Bone marrow graft versus peripheral blood graft in haploidentical hematopoietic stem cells transplantation: a retrospective analysis in1344 patients of SFGM-TC registry

The use of peripheral blood (PB) or bone marrow (BM) stem cells graft in haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis remains controversial. Moreover, the value of adding anti-thymoglobulin (ATG) to PTCy is unknown. A total of 1344 adult patients received an unmanipulated haploidentical transplant at 37 centers from 2012 to 2019 for hematologic malignancy. We compared the outcomes of patients according to the type of graft, using a propensity score analysis. In total population, grade II-IV and III-IV acute GVHD (aGVHD) were lower with BM than with PB. Grade III-IV aGVHD was lower with BM than with PB + ATG. All outcomes were similar in PB and PB + ATG groups. Then, in total population, adding ATG does not benefit the procedure. In acute leukemia, myelodysplastic syndrome and myeloproliferative syndrome (AL-MDS-MPS) subgroup receiving non-myeloablative conditioning, risk of relapse was twice greater with BM than with PB (51 vs. 22%, respectively). Conversely, risk of aGVHD was greater with PB (38% for aGVHD II-IV; 16% for aGVHD III-IV) than with BM (28% for aGVHD II-IV; 8% for aGVHD III-IV). In this subgroup with intensified conditioning regimen, risk of relapse became similar with PB and BM but risk of aGVHD III-IV remained higher with PB than with BM graft (HR = 2.0; range [1.17-3.43], p = 0.012).

First experience of the use of a generic of plerixafor in peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma and lymphoma patients

Mobilization failure in patients is a major therapeutic concern which makes subsequent ASCT impossible. A new growth factor called Plerixafor (Mozobil®) developed by the pharmaceutical industry (Sanofi-aventis, France), is a chemoreceptor antagonist, CXCR4 type, which disrupts the interaction of SDFI and CXCR4, thereby enhancing the effect of G-CSF mobilization and is especially indicated for mobilization failure. Currently, there is a generic of plerixafor developed by the pharmaceutical industry (Hetero Drugs Ltd, India). The brand name of this medicine is Mozifor®. The objective of this study was to evaluate if generic plerixafor has the same efficacy and safety as originator plerixafor when used with G-CSF in the mobilization of PBSCs for autologous ASCT in multiple myeloma (MM) and lymphoma failure patients. The 32 patients received plerixafor were divided in two groups. The first group concerns the 11 consecutive patients prospectively received generic plerixafor (Mozifor®) in the period between January to July 2020. These were compared with a retrospective control cohort (second group n = 21) who had been treated between 2009 and 2019 with originator plerixafor (Mozobil®). For the Mozifor® group, the mean CD34+ was 4.54x10⁶/kg(1.56-6.79), the median time to achieve an absolute neutrophil count >0.5 G/L was 13 days (range: 8-21). The median time to self-sustained platelet count >20 G/L was 15 days (range: 8-24). For the Mozobil® group, the mean CD34+ was 3.1x10⁶/kg (0.56-8.91) (p=0.86), the median time to achieve an absolute neutrophil count >0.5 G/L was 10 days (range 7-23). The median time to self-sustained platelet count >20 G/L was 13 days (range: 7-29). Our study showed that the generic of plerixafor was practically identical to that of the originator (Mozobil®) with no significant difference (p = 0.52). This study demonstrates the safety and feasibility of mobilization PBSC with generic plerixafor in ASCT in MM and lymphoma. Although these outcomes are encouraging, prospective comparison with other traditional auto-HCT regimens used for patients with MM and lymphoma is warranted.