of whom received prolonged induction with >6 cycles of lenalidomide containing regimen.

Results

Patients who received prolonged induction were more likely to require >1 day of apheresis (38% vs. 15%; OR 3.45; P = .0154), and there was a significant correlation between the duration of lenalidomide treatment and the apheresis time required to collect sufficient cells for transplant (R² = 0.06423, P = .0148). However, there was no significant difference between patients who received prolonged induction and those who did not with respect to CD34⁺ stem cell yields at completion of apheresis (9.99 vs. 10.46 cells/Kg, P = .5513) or on the first day of collection (8.29 vs. 9.59 cells/Kg, P = .1788).

Conclusion

Among patients treated with >6 cycles of lenalidomide, mobilization augmented with cyclophosphamide and/or plerixafor will likely facilitate sufficient stem cell harvest to permit ASCT.

The Efficacy and Safety of Chemotherapy-Based Stem Cell Mobilization in Multiple Myeloma Patients Who Are Poor Responders to Induction: The Mayo Clinic Experience

We report the outcomes of 117 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who received novel agent induction, had a poor response to induction, and were mobilized using intravenous intermediate-dose cyclophosphamide (82%) or VD-PACE (18%) plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and on-demand plerixafor. The median progression-free survival and overall survival of the chemo-mobilized cohort were 21 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 15-71) and 58 months (95% CI, 47-80), respectively. We compared our cohort to a 117-patient cohort matched by the level of response at pretransplant evaluation. The matched patients were mobilized with G-CSF and on-demand plerixafor without chemotherapy. Patients receiving chemo-mobilization had higher stem cell yields than the growth-factor-only cohort (median, 10.7 × 10⁶ cells/kg vs. 8.77 × 10⁶ cells/kg, respectively; P < .001). The safety profile of chemo-mobilization was favorable, and there was no difference between the two groups in length of hospitalization during autologous stem cell transplantation (P = .95), days to neutrophil engraftment (P = .22), days to platelet engraftment (P = .27), or risk of bacteremia (P = .52). Twenty-nine percent of the chemo-mobilized cohort and 65% of the matched cohort required plerixafor for adequate mobilization (P < .001). Chemo-mobilization enhances stem cell collection without adversely impacting the post-transplant clinical course.

Stem Cell Mobilization in Multiple Myeloma: Comparing Safety and Efficacy of Cyclophosphamide +/- Plerixafor versus Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor +/- Plerixafor in the Lenalidomide Era

Growth factor and chemotherapy-based stem cell mobilization strategies are commonly used to treat patients with multiple myeloma. We retrospectively compared 398 patients mobilized between 2017 and 2020 using either cyclophosphamide (4 g/m²) plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) or G-CSF alone, with on demand plerixafor (PXF) in both groups. Although total CD34⁺ yield was higher after chemomobilization compared with G-CSF +/- PXF (median, 13.6 × 10⁶/kg versus 4.4 × 10⁶/kg; P < .01), achievement of ≥2 × 10⁶ CD34⁺ cells (95% versus 93.7%; P = .61) and rates of mobilization failure (5% versus 6.3%; P = .61) were similar. Fewer patients required PXF with chemomobilization (12.3% versus 49.5%; P < .01), and apheresis sessions were fewer (median, 1 [range, 1 to 4] versus 2 [range, 1 to 5]). The rate of complications, including neutropenic fever, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations, was higher after chemomobilization (30% versus 7.4%; P < .01). Previous use of ≤6 cycles of lenalidomide did not impair cell yield in either group. The median cost of mobilization was 17.4% lower in the G-CSF +/- PXF group (P = .01). Between group differences in time to engraftment were not clinically significant. Given similar rates of successful mobilization, similar engraftment time, and less toxicity and lower costs compared with chemomobilization, G-CSF with on-demand PXF may be preferable in myeloma patients with adequate disease control and limited lenalidomide exposure.

Incorporating hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation after second-line carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (KRd)

Background:

Traditionally believed to be an integral part of multiple myeloma (MM) treatment, the role of hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) is being challenged. As such, we sought to evaluate the impact of HSCT in the era of novel agents.

Methods:

A multicenter, retrospective, longitudinal cohort study was carried out between January 2016 and December 2018. A total of 55 patients who received VTD (bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone) as first-line treatment and KRd (carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone) as second-line treatment were analyzed for outcomes.

Results:

The enrolled patients were divided into Group 1, defined as those who continued KRd treatment until progression (n = 41), versus Group 2, defined as those who underwent HSCT after a certain number of cycles of KRd (n = 14). Both groups showed a generally favorable response to KRd, with overall response rate (ORR) of 87.9% and clinical benefit rate of 92.8% after a median of seven cycles in Group 1, and ORR 92.8% and clinical benefit rate 100% after median of five cycles in Group 2. However, significantly poorer progression-free survival (PFS) (p = 0.004) was observed in Group 1 (median 12 months) compared with Group 2 (median not reached). Multivariate analyses identified HSCT after KRd as potential risk factors associated with PFS. Also, in Group 1, bortezomib refractoriness was associated with significantly shorter PFS compared with those who were responsive (median 12 months versus 14 months, respectively, p = 0.039).

Conclusions:

In conclusion, even with the advent of novel agents, HSCT still remains a valuable treatment modality with additive efficacy.