Articles producció científica> Medicina i Cirurgia

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

  • Datos identificativos

    Identificador: imarina:6394835
    Autores:
    Parody, RocioSanchez-Ortega, IsabelFerra, ChristelleGuardia, RamonTalarn, CarmeEncuentra, MaiteFort, EduardLopez, DavidMorgades, MireiaAlonso, EvaOrtega, SandraSarra, JosepGallardo, DavidRibera, Josep M.Sureda, Anna
    Resumen:
    Introduction Biosimilars of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) have shown similar efficacy to originator filgrastim (Neupogen (R) [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 (R) (Sandoz GmbH) (referred to hereafter as BIO). Primary objectives were mobilization rate (minimum of 10 x 10(3)/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 x 10(3)/ml; p = 0.002), as was the final CD34+ cell count (2.5 vs. 3.3 x 10(6)/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.
  • Otros:

    Autor según el artículo: Parody, Rocio; Sanchez-Ortega, Isabel; Ferra, Christelle; Guardia, Ramon; Talarn, Carme; Encuentra, Maite; Fort, Eduard; Lopez, David; Morgades, Mireia; Alonso, Eva; Ortega, Sandra; Sarra, Josep; Gallardo, David; Ribera, Josep M.; Sureda, Anna;
    Departamento: Medicina i Cirurgia
    Autor/es de la URV: Sarra Escarre, Jose
    Palabras clave: Stem cell mobilization Prophylaxis Profiles Preemptive plerixafor Plerixafor Multiple-myeloma Lymphoma G-csf Combination Colony-stimulating factor Collection Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia Biosimilars plerixafor biosimilars
    Resumen: Introduction Biosimilars of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) have shown similar efficacy to originator filgrastim (Neupogen (R) [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 (R) (Sandoz GmbH) (referred to hereafter as BIO). Primary objectives were mobilization rate (minimum of 10 x 10(3)/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 x 10(3)/ml; p = 0.002), as was the final CD34+ cell count (2.5 vs. 3.3 x 10(6)/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.
    Áreas temáticas: Oncology
    Acceso a la licencia de uso: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es/
    Direcció de correo del autor: jose.sarra@urv.cat
    Fecha de alta del registro: 2021-10-17
    Versión del articulo depositado: info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
    Enlace a la fuente original: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40487-020-00115-3#Sec11
    Referencia al articulo segun fuente origial: Oncology And Therapy. 8 (2): 311-324
    Referencia de l'ítem segons les normes APA: Parody, Rocio; Sanchez-Ortega, Isabel; Ferra, Christelle; Guardia, Ramon; Talarn, Carme; Encuentra, Maite; Fort, Eduard; Lopez, David; Morgades, Mirei (2020). 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. Oncology And Therapy, 8(2), 311-324. DOI: 10.1007/s40487-020-00115-3
    URL Documento de licencia: https://repositori.urv.cat/ca/proteccio-de-dades/
    DOI del artículo: 10.1007/s40487-020-00115-3
    Entidad: Universitat Rovira i Virgili
    Año de publicación de la revista: 2020
    Tipo de publicación: Journal Publications
  • Palabras clave:

    Oncology
    Stem cell mobilization
    Prophylaxis
    Profiles
    Preemptive plerixafor
    Plerixafor
    Multiple-myeloma
    Lymphoma
    G-csf
    Combination
    Colony-stimulating factor
    Collection
    Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia
    Biosimilars
    plerixafor
    biosimilars
    Oncology
  • Documentos:

  • Cerca a google

    Search to google scholar