MEdical Database AnaLysIS of Japanese multiple myeloma patienTs with apheresis #2 (MEDALIST-2): the impact of plerixafor use on costs and healthcare resources during mobilization and stem cell transplantation.

Treatment for multiple myeloma (MM) can involve apheresis to mobilize hematopoietic stem cells for later autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), which can become costly over time. This retrospective claims database study examined healthcare resource use and medical costs associated with plerixafor, a selective CXCR4 inhibitor that mobilizes hematopoietic stem cells and minimizes apheresis times. Medical data were sampled from Japanese MM patients between April 2017 and September 2019, after the Japanese launch of plerixafor. The study population (190 plerixafor users and 180 non-users) was identified from the Medical Data Vision database, and further stratified into those using granulocyte-colony stimulating factor in monotherapy or in combination with cyclophosphamide to trigger apheresis. A descriptive comparison of patient characteristics, healthcare resource use, and medical costs across the mobilization and ASCT phases indicated plerixafor is associated with higher average total medical costs. However, plerixafor-treated patients received fewer concomitant medications and spent less time in apheresis than non-users. A comparison of non-users with a similar analysis conducted pre-plerixafor launch (2013-2017) showed general improvements to treatment independent of plerixafor. The results of this research can inform guidelines for the role of plerixafor in balancing cost-effectiveness and drug efficacy in MM treatment.

Multiple Myeloma: Risk Adapted Use of Plerixafor for Stem Cell Mobilization Prior to Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation is Effective and Cost Efficient.

BACKGROUND: We used plerixafor in 'a risk adapted approach' for stem cell mobilization for multiple myeloma (MM) patients prior to autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January, 2017 and December, 2019 105 consecutive patients of MM were recruited (Study Cohort). Patients received inj G-CSF 10 µg/kg in 2 divided doses for 5 days. Day 4 peripheral blood (PB) CD34+ count was used as a guide; if count was < 20 cells/µl, patients received plerixafor. For those with ≥ 20 cells/µl apheresis was commenced on day 5. We compared their outcome with 156 MM patients transplanted between 2012 and 2016 with G-CSF mobilized PB stem cells (Control Cohort). Primary end point was to collect ≥2.0  ×  106 CD34+ cells/kg (minimal harvest). Secondary end points were: no of apheresis sessions, percentage of patients with optimal stem cell harvest (≥4.0  ×  106 CD34+ cells/kg) and cost analysis. An intent to treat analysis was done. RESULT: 96.2% of patients achieved ≥ 2.0  ×  106 CD34+ cells/kg in the study cohort vs. 87.2% in the control cohort, P < .01. Mean apheresis sessions were 1.5 vs. 1.7 respectively, P < .014 . Optimal stem cell harvest was 29.5% vs. 16%,P = .23. Days for neutrophil engraftment (P < 0.025) and for IV antibiotics (P < .0017) were favorable for the study cohort. Incremental cost effectiveness ratio was $ 15.80/- and $ 10.56/- per 1% increase to achieve a minimal and optimal harvest. CONCLUSION: Plerixafor in this risk adapted strategy resulted in successful mobilization, decreased time to engraftment and was cost effective.

Plerixafor strategies for autologous hematopoietic cell transplant mobilization: A comparison of efficacy and cost.

Addition of plerixafor (P) to granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) during peripheral blood mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells (HSC) increases the number of patients meeting collection goals prior to autologous stem cell transplant (aSCT). However, use of P is not universal among transplant centers due to cost. This study aims to compare clinical and financial impacts of using an algorithm-based P mobilization strategy versus use in all patients. This was a single center, retrospective analysis of adult patients with myeloma or amyloidosis receiving aSCT who received apheresis of their HSC between 3/1/2017 and 3/1/2019. Patients prior to 3/1/2018 were classified as receiving P "per algorithm" and those after this date were classified as "up-front" P. For the per-algorithm group, P was given for a pre-apheresis CD34+ cell count of <20 cells/µL on mobilization day 5 and patients returned on day 6 for apheresis. Of the 129 patients included, 55 received P per-algorithm and 74 received up-front P. There was a reduction in median number of apheresis days (1.5 vs 1 day, p < 0.001) and an increase in median number of CD34+ cells collected (6.6 vs 8.5 × 106 cells/kg, p < 0.001) with up-front P. Up-front P increased drug cost but reduced apheresis costs, which resulted in a net savings of $121 per patient in total mobilization costs. These findings suggest that use of up-front P for mobilization significantly reduces apheresis days and increases HSC collection yield without increasing overall cost per patient.

Chemotherapy-based versus chemotherapy-free stem cell mobilization (± plerixafor) in multiple myeloma patients: an Italian cost-effectiveness analysis.

Given the availability and efficacy of the mobilizing agent plerixafor in augmenting hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), there is a strong case for comparing the cost-effectiveness of mobilization with G-CSF + cyclophosphamide versus G-CSF alone. This study investigated the cost and effectiveness (i.e., successful 4 million-CD34+ collection) of G-CSF alone versus high-dose cyclophosphamide (4 g/m2) + G-CSF mobilization (± on-demand plerixafor) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) eligible for autograft in Italy. A decision tree-supported cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) model in MM patients was developed from the societal perspective. The CEA model compared G-CSF alone with cyclophosphamide 4 g/m2 + G-CSF (± on-demand plerixafor) and was populated with demographic, healthcare and non-healthcare resource utilization data collected from a questionnaire administered to six Italian oncohematologists. Costs were expressed in Euro (€) 2019. The CEA model showed that G-CSF alone was strongly dominant versus cyclophosphamide + G-CSF ( ± on-demand plerixafor), with incremental savings of €1198.59 and an incremental probability of a successful 4 million-CD34+ apheresis (+0.052). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the base-case results. In conclusion, chemotherapy-free mobilization (± on-demand plerixafor) is a "good value for money" option for MM patients eligible for autograft.

[Cost-effectiveness of peripheral blood stem cell collection using plerixafor: a single-center study].

Plerixafor is increasingly used in combination with granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for peripheral blood stem cell collection. Although it is an expensive drug, its cost-benefit performance is not well investigated. Thus, we analyzed its cost-effectiveness in our hospital. A retrospective observational analysis was performed in patients who underwent stem cell collection between December 2013 and November 2018. A total of 203 patients were investigated and classified into three groups according to their pre-mobilization regimen: G-CSF alone, G-CSF and cyclophosphamide (G+CY), and G-CSF and plerixafor (G+plerixafor). The cost-effectiveness of apheresis of the collected cluster of differentiation (CD) 34+ cells was assessed based on two viewpoints: cost of drugs and cost of equipment. Due to the high cost of plerixafor, the cost of apheresis was higher in patients who received G+plerixafor. However, the difference narrowed when we calculated the cost to collect 2.0×106 CD34+ cells/kg body weight required for a single transplant. The number of stem cells collected from patients who received G+plerixafor was higher than those who received other regimens (median CD34+ cells harvested/day were 2.90 for G-CSF, 2.13 for G+CY, and 4.63 for G+plerixafor, ×106/kg body weight, P<0.01). Our results show that plerixafor enables efficient apheresis.

A comparison of chemo-free strategy with G-CSF plus plerixafor on demand versus intermediate-dose cyclophosphamide and G-CSF as PBSC mobilization in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients: An Italian explorative cost Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Upfront single or tandem ASCT still represents an integral part of treatment for patients with multiple myeloma. The combination of intermediate dose (ID) - cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF, has been considered the standard method as mobilization regimen. No prospective randomized clinical trials have compared efficacy and costs using ID - cyclophosphamide against a chemo-free mobilization strategy with G-CSF and plerixafor on demand. METHODS: A prospective single arm of 20 patients enrolled in three Italian Centers mobilized with G-CSF plus plerixafor on demand was compared with a retrospective historical control arm of 30 patients mobilized with ID - cyclophosphamide (4 g/sqm) and G-CSF. Costs of the prospective arm was compared with the ones of the retrospective control arm with the aim to collect ≥4 × 106/kg CD34 + . The exploratory cost analysis was performed using microcosting specific inputs of G-CSF plus plerixafor on demand versus ID - cyclophosphamide + G-CSF considering pre-apheresis, peri-apheresis and post-apheresis session. RESULTS: Mobilization with ID - cyclophosphamide and G-CSF resulted in a significantly higher CD34+ peak mean on day 1 yield (119 CD34+ µL vs 67.3; p = 0.06) and in total average CD34+ yield (mean collection 10.6 × 106/kg vs 5.8 × 106/kg; p = 0.004) compared to patients mobilized with G-CSF and plerixafor. There was no significant differences (p = 0.36) in the two groups of patients collecting ≥ 4 million CD34+/Kg with ID - cyclophosphamide and G-CSF (93.3 %) vs G-CSF and plerixafor (90.0 %). None of the patients undergoing G-CSF and plerixafor mobilization had febrile neutropenia compared with 7 patients who received ID - cyclophosphamide and G-CSF (0% vs 23 %, p = 0.03) who had a median of 5 days hospitalization (range 4-6). All patients proceeded to ASCT with a mean of 3.6 CD34+/kg infused for G-CSF and plerixafor arm and 4.4 CD34+/kg for the ID - cyclophosphamide + GCSF group (p = 0.37) with a median time to ANC and PLT engraftment not different in the two groups. Total costs of a mobilizing strategy using a combination of G-CSF and plerixafor on demand was 12.690 euros compared to 16.088 euros with ID - cyclophosphamide and G-CSF (p = 0.07); in particular, mobilization cost components were significantly lower for G-CSF and plerixafor vs G-CSF and ID - cyclophosphamide for hospital stay (3080 euros vs 9653 euros; p < 0.001) whereas for mobilizing agent, there was a significative difference with 5470 euros for G-CSF and plerixafor use due to the cost of plerixafor compared with 1140 euros for ID - cyclophosphamide and G-CSF treatment (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate that in patients with multiple myeloma eligible for ASCT, a chemo-free mobilization with G-CSF and plerixafor on demand is associated with efficacy in PBSC collection and optimal safety profile with similar average costs when compared to a chemo-mobilization with ID - cyclophosphamide. A prospective randomized multicenter study could address which is the most cost-effective strategy for this setting of patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: Eudract Number EudraCT 2013-004690-27.

Clinical and cost outcomes of pre-emptive plerixafor administration in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing stem cell mobilization.

PURPOSE: The stem cell mobilization agent plerixafor significantly improves CD34+ stem cell procurement in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing autologous stem cell transplant. We compared mobilization success rates and costs of two regimens of plerixafor administration: pre-emptive (P-PL, initiated the evening prior to the first day of stem cell collection) and standard (S-PL, initiated the evening prior to the second day of stem cell collection in the event of inadequate collection on the first day). METHODS: Patients with multiple myeloma undergoing mobilization were categorized as either P-PL or S-PL. Stem cell collection success was evaluated using logistic regression models. Associated costs were aggregated in terms of average collections per patient in each mobilization option (patient level), and escalated to a panel of 5000 patients (population level). RESULTS: 299 patients were evaluable; 241 received P-PL and 58 received S-PL. Patients receiving P-PL had higher median CD34+ count pre-collection and higher median total CD34+ cell harvest on the first collection (6.75 × 106/kg for P-PL, 1.96 × 106/kg for S-PL; P<0.01). In multivariable analyses, P-PL remained significantly associated with the ability to collect ≥2 × 106/kg CD34+ on the first day (OR = 4.05, 95% CI, 1.19-13.83, P = 0.03) and ≥5 × 106/kg CD34+ in total (OR = 3.09, 95% CI, 1.04-9.23, P = 0.04). P-PL saved $11,248 (46%) per patient compared with S-PL. CONCLUSION: P-PL significantly enhanced collection efficiency, with most patients completing collection in 1 day, resulting in substantial cost savings.

Comparison and cost analysis of three protocols for mobilization and apheresis of haematopoietic progenitor cells.

INTRODUCTION: Autologous bone marrow transplantation is a component of the malignant hemopathy therapy. The preferred mobilization and collection method is apheresis. The aim of this study is to compare three protocols analyzing the effect of plerixafor, higher dose of G-CSF and large volume leukapheresis (LVL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study including 119 patients referred for mobilization. Three protocols were compared: (a) G-CSF 10 µg/kg/day subcutaneous (sc) × 4 days mobilizing 1 to 1.5 blood volumes. (b) G-CSF 10 µg/kg/day sc × 4 days + plerixafor 0.24 mg/kg/day sc preventively or as a rescue agent mobilizing 1 to 1.5 blood volumes. (c) G-CSF 20 µg/kg/day sc × 4 days ± plerixafor 0.24 mg/kg/day sc preventively or as a rescue agent mobilizing 3 to 4 blood volumes. RESULTS: The average number of days of apheresis was reduced to 1.37 with protocol 3. The average cost per patient was reduced by 67% compared with protocol 2 and increased by only 5% compared with protocol 1, reducing the failure rate to 0%. CONCLUSION: Adding preemptive or rescue plerixafor (protocol 2) to G-CSF 10 µg/kg/day alone (protocol 1) did not improve the days of apheresis nor the number of CD34+ cells collected but had higher cost and failure rate. Using LVL, plerixafor and G-CSF 20 µg/kg/day (protocol 3) decreased the number of sessions to 1.37, reduced the failure rate to 0% and led to a significant increase in the number of CD34+ cells collected without toxicity and with a similar cost to protocol 1.

Mobilization of Leukemic Cells Using Plerixafor as Part of a Myeloablative Preparative Regimen for Patients with Acute Myelogenous Leukemia Undergoing Allografting: Assessment of Safety and Tolerability.

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is potentially curative for acute myelogenous leukemia (AML); however, a major cause of treatment failure is disease relapse. The purpose of this single-center Phase I study was to determine the safety and tolerability of administration of the CXCR4 inhibitor plerixafor (Mozobil; Sanofi Genzyme) along with myeloablative conditioning in patients with AML undergoing allogeneic HCT. The rationale was that plerixafor may mobilize leukemic stem cells, making them more susceptible to the conditioning chemotherapy (registered at ClinicalTrials.gov; identifier NCT01141543). Three patients were enrolled into each of 4 sequential cohorts (12 patients total). Patients in the first cohort received 1 dose of plerixafor (240 µg/kg s.c.) before the first dose of fludarabine and busulfan, and subsequent cohorts received injections before 2, 3, and 4 days of conditioning chemotherapy. The median age at HCT was 49 years (range, 38 to 58 years). All patients engrafted following HCT, with an absolute neutrophil count ≥.5 × 109/L observed at a median of 14 days (range, 11 to 18 days). Adverse events possibly related to plerixafor were transient and not severe. Main adverse events following the injection were nausea and dizziness in 4 patients (33%) and fatigue in 4 patients (33%). Among the 12 patients, 2 patients (17%) relapsed post-HCT and 6 (50%) were alive at the last follow-up. The median follow-up of survivors was 67 months (range, 53 to 82 months). In conclusion, plerixafor administration is safe and well tolerated when included in a myeloablative conditioning regimen for allogeneic HCT for AML. Further study in a larger cohort is warranted for the investigation of the impact of plerixafor on post-allogeneic HCT outcomes.

Plerixafor in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients: a German analysis of time, effort and costs.

Mobilization and collection of peripheral blood stem cells is part of the standard treatment procedure for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients eligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation. Mobilization is usually achieved with chemotherapy and/or cytokines, but plerixafor might be added in case of poor mobilization. Due to the high cost several institutions have developed their own management pathway to optimize use of plerixafor. Such models are however rarely generalizable; in a multi-center, European, non-interventional study, evaluating the impact of plerixafor in poor mobilizers, country specific differences in patient treatment and cost structure were obvious. For German centers, there was a non-significant reduction in the number of apheresis sessions carried out and in apheresis costs. In contrast to other European countries the majority of German Plerixafor patients were very poor mobilizing patients with initial CD34+ cell count ≤ 10/µl (40/51). In this group the number of apheresis sessions decreased from 2.1 to 1.6 sessions per patient (p = 0.01) and costs decreased from €6246 to €4758 (p = 0.01). Our results show that preemptive plerixafor use has a strong effect in poor mobilizers with an initial CD34+ cell count ≤ 10 cells/µl.

Cost-effectiveness of on-demand plerixafor added to chemotherapy and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma.

We here report final results of a phase II/III prospective study that evaluated in Multiple Myeloma the use of on-demand plerixafor (PLX) added to mobilizing chemotherapy for patients showing predictive signs of mobilization failure. A total of 111 patients with MM were registered, all received cyclophosphamide 4 g/m2 and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Overall, a successful CD34+ cell mobilization was achieved in 97.2% (108/111) of patients. Minimum harvest (≥2.0 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg) was achieved in 97.2% (108/111) and optimal harvest success (≥4.0 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg) was achieved in 84.6% (94/111). Multivariate analysis showed that patients who received on-demand PLX treatment had significantly higher likelihoods of successfully achieving both the minimal (p = .006) and optimal harvest (p = .05) in respect to a historical control group mobilized without any PLX. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, for each 1% increase in probability of achieving a successful minimal harvest, was €40.6 per patient.

UK consensus statement on the use of plerixafor to facilitate autologous peripheral blood stem cell collection to support high-dose chemoradiotherapy for patients with malignancy.

Plerixafor is a CXC chemokine receptor (CXCR4) antagonist that mobilizes stem cells in the peripheral blood. It is indicated (in combination with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor [G-CSF]) to enhance the harvest of adequate quantities of cluster differentiation (CD) 34+ cells for autologous transplantation in patients with lymphoma or multiple myeloma whose cells mobilize poorly. Strategies for use include delayed re-mobilization after a failed mobilization attempt with G-CSF, and rescue or pre-emptive mobilization in patients in whom mobilization with G-CSF is likely to fail. Pre-emptive use has the advantage that it avoids the need to re-schedule the transplant procedure, with its attendant inconvenience, quality-of-life issues for the patient and cost of additional admissions to the transplant unit. UK experience from 2 major centers suggests that pre-emptive plerixafor is associated with an incremental drug cost of less than £2000 when averaged over all patients undergoing peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) transplant. A CD34+ cell count of <15 µl-1 at the time of recovery after chemomobilization or after four days of G-CSF treatment, or an apheresis yield of <1 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg on the first day of apheresis, could be used to predict the need for pre-emptive plerixafor.

Plerixafor in poor mobilizers with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: a multi-center time-motion analysis.

High-dose chemotherapy alongside peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) infusion has become the standard of care in different hematologic malignancies. The goal of PBSC mobilization is to allow collection of sufficient CD34+ cells to proceed to transplantation. The current mobilization regimen with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), alone or in combination with chemotherapy, still fails in 10-25% of patients. Plerixafor is able to rescue most of these patients from mobilization failure. In this study, we investigated the impact of plerixafor on the cost and time spent on apheresis in patients who were considered poor mobilizers, with <20 × 106/µl peripheral CD34+ cells after mobilization but prior to apheresis. Patient hospital records from ten centers in three European countries were reviewed and compared during two time periods, namely prior and after plerixafor introduction to the market. During the plerixafor period, patients spent less time on apheresis (350 vs. 461 min). Poor mobilizers given plerixafor collected more CD34+ cells during the first apheresis session, leading to a decrease in the average number of apheresis sessions needed. The total apheresis yield was unaffected. This analysis shows that the use of plerixafor lessens the time-effort associated with the management of poor mobilizers and reduces apheresis costs.

Dose capping of plerixafor in patients weighing more than 100 kg at one vial led to successful mobilization outcomes and significant cost savings.

BACKGROUND: Plerixafor is frequently used as an adjunct agent to improve mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells in many clinical settings. However, its high cost (>$8000 per single-use 24-mg vial) is a significant concern. The manufacturer-recommended dose is 0.24 mg/kg. Therefore, patients weighing more than 100 kg would require a second vial, thus doubling the drug cost per dose. We implemented a policy of capping the dose of plerixafor at 24 mg, or one vial, for patients weighing more than 100 kg. This retrospective study compares the mobilization of patients more than 100 kg who received capped doses, with historical control patients who received full, uncapped doses. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Consecutive, eligible patients weighing more than 100 kg who received capped (n = 47) and full doses of plerixafor (n = 40) were identified. Plerixafor was given up-front, as a rescue agent due to suboptimal mobilization, or during remobilization. Baseline characteristics and mobilization data were collected and compared. RESULTS: Patients in the two groups showed comparable baseline characteristics. They collected similar total numbers of CD34+ cells/kg (median, 4.08 × 106 vs. 3.36 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg; p = 0.86) and achieved comparable collection success rates as defined by collecting more than 2.0 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg (98% vs. 90%, p = 0.21). However, patients who received capped doses required only half of the number of vials of plerixafor (median, 3 vials vs. 6 vials; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Dose capping plerixafor at 24 mg for patients more than 100 kg is a cost-effective strategy, which achieved comparable mobilization outcomes and reduced the total number of vials of plerixafor used by half.

Impact of plerixafor (mozobil) on hospital efficiency: A single center experience.

Plerixafor (Mozobil) in combination with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) has shown to increase mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) as compared to G-CSF alone in patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). However, up to 25% of patients treated with G-CSF alone still fail mobilization. Adding plerixafor to poor mobilizers allows to rescue these patients from mobilization failure and to reduce the number of apheresis sessions. The goal of this retrospective study was to capture the impact of plerixafor on treatment outcome and on apheresis department efficiency. The latter was measured in terms of time-slots lost, that is, the number of apheresis sessions scheduled but not carried out due to poor mobilization, and the number of elective apheresis sessions performed for patients undergoing extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP). Hospital records of patients treated before and after introduction of plerixafor were collected and analyzed. With plerixafor, the mobilization failure rate dropped from 12% to 4% and the mean number of time-slots lost per patient dropped from 1.39 to 0.89. Additional drug costs due to plerixafor were partially balanced by a reduction in apheresis sessions, resulting in an additional cost of 759€ per ASCT candidate. More importantly, with the use of plerixafor, the availability of time-slots turned from erratic to predictable such that freed capacity could be dedicated to other apheresis procedures. As a result, the number of ECP sessions increased from 0 in 2005 to 685 sessions in 2014.

Successful peripheral blood stem cell mobilization with a cost-efficient single fixed-dose plerixafor schedule in poor mobilizers.

Plerixafor, although costly, is added to mobilizing chemotherapy and G-CSF to overcome poor stem cell mobilization. We demonstrate that it can be safely administered mostly once as a single dose in preemptive and rescue settings, leading to apheresis yields of >2 and >4×106 CD34 + cells/kg body weight (bw) in 83% and 48%, respectively. Of note, 35/46 (76%) patients showed a substantial benefit with increased peripheral blood (PB) CD34 + cells prior to apheresis (8.84 vs. 1.72/µl, p < .001), and 5-fold increased CD34 + cells collected per single apheresis (2.25 vs. 0.43 × 106 CD34+/kg bw, respectively, p < .001). Patients profiting most (76%) vs. less (24%) had >5 vs. <5/µl PB CD34 + cells before plerixafor application, respectively, thus careful patient selection in the latter group is advised. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report demonstrating that favorable apheresis results can be obtained using this cost-efficient, single fixed-dose plerixafor schedule.

Cost analysis of a randomized stem cell mobilization study in multiple myeloma.

Upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard therapy for younger multiple myeloma (MM) patients. MM patients usually undergo stem cell mobilization with cyclophosphamide (CY) followed by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), or with G-CSF alone. A limited number of randomized studies are available comparing costs of different mobilization strategies. Eighty transplant-eligible patients aged up to 70 years with untreated MM were included in this prospective study. The patients were treated with RVD induction for three 21-day cycles and randomized 1:1 at inclusion into one of the two mobilization arms CY 2 g/m(2) + G-CSF [arm A] vs. G-CSF alone [arm B]. Plerixafor was given according to a specific algorithm if needed. Sixty-nine patients who received mobilization followed by blood graft collection were included in the cost analysis. The median total costs of the mobilization phase were significantly higher in arm A than in arm B (3855 € vs. 772 €, p ≤ 0.001). The cumulative median cost of the mobilization and collection phases was significantly lower in arm B than in arm A (8524 € vs. 11,622 €, p = 0.012). There was no significant difference between the arms in the total median costs of ASCT (n = 59) (34,997 € in arm A vs. 31,981 € in arm B, p = 0.118). Mobilization with G-CSF alone seems to be a preferable mobilization method for MM patients in terms of mobilization and apheresis costs. In addition, it requires less hospital resource utilization.

Plerixafor injection: a hematopoietic stem cell mobilizer in non-Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: A combination of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and chemotherapy or G-CSF alone are the most common mobilization regimens for autotransplantations. Plerixafor is used for mobilization of CD34(+) cells with G-CSF in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and myeloma (MM) patients. AREAS COVERED: The available phase II and III data on plerixafor has been reviewed. The efficacy of plerixafor in the mobilization of CD34(+) cells in predicted poor mobilizers as well as in patients who had failed a mobilization has been evaluated. The pre-emptive use of plerixafor as well as studies on cost-effectiveness are covered. Also effects in the composition of the collected grafts along with the data on long-term outcome of plerixafor-mobilized patients is discussed. Expert commentary: Plerixafor combined with G-CSF mobilizes CD34(+) cells more efficiently than G-CSF alone in patients with NHL or MM. In phase III studies, engraftment after high-dose therapy has been comparable to G-CSF mobilized patients. The pre-emptive use of plerixafor added to mobilization with chemotherapy plus G-CSF or with G-CSF alone has gained more popularity. This approach may be more cost-effective than the routine use of this drug. The changes observed in the composition of grafts after plerixafor injection may have implications for post-transplant events.

Hematopoietic Progenitor Cell Mobilization with Ifosfamide, Carboplatin, and Etoposide Chemotherapy versus Plerixafor-Based Strategies in Patients with Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

Studies comparing the efficacy and safety of chemo-mobilization with ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide (ICE) ± rituximab with plerixafor-based approaches in lymphoma patients have not been performed. We analyzed hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization outcomes in lymphoma patients undergoing chemo-mobilization with ICE (n = 35) compared with either routine plerixafor (n = 30) or "just in time" (JIT) plerixafor-based mobilization (n = 33). Chemo-mobilization provided a significantly higher total CD34(+) cell yield (median collection, 5.35 × 10(6) cells/kg for ICE versus 3.15 × 10(6) cells/kg for routine plerixafor and 3.6 × 10(6) cells/kg for JIT plerixafor, P < .001). The median day 1 yield of CD34(+) cells was not significantly different (median, 2.2 × 10(6) cells/kg in ICE versus 1.9 × 10(6) cells/kg in upfront plerixafor versus 1.7 × 10(6) cells/kg in JIT plerixafor, P = .20). There was no significant difference in the 3 groups in terms of total number of apheresis sessions performed (median, 2 in each group; P = .78). There were no mobilization failures (inability to collect at least 2 × 10(6) cells/kg) in the chemo-mobilization group, whereas 5 patients (16.7%) in the routine plerixafor and 3 patients (9.1%) in JIT group had mobilization failure (P = .04). Mean time to neutrophil engraftment was faster in the chemo-mobilization group, 10.3 days (±1.2) compared with 12.1 days (±3.6) in the routine plerixafor group and 11.6 days (±3.0) in the JIT group (P < .001) and mean time to platelet engraftment was 13.7 days (±.7) in ICE versus 20.3 days (±1.6) in routine plerixafor versus 17.1 days (± .9) in JIT group (P < .001). Red blood cell transfusions were significantly higher in the chemo-mobilization group (34.3% versus 0 versus 3.2% versus 1, P < .001) and so were the platelet transfusions (22.9% versus 0 versus 0, P < .001). Excluding the cost of chemotherapy administration, chemo-mobilization was associated with significantly less mobilization cost (average cost $17,601.76 in ICE versus $28,963.05 in routine and $25,679.81 in JIT, P < .001). Our data suggests that chemo-mobilization with ICE provides a higher total CD34(+) cell yield, lower rates of mobilization failure, faster engraftment, and lower cost compared to plerixafor-based approaches with comparable toxicity profile between the groups, except for higher transfusion requirements with chemo-mobilization.