A plerixafor-based strategy allows adequate hematopoietic stem cell collection in poor mobilizers: results from the Canadian Special Access Program

Impact of plerixafor use in the mobilization of blood grafts for autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation

Plerixafor (PLER), a reversible antagonist of the CXC chemokine receptor type 4, has been in clinical use for mobilization of blood grafts for autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) for about 15 years. Initially PLER was investigated in placebo-controlled trials with the granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) filgrastim. It has also been used in combination with chemotherapy plus G-CSF in patients who had failed a previous mobilization attempt or appeared to mobilize poorly with current mobilization (preemptive use). This review summarizes what is known regarding addition of PLER to standard mobilization regimens. PLER increases mobilization of CD34+ cells, decreases the number of apheresis sessions needed to achieve collection targets and increases the proportion of patients who can proceed to AHCT. It appears also to increase the amount of various lymphocyte subsets in the grafts collected. In general, hematologic recovery after AHCT has been comparable to patients mobilized without PLER, although slower platelet recovery has been observed in some studies of patients who mobilize poorly. In phase III studies, long-term outcome has been comparable to patients mobilized without PLER. This also appears to be the case in patients receiving plerixafor for poor or suboptimal mobilization of CD34+ cells. In practice, PLER is safe and has not been shown to increase tumor cell mobilization.

Plerixafor use in autologous hematopoietic stem cell mobilization: Experience from a single center in Southern India

BACKGROUND

Plerixafor is used for patients at risk of Stem cell mobilization failure based on clinical factors or low peripheral blood CD34 count. It is also added upfront to any mobilization irrespective of risk factor, but the cost-effectiveness of the approach is an issue. Data on plerixafor in different settings of autologous hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) collection from India are scant. We are hereby reporting the experience of failure/success of mobilization rate and few important significant variables (CD34+ dosage, failed collection) between plerixafor and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor alone groups among autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (aHSCT) at our institute.

METHODS

This was a record-based single-center study on patients who underwent aHSCT from January 2013 to June 2019 at a tertiary care hospital. Descriptive statistics were used for baseline characteristics, transplant-related factors, and peritransplant outcomes. All statistical analyses were performed at the 5% significance level.

RESULTS

During the study duration, a total of 96 patients had undergone autologous hematopoietic stem cell collection (aHSCC), all by peripheral blood stem cell harvest, requiring 131 apheretic collections. Of the total 131 collections in 96 patients, plerixafor was used in 63 apheresis collections (48% of total pheresis) in 40 patients. Among the 40 patients who were administered plerixafor to augment the collection, 34 patients had upfront use of plerixafor. We did not observe any significant adverse event related to plerixafor use.

CONCLUSION

A rational utilization of plerixafor can facilitate the process and logistics of aHSCC outcome.

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.

Mobilization of Hematopoietic Stem Cells into Peripheral Blood for Autologous Transplantation Seems Less Efficacious in Poor Mobilizers with the Use of a Biosimilar of Filgrastim and Plerixafor: A Retrospective Comparative Analysis

Introduction

Biosimilars of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) have shown similar efficacy to originator filgrastim (Neupogen® [NEU]; Amgen Inc.) as prophylaxis in neutropenia and in the mobilization of stem cells in patients receiving combination chemotherapy with G-CSF.

Methods

This was a retrospective study in which the characteristics of stem cell mobilization treated with a G-CSF alone were compared in 216 patients and 56 donors. The two G-CSF compared were NEU and the biosimilar filgrastim Zarzio® (Sandoz GmbH) (referred to hereafter as BIO). Primary objectives were mobilization rate (minimum of 10 × 10³/ml CD34+ on day 4 of treatment [day +4]) and use of the immunostimulant plerixafor (PLEX) in each group.

Results

The general characteristics of the patients receiving NEU (n = 138) and those receiving BIO (n = 78) did not differ significantly. PLEX was used in 24% of BIO patients and in 25.7% of NEU patients. The median CD34+ cell count on day +4 was significantly lower in BIO patients who needed PLEX than in those who did not (2.4 vs. 4.8 × 10³/ml; p = 0.002), as was the final CD34+ cell count (2.5 vs. 3.3 × 10⁶/kg; p 0.03). Mobilization failure rate was higher in the BIO group than in the NEU group (20 vs. 0%; p = 0.01). With respect to donors, more than one apheresis was needed in three BIO donors, one of them with PLEX. The use of BIO was the only risk factor for mobilization failure in patients who needed PLEX (hazard ratio 10.3; 95% confidence interval 1.3–77.8).

Conclusion

The study revealed that BIO had a lower efficacy for stem cell mobilization when the only treatment was G-CSF, especially in poor mobilizers needing PLEX.

CXCR4 antagonist AMD3100 (plerixafor): From an impurity to a therapeutic agent

AMD3100 (plerixafor), a CXCR4 antagonist, has opened a variety of avenues for potential therapeutic approaches in different refractory diseases. The CXCL12/CXCR4 axis and its signaling pathways are involved in diverse disorders including HIV-1 infection, tumor development, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, WHIM Syndrome, and so on. The mechanisms of action of AMD3100 may relate to mobilizing hematopoietic stem cells, blocking infection of X4 HIV-1, increasing circulating neutrophils, lymphocytes and monocytes, reducing myeloid-derived suppressor cells, and enhancing cytotoxic T-cell infiltration in tumors. Here, we first revisit the pharmacological discovery of AMD3100. We then review monotherapy of AMD3100 and combination use of AMD3100 with other agents in various diseases. Among those, we highlight the perspective of AMD3100 as an immunomodulator to regulate immune responses particularly in the tumor microenvironment and synergize with other therapeutics. All the pre-clinical studies support the clinical testing of the monotherapy and combination therapies with AMD3100 and further development for use in humans.

Results from a multicenter, noninterventional registry study for multiple myeloma patients who received stem cell mobilization regimens with and without plerixafor

Plerixafor plus granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) enhances the mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) for collection and subsequent autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). This international, multicenter, noninterventional registry study (NCT01362972), evaluated long-term outcomes for MM patients who received plerixafor versus other mobilization regimens. The comparisons were: G-CSF + plerixafor (G-CSF + P) versus G-CSF-; G-CSF + P versus G-CSF + chemotherapy (G-CSF + C); and G-CSF + P + C versus G-CSF + C. Propensity score matching was used to balance groups. Primary outcome measures were progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) after transplantation. After propensity matching, 77 versus 41 patients in the G-CSF + P versus G-CSF cohorts, 129 versus 129 in the G-CSF + P versus G-CSF + C cohorts, and 117 versus 117 in the G-CSF + P + C versus G-CSF + C cohorts were matched, respectively. Propensity score matching resulted in a smaller sample size and imbalances were not completely overcome. For both PFS and OS, the upper limits of the hazard ratio 95% confidence intervals exceeded prespecified boundaries; noninferiority was not demonstrated. CIR rates were higher in the plerixafor cohorts. G-CSF + P remains an option for the mobilization of HSCs in poor mobilizers with MM with no substantial differences in PFS, OS, and CIR in comparison with other regimens.

Cyclophosphamide-based stem cell mobilization in relapsed multiple myeloma patients: A subgroup analysis from the phase III trial ReLApsE

OBJECTIVE

Analysis of the efficiency and toxicity of cyclophosphamide-based stem cell mobilization in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (RMM).

METHODS

Peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) were mobilized with high dose cyclophosphamide (2 g/m² daily on days 1 and 2) and G-CSF plus pre-emptive/rescue plerixafor in RMM patients (first to third relapse) treated within the ReLApsE trial of the German-Speaking Myeloma Multicenter Group (GMMG).

RESULTS

Mobilization was initiated with high-dose cyclophosphamide (HD-CY) and G-CSF in 30 patients. Fifteen patients received additional pre-emptive/rescue administration of plerixafor. Stem cell collection was successful (≥2×10⁶ CD34+ cells per kg bw) in 77% (23/30 patients). Patients with prior high-dose melphalan collected a significantly lower median total number of PBSCs than patients without prior high-dose melphalan (3.3×10⁶ vs 17×10⁶ CD34+ cells/kg bw). Toxicity of HD-CY was frequent with 12 serious adverse events (SAE) in 37% of patients (11/30 patients). Infections accounted for the majority of SAE reports. In two patients, SAEs were lethal (septic shock).

CONCLUSIONS

These data proof feasibility of PBSC collection at relapse but emphasize the importance of collection and storage of additional PBSC transplants during first-line treatment when mobilization is more efficient and less toxic.

A single center's experience using four different front line mobilization strategies in lymphoma patients planned to undergo autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation

In an otherwise eligible patient with relapsed lymphoma, inadequate mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells is a limiting factor to proceeding with an autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT). Multiple strategies have been used to mobilize an adequate number of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) with no obvious front-line strategy. We report a single institutional experience mobilizing HSCs using four different approaches in lymphoma patients. We prospectively collected mobilization outcomes on patients planning to undergo auto-HCT at Ohio State University. We report results of first mobilization attempt for all relapsed or refractory lymphoma patients between 2008–2014. We identified 255 lymphoma patients who underwent mobilization for planned auto-HCT. The 255 lymphoma patients underwent the following front line mobilization strategies: 95 (37%) GCSF alone, 38 (15%) chemomobilization (GCSF+chemotherapy), 97 (38%) preemptive day 4 plerixafor, and 25 (10%) rescue day 5 plerixafor. As expected, there were significant differences between cohorts including age, comorbid indices, histology, and amount of prior chemotherapy. After controlling for differences between groups, the odds of collecting 2×10⁶/kg HSCs on the first day of collection and 5×10⁶/kg HSCs in total was highest in the cohort undergoing chemomobilization. In conclusion, our experience highlights the effectiveness of chemomobilization.

Prognostic factors for re-mobilization using plerixafor and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients with malignant lymphoma or multiple myeloma previously failing mobilization with G-CSF with or without chemotherapy: the Korean multicenter retrospective study

Plerixafor in combination with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) has been shown to improve the rates of successful peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) mobilization in patients with malignant lymphoma or multiple myeloma (MM) who experienced prior failure of PBSC mobilization. We evaluated the mobilization results of re-mobilization using plerixafor and G-CSF in insufficiently mobilizing patients. Forty-four patients with lymphoma (n = 29) or MM (n = 15) were included in the study. The median age was 50 (range, 24-64) years. Previous mobilization regimens were chemotherapy with G-CSF (n = 28), including cyclophosphamide with G-CSF (n = 15), and G-CSF only (n = 16). All patients with lymphoma achieved at least partial response (PR) before the mobilization, including 13 complete responses (CRs). Eleven patients with MM achieved at least PR and four patients with MM were in stable disease before mobilization. The median number of apheresis was 3 (range, 1-6). The median yield of PBSC collections was 3.41 (0.13-38.11) × 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg. Thirty-four (77.3 %) patients had successful collections defined as at least 2 × 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg. The rate of successful collections was not different between the two underlying diseases (79.3 % in lymphoma and 73.3 % in MM). Of the entire cohort, 38 (86.4 %) of patients went on to receive an autologous transplant. Previous long-term use of high-risk drugs (>4 cycles use of alkylating agents, platinum-containing agents, or thalidomide) (HR 10.8, 95 % CI 1.1-110.0, P = 0.043) and low platelet count (<100 × 10(9)/L) 1 day before the first apheresis (HR 27.9, 95 % CI 2.9-273.7, P = 0.004) were independent prognostic factors for predicting failure of PBSC re-mobilization using plerixafor and G-CSF. In conclusion, re-mobilization using plerixafor and G-CSF showed a success rate of 77.3 % in patients with lymphoma or MM who experienced prior failure of PBSC mobilization, and the majority of them underwent autologous transplant. Therefore, plerixafor-based re-mobilization was an effective method in poor mobilizers.

A nationwide survey of the use of plerixafor in patients with lymphoid malignancies who mobilize poorly demonstrates the predominant use of the "on-demand" scheme of administration at French autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant programs

BACKGROUND

High-dose chemotherapy supported with autologous stem cell transplantation is a standard therapeutic option for a subset of patients with lymphoid malignancies. Cell procurement is nowadays done almost exclusively through cytapheresis, after mobilization of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs) from the marrow to peripheral blood (PB). The egress of HSPCs out of hematopoietic niches occurs in various physiologic or nonhomeostatic situations; pharmacologic approaches include the administration of acutely myelosuppressive agents or hematopoietic growth factors such as recombinant human granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (rHuG-CSF). The introduction of plerixafor, a first-of-its-class molecule that reversibly inhibits the interaction between the chemokine CXCL-12 (also known as SDF-1) and its receptor CXCR-4, has offered new opportunities for the so-called "poor mobilizers" who achieve insufficient mobilization and/or collection with conventional approaches.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Because of the lack of consensus on a definition for poor mobilizers and the relatively high cost of plerixafor, French competent authorities have mandated a postmarketing survey on its use in routine practice.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

We report here the results of this nationwide survey that confirms the clinical efficacy of plerixafor, even in the subset of patients who barely increased PB CD34+ cell count in response to rHuG-CSF-containing mobilization regimen. Furthermore, analysis of this registry showed that despite heterogeneity in medical practices, the early-"on-demand" or "preemptive"-introduction of plerixafor was widely used and did not result in an excess of prescriptions, beyond its expected use at the time when marketing authorization was granted.

Protecting the Health and Safety of Cell and Tissue Donors

Centers involved with collecting the starting material for cell and tissue therapies are obligated to protect the recipient's and donor's health and safety. All donors face risks during and after the collection which can be minimized by prescreening donors and excluding those that the collection would place at increased risk of physical harm. Another important part of protecting donors is the use of appropriate collection facilities. Donor risk can also be reduced by using specially designed collection devices and ancillary equipment, using only trained collection staff and limiting the volume or quantity of biologic material collected. Donors should be monitored during and after the collection for adverse events, and should adverse events occur, they should be promptly and appropriately treated. Protecting the safety of cell, gene and tissue donors is particularly difficult because of the wide variety in the types of donors and material collected. Biological material used to manufacture cell and tissue therapies is collected from healthy volunteers, matched-related, matched-unrelated and autologous donors. Precautions should be taken to ensure that the team of medical professionals evaluating related donors is not the same as the team caring for the transplant recipient in order to be sure that the donor evaluation is not biased and the donor is not coerced into donating. In conclusion, protecting cell and tissue donors requires the use of the practices developed to protect blood donors and the implementation of many other measures.