Veltri Lauren, Cumpston Aaron, Shillingburg Alexandra, Wen Sijin, Luo Jin, Leadmon Sonia, Watkins Kathy, Craig Michael, Hamadani Mehdi, Kanate Abraham S
Section of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA.
Department of Pharmacy, West Virginia University, Morgantown, and West Virginia Osborn Hematopoietic Malignancy and Transplantation Program, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA.
Cytotherapy. 2015 Dec;17(12):1785-92. doi: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2015.09.002. Epub 2015 Oct 21.
Hematopoietic cell mobilization with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and plerixafor results in superior CD34+ cell yield compared with G-CSF alone in patients with myeloma and lymphoma. However, plerixafor-based approaches may be associated with high costs. Several institutions use a "just-in-time" plerixafor approach, in which plerixafor is only administered to patients likely to fail mobilization with G-CSF alone. Whether such an approach is cost-effective is unknown.
We evaluated 136 patients with myeloma or lymphoma who underwent mobilization with 2 approaches of plerixafor utilization. Between January 2010 and October 2012, 76 patients uniformly received mobilization with G-CSF and plerixafor. Between November 2012 and June 2014, 60 patients were mobilized with plerixafor administered only to those patients likely to fail mobilization with G-CSF alone.
The routine plerixafor group had a higher median peak peripheral blood CD34+ cell count (62 versus 29 cells/μL, P < 0.001) and a higher median day 1 CD34+ yield (2.9 × 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg versus 2.1 × 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg, P = 0.001). The median total CD34+ collection was higher with routine plerixafor use (5.8 × 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg versus 4.5 × 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg, P = 0.007). In the "just-in-time" group, 40% (n = 24) completed adequate collection without plerixafor. There was no difference in mobilization failure rates. The mean plerixafor doses used was lower with "just-in-time" approach (1.3 versus 2.1, P = 0.0002). The mean estimated cost in the routine plerixafor group was higher (USD 27,513 versus USD 23,597, P = 0.01).
Our analysis demonstrates that mobilization with a just-in-time plerixafor approach is a safe, effective, and cost-efficient strategy for HPC collection.
在骨髓瘤和淋巴瘤患者中,与单独使用粒细胞集落刺激因子(G-CSF)相比,联合使用G-CSF和普乐沙福进行造血细胞动员可产生更高的CD34+细胞产量。然而,基于普乐沙福的方法可能成本高昂。一些机构采用“适时”使用普乐沙福的方法,即仅对单独使用G-CSF可能动员失败的患者使用普乐沙福。这种方法是否具有成本效益尚不清楚。
我们评估了136例接受两种普乐沙福使用方法进行动员的骨髓瘤或淋巴瘤患者。在2010年1月至2012年10月期间,76例患者均接受了G-CSF和普乐沙福联合动员。在2012年11月至2014年6月期间,60例患者仅对那些单独使用G-CSF可能动员失败的患者使用普乐沙福进行动员。
常规普乐沙福组外周血CD34+细胞计数峰值中位数更高(62对29个细胞/μL,P<0.001),第1天CD34+产量中位数更高(2.9×10⁶个CD34+细胞/kg对2.1×10⁶个CD34+细胞/kg,P=0.001)。常规使用普乐沙福时CD34+细胞总采集量中位数更高(5.8×10⁶个CD34+细胞/kg对4.5×10⁶个CD34+细胞/kg,P=0.007)。在“适时”组中,40%(n=24)的患者未使用普乐沙福就完成了足够的采集。动员失败率无差异。“适时”方法使用的普乐沙福平均剂量更低(1.3对2.1,P=0.0002)。常规普乐沙福组的平均估计成本更高(27,513美元对23,597美元,P=0.01)。
我们的分析表明,适时使用普乐沙福进行动员是一种安全、有效且具有成本效益的造血干细胞采集策略。