Comparison Between Standard and High Dose of G-CSF for Mobilization of Hematopoietic Progenitors Cells in Patients and Healthy Donors

García-García, Irene; Cid, Joan; Carbassé, Gloria; López‐Jiménez, Javier; Moreno, Gemma; Lozano, Miguel

doi:10.1016/j.tmrv.2022.06.004

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In clinical practice, PB CD34+ cells mobilized by Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) are often used for AHSCT, revolutionizing stem cell transplantation [ 10 , 11 ]. Different forms of recombinant human G-CSF, such as filgrastim, lenograstim, and pegfilgrastim, are widely used in clinical practice, reducing febrile neutropenia and other adverse reactions [ 12 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

G-CSF + plerixafor versus G-CSF alone mobilized hematopoietic stem cells in patients with multiple myeloma and lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Li,

Qiu,

Lei

et al. 2024

Annals of Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim The combination of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and plerixafor is one of the approaches for hematopoietic stem cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma (MM), non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), and Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the ability of G-CSF + plerixafor to mobilize peripheral blood (PB) CD34+ cells and examine its safety profile. Methods We performed a database search using the terms ‘granulocyte colony stimulating factor’, ‘G-CSF’, ‘AMD3100’, and ‘plerixafor’, published up to May 1, 2023. The methodology is described in further detail in the PROSPERO database (CRD42023425760). Results Twenty-three studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. G-CSF + plerixafor resulted in more patients achieving the predetermined apheresis yield of CD34+ cells than G-CSF alone (OR, 5.33; 95%, 4.34–6.55). It was further discovered that G-CSF + plerixafor could mobilize more CD34+ cells into PB, which was beneficial for the next transplantation in both randomized controlled (MD, 18.30; 95%, 8.74–27.85) and single-arm (MD, 20.67; 95%, 14.34–27.00) trials. Furthermore, G-CSF + plerixafor did not cause more treatment emergent adverse events than G-CSF alone (OR, 1.25; 95%, 0.87–1.80). Conclusions This study suggests that the combination of G-CSF and plerixafor, resulted in more patients with MM, NHL, and HL, achieving the predetermined apheresis yield of CD34+ cells, which is related to the more effective mobilization of CD34+ cells into PB.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%