[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Evaluating the use of plerixafor in stem cell mobilisation - an economic analysis of the PHANTASTIC trial.

Plerixafor is an effective haematopoietic stem cell mobilising agent in candidates for autologous transplantation, including patients with myeloma and lymphoma. Here we compare 98 plerixafor recipients in the PHANTASTIC trial with 151 historic controls mobilised by conventional chemotherapy (each with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, G-CSF). Seventy (71.4%) plerixafor-mobilised patients achieved the composite primary endpoint of ≥4 × 10(6) CD34+ cells kg(-1) in ≤2 aphereses and no clinically significant neutropenia, compared to 48 (31.8%) historic controls (P < 0.001), and this significant advantage was maintained in scenario analyses testing components of this composite endpoint. A patient-level cost analysis was undertaken for 249 patients, which included the cost of remobilising patients where initial mobilisation had failed. Combined mean treatment cost for plerixafor mobilised patients was £12,679 compared with £11,694 for historical controls. However, plerixafor produces an average saving of £3,828 per lymphoma patient but average cost increase by £5,245 per myeloma patient. The present data demonstrate cost-effectiveness for plerixafor as a first line mobilisation agent, certainly for lymphoma patients, where substantial resource savings and achievement of the primary endpoint are likely. J. Clin. Apheresis 31:434-442, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Plerixafor for stem cell mobilization: the current status.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Nowadays, plerixafor is approved for patients who fail to mobilize sufficient CD34⁺ cells for an autologous stem cell transplantation. Plerixafor is effective in the majority of these patients, who otherwise could not be treated adequately. We discussed in this review the current status of the optimal use of plerixafor in different clinical diagnoses and settings. RECENT FINDINGS: Plerixafor seems to be more effective in patients with multiple myeloma than in lymphoma. Even patients who had very low circulating CD34⁺ cells before administration of plerixafor have an important benefit. Several strategies in different clinical settings showed an effective response after administration of plerixafor, without the superiority of one strategy. Plerixafor is well tolerated with acceptable toxicity; however, it is an expensive drug. SUMMARY: Plerixafor is an effective drug in patients who fail to mobilize with conventional strategy. No strategy seems superior for the optimal use of plerixafor. More studies focusing on the kinetics and cost-effectiveness are needed.

Tbo-Filgrastim versus Filgrastim during Mobilization and Neutrophil Engraftment for Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation.

There are limited data available supporting the use of the recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), tbo-filgrastim, rather than traditionally used filgrastim to mobilize peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) or to accelerate engraftment after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). We sought to compare the efficacy and cost of tbo-filgrastim to filgrastim in these settings. Patients diagnosed with lymphoma or plasma cell disorders undergoing G-CSF mobilization, with or without plerixafor, were included in this retrospective analysis. The primary outcome was total collected CD34(+) cells/kg. Secondary mobilization endpoints included peripheral CD34(+) cells/µL on days 4 and 5 of mobilization, adjunctive use of plerixafor, CD34(+) cells/kg collected on day 5, number of collection days and volumes processed, number of collections reaching 5 million CD34(+) cells/kg, and percent reaching target collection goal in 1 day. Secondary engraftment endpoints included time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment, number of blood product transfusions required before engraftment, events of febrile neutropenia, and length of stay. A total of 185 patients were included in the final analysis. Patients receiving filgrastim (n = 86) collected a median of 5.56 × 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg, compared with a median of 5.85 × 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg in the tbo-filgrastim group (n = 99; P = .58). There were no statistically significant differences in all secondary endpoints with the exception of apheresis volumes processed (tbo-filgrastim, 17.0 liters versus filgrastim, 19.7 liters; P < .01) and mean platelet transfusions (tbo-filgrastim, 1.7 units versus filgrastim, 1.4 units; P = .04). In conclusion, tbo-filgrastim demonstrated similar CD34(+) yield compared with filgrastim in mobilization and post-transplantation settings, with no clinically meaningful differences in secondary efficacy and safety endpoints. Furthermore, tbo-filgrastim utilization was associated with cost savings of approximately $1406 per patient utilizing average wholesale price.

Comparison of tulathromycin and tilmicosin on the prevalence and severity of bovine respiratory disease in feedlot cattle in association with feedlot performance, carcass characteristics, and economic factors.

The objectives of this study were to 1) quantify effects of metaphylactic treatment for bovine respiratory disease (BRD) on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and lung lesion prevalence and severity; 2) evaluate the association of lung lesion prevalence and severity with carcass characteristics; and 3) evaluate effects of therapeutic treatment on carcass characteristics and lung lesion prevalence and severity. The study was conducted at a commercial feedlot in the Texas Panhandle in which steers (n = 2,336) initially weighing 312.1 ± 9.6 kg were sourced from auction markets and allocated in a randomized complete block design to 1 of 3 treatments (no metaphylactic [no antimicrobial drug {ND}] treatment, tilmicosin at 10 mg/kg BW [TIL], and tulathromycin at 2.5 mg/kg BW [TUL]). Lungs of all steers were evaluated during harvest to assess presence and severity of pneumonic lesions in the anteroventral lobes and the presence and severity of pleural adherences. Compared to the ND treatment, steers treated via metaphylactic therapy had greater (P < 0.05) metaphylactic cost, ADG, shrunk final BW, dressed carcass yield, HCW, 12th rib fat, calculated empty body fat (EBF), and gross revenue, concurrent with reduced (P < 0.05) BRD treatment costs and financial losses from BRD death and railed cattle, cumulatively resulting in greater financial returns. Lung lesions were present in 64.3% of lungs and were distributed similarly between metaphylactic treatments (63.9%) and ND (65.1%) cattle. Steers with advanced lung lesions present at harvest were associated with reduced (P < 0.05) HCW, KPH, 12th rib fat, calculated yield grades, marbling scores, and calculated EBF as compared to steers without lung lesions. Steers pulled for BRD had increased (P < 0.01) incidence of advanced lung lesions, mortality, and railers with decreased (P < 0.05) HCW, 12th rib fat, KPH, marbling score, calculated EBF, and percentage choice carcasses when compared to non-BRD event steers. From the results of this study, controlling BRD through the use of metaphylactic treatments on arrival in heavier cattle improved financial returns primarily driven by reductions in cost of death loss and railers.

Plerixafor for mobilization of blood stem cells in autologous transplantation: an update.

INTRODUCTION: About 99% of all autologous transplants are now performed with blood stem cells. G-CSF alone or combined with chemotherapy have been used to mobilize CD34(+) cells. Plerixafor is a novel drug used for mobilization purposes. AREAS COVERED: We have evaluated recent data in regard to plerixafor use in predicted or proven poor mobilizers. In addition, we have looked for preemptive strategies to optimize the use of this expensive drug. Also cost-efficacy issues and effects of plerixafor on graft composition and post-transplant outcomes will be discussed. EXPERT OPINION: Plerixafor added to G-CSF is superior than G-CSF alone for mobilization of CD34(+) cells. This combination is also efficient in patients who have failed a previous mobilization attempt with other methods or in patients with risk factors for poor mobilization. Addition of plerixafor to G-CSF or chemotherapy plus G-CSF mobilization in patients who appear to mobilize poorly is under active investigation and algorithms for a preemptive use of this expensive agent have been proposed. Grafts collected after plerixafor appear to contain more lymphoid cells than the grafts collected without it. Whether this affects post-transplant outcomes such as immune reconstitution and risk of relapse needs to be evaluated.

A plerixafor-based strategy allows adequate hematopoietic stem cell collection in poor mobilizers: results from the Canadian Special Access Program.

Plerixafor effectively mobilizes hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs). However, most patients' cells are successfully collected using traditional strategies and there is limited cost-effectiveness data. The objectives of this study were to: (1) summarize the published reports of mobilization using a plerixafor-based strategy during compassionate access programs and (2) describe the Canadian experience with plerixafor during its availability by Health Canada's Special Access Program. A literature search identified reports of plerixafor-based mobilization during compassionate access programs. Overall, successful collection of at least 2 × 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg was achieved in ~75% of patients, and about two-thirds of patients went on to HSCT. A greater proportion of patients had successful collections when plerixafor was used in the upfront or preemptive settings. Plerixafor was made available by Health Canada's SAP from September 2008 to December 2010. In 96 of 132 (73%) patients, there was successful collection of at least 2 × 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg. Ninety-nine (75%) patients went on to receive an autologous transplant. Plerixafor-based mobilization is effective in perceived poor mobilizers. The optimal way to incorporate plerixafor into a mobilization strategy, however, remains to be determined. Centre-specific analysis of resource utilization may help to identify the most cost-effective way to implement various plerixafor-based mobilization strategies.

GCSF with or without chemotherapy compared to Plerixafor with GCSF as salvage mobilization regimen in patients with multiple myeloma and lymphoma: collection effectiveness and cost effectiveness analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Plerixafor is a novel mobilizing agent of peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) in lymphoma and multiple myeloma (MM) patients whose cells mobilize poorly. Due to the substantial cost associated with its use, we aimed to compare the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of Plerixafor + GCSF (PG) versus GCSF ± Chemotherapy (GC) as salvage mobilization regimens. METHODS: The charts of consecutive lymphoma and MM patients who had undergone at least one previous attempt of PBSCs mobilization that failed or resulted in an insufficient cell dose for transplant between 2007 and 2010 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients identified received salvage mobilization with GC (prior to 2009) or PG after Plerixafor's FDA approval. Data collected included demographics, medical histories, apheresis yields and transplant outcome. The cost effectiveness analysis was from the perspective of the Jordanian Ministry of Health. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated by dividing the difference in cost by the difference in effectiveness for the two regimens. RESULTS: Five patients received GC and twelve received PG. A minimum CD34+ cell dose of 2 × 10(6) cells/kg was collected from 8 patients (67%) in the PG group compared to 3 (60%) in the GC group (p=0.79). The average costs were US$8570 and US$25,700 for the GC group and the PG group, respectively. The ICER was US$244,714 per successful stem cell collection. CONCLUSION: Salvage Plerixafor use showed a non-significant improvement in PBSCs collection with a significant increase in cost. Prospective comparative effectiveness studies are warranted to inform the optimal salvage mobilization regimen. To our knowledge, this is the first study from the Middle East to describe the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of Plerixafor.

Pulmonary lesions and clinical disease response to Mannheimia haemolytica challenge 10 days following administration of tildipirosin or tulathromycin.

This clinical trial evaluated the impact of metaphylactic antimicrobial administration 10 d before experimental inoculation with Mannheimia haemolytica (MH) to mitigate pulmonary lesions. Thirty-three crossbreed heifers were procured as a single group and were randomly allocated to 1 of 3 blocks and to treatment, tildipirosin (ZUP; 4 mg/kg) or tulathromycin (DRX; 2.5 mg/kg) or saline (SAL; 1 mL/45.5 kg), within block on arrival at Kansas State University. All trial procedures were staggered by 7-d intervals for each block, resulting in all animals within a block receiving treatment, challenge, and necropsy on the same dates. Heifers within each block received an endoscopic MH challenge 10 d following treatment administration (d 0) and were housed in individual indoor stalls for 3 d postchallenge. Clinical illness scores (CIS), respiration quality scores, appetite scores, and injection site reactions were recorded on all animals from d 0 through d 13. Rectal temperatures were measured once daily on all animals from d 8 through d 13. Heifers were necropsied, and lung lesions were evaluated on d 13. Lung lesion data were evaluated using nonparametric methods (Kruskall-Wallis), and standard least squares models were used to evaluate the remaining variables. The pulmonary lesion scores (percentage of affected lung) ranged from 3.3% to 39.8% for all heifers with 92% (11/12) of ZUP-treated heifers having <10% lesions. Tildipirosin-treated heifers had lower (P < 0.05) lung lesion scores when compared with DRX- and SAL-treated heifers. Lung weight expressed as a percentage of BW was lower (P < 0.05) in ZUP heifers compared to DRX- and SAL-treated heifers. The probability of receiving abnormal CIS, appetite scores, and respiratory scores was lower (P < 0.05) in ZUP-treated heifers compared to DRX- and SAL-treated animals. This study showed that heifers treated with tildipirosin 10 d before MH challenge have less pulmonary damage and fewer clinical signs of illness compared to heifers treated with DRX or SAL.

Estimating the comparative clinical and economic consequences of tulathromycin for treatment of present or anticipated outbreaks of bovine respiratory disease in feedlot cattle in the United States.

The goal of this study was to determine the clinical and economic impact of using tulathromycin as first line treatment for bovine respiratory disease (BRD) compared with other commonly used antimicrobials. Two decision trees were developed simulating the consequences of treating cattle at high risk of developing BRD [control model (CM)] or cattle with first clinical BRD episode [treatment model (TM)]. As comparators florfenicol and tilmicosin were considered in both models whereas enrofloxacin was included in the TM because it was only labeled for treatment of BRD at the time of development of the calculators. A total of 5 (CM) and 10 (TM) comparative clinical studies that reported efficacy data for the selected drugs and indications were identified as suitable for model population. The following outcomes were considered: first treatment success, number of subsequent BRD treatments, chronics, and mortalities. Cost parameters were considered from the perspective of the producer and included treatment costs (first treatment and retreatments) and costs of chronics and deaths derived from published sources for 2010 (default). The models allowed the estimation of clinical and economic consequences according to each individual trial outcomes. Treatment with tulathromycin resulted in more first treatment successes and fewer removals (chronics and deaths) in all comparisons. The average total number of antimicrobial treatments required for the management of BRD was also least with tulathromycin as first treatment option. Because of better efficacy, total costs over the entire study periods were always lowest with tulathromycin. Depending on the study selected as the basis for the efficacy evaluation, cost savings with tulathromycin were calculated in the CM between US$21.00 and $47.86 (vs. florfenicol) and $11.37 and $72.64 (vs. tilmicosin); cost savings in the TM ranged between $28.47 and $143.87 (vs. florfenicol) and $7.75 and $84.91 (vs. tilmicosin) as well as between $23.22 and $47.82 (vs. enrofloxacin), with the ranges reflecting a variety of settings in different trials. Thus, the higher drug costs of tulathromycin were more than offset by reduced BRD treatments, chronics, and mortalities in the herd. Fewer BRD episodes in cattle treated with tulathromycin not only contributes to overall savings in BRD management but also reduces the necessity of repeated antibiotic treatment, supporting prudent use of antimicrobials in livestock.

Cost-effectiveness of hematopoietic stem cell mobilization strategies including plerixafor in multiple myeloma and lymphoma patients.

Peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) are preferred source of hematopoietic stem cells for autologous transplantation. Mobilization of PBSCs using chemotherapy and/or granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) however fails in around 20%. Combining G-CSF with plerixafor increases the mobilizations success. We compared cost-effectiveness of following schemes: the use of plerixafor "on demand" (POD) during the first mobilization in all patients with inadequate response, the remobilization with plerixafor following failure of the first standard mobilization (SSP), and the standard (re)mobilization scheme without plerixafor (SSNP). Decision tree models populated with data from a first-of-a-kind patient registry in six Czech centers (n = 93) were built to compare clinical benefits and direct costs from the payer's perspective. The success rates and costs for POD, SSP and SSNP mobilizations were; 94.9%, $7,197; 94.7%, $8,049; 84.7%, $5,991, respectively. The direct cost per successfully treated patient was $7,586, $8,501, and $7,077, respectively. The cost of re-mobilization of a poor mobilizer was $5,808 with G-CSF only and $16,755 if plerixafor was added. The total cost of plerixafor "on-demand" in the sub-cohort of poor mobilizers was $17,120. Generally, plerixafor improves the mobilization success by 10% and allows an additional patient to be successfully mobilized for incremental $11,803. Plerixafor is better and cheaper if used "on demand" than within a subsequent remobilization.

A retrospective study of autologous stem cell mobilization to guide an immediate salvage protocol using plerixafor for patients who mobilize stem cells poorly.

The addition of plerixafor to G-CSF decreases the risk of failed stem cell collection, but at considerable extra cost. Using a logistic regression model based on 354 autologous mobilizations, we have identified a local minimum peripheral blood CD34 count at which the probability of a successful collection is 50%. This seems an appropriate CD34 count at which to add immediate salvage plerixafor.

An algorithm for utilizing peripheral blood CD34 count as a predictor of the need for plerixafor in autologous stem cell mobilization--cost-effectiveness analysis.

Certain patients who receive granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) for autologous hematopoietic stem cell (AHSC) collection fail to mobilize well enough to proceed with transplant. When plerixafor is used with GCSF, the likelihood of achieving the CD34⁺ stem cell target in fewer collections is higher; plerixafor use in all patients is unlikely to be cost-effective. This study retrospectively evaluated the effectiveness of utilizing a peripheral blood CD34⁺ stem cell count (PBCD34) ≤8/µL on day 4 of GCSF-based AHSC mobilization as a threshold for plerixafor administration, and compared the efficacy of collection and cost analysis using historical controls. All patients in the study cohort reached their CD34⁺ targets in ≤3 collections. Significantly more patients who received plerixafor + GCSF versus GCSF alone reached their CD34⁺ target in one collection (P = 0.045); however, there were no significant differences in the number of collections or in cumulative product yields. The historical cohort had 10.3% mobilization failures; the number of collections per patient needed to reach the target was significantly higher in the historical cohort versus study cohort (P = 0.001) as was the number of patients requiring more than one collection to reach their target (P = 0.023). However, the average cost per patient was also significantly higher in the study cohort (P = 0.025). Further refinement of the algorithm may reduce the difference in cost between the two mobilization strategies.

Retrospective comparison of filgrastim plus plerixafor to other regimens for remobilization after primary mobilization failure: clinical and economic outcomes.

We performed a retrospective analysis to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes in patients receiving remobilization therapy after primary mobilization failure. Our primary endpoint was to compare filgrastim plus plerixafor to other regimens in their ability to collect a target cell dose of at least 2 million CD34+ cells/kg (cumulative). Of 96 consecutive patients who failed their primary mobilization therapy and in whom a second mobilization was attempted, remobilization consisted of filgrastim plus plerixafor (n = 38), filgrastim with or without sargramostim (n = 43), or chemotherapy plus filgrastim (n = 15), 84% of filgrastim/plerixafor patients were able to collect at least 2 million CD34+ cells/kg from both mobilizations, compared to 60% of patients mobilized with chemotherapy/filgrastim and 79% of the filgrastim ± sargramostim patients (P = 0.17). However, when combined with cells collected from the first mobilization, 53% of filgrastim/plerixafor patients reached the target of 2 million CD34+ cells in one apheresis, compared to 20% of those receiving chemotherapy/filgrastim and 28% of those receiving filgrastim ± sargramostim (P = 0.02). Resource utilization, mobilization drug costs, clinical care costs, and total costs were significantly different. We conclude that while filgrastim/plerixafor is the most efficient remobilization strategy, those clinical benefits may not translate into lower cost, especially when multiple days of plerixafor administration are required.

Pegfilgrastim- versus filgrastim-based autologous hematopoietic stem cell mobilization in the setting of preemptive use of plerixafor: efficacy and cost analysis.

BACKGROUND: Plerixafor enhances the ability of filgrastim (FIL) to mobilize CD34+ cells but adds cost to the mobilization. We hypothesized that replacing weight-based FIL with flat-dose pegfilgrastim (PEG) in a validated cost-based mobilization algorithm for patient-adapted use of plerixafor would add convenience without increased cost. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A single-center retrospective analysis compared two consecutive cohorts undergoing FIL or PEG mobilization before autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma or lymphoma. FIL dose was 10 µg/kg/day continuing until completion of collection and a 12-mg flat dose of PEG. Peripheral blood CD34+ cells (PB-CD34+) enumeration was performed on the fourth day after initiation of growth factor. Subjects surpassing a certain target-specific threshold of PB-CD34+ started apheresis immediately while subjects with lower PB-CD34+ received plerixafor with apheresis starting on the fifth day. RESULTS: Overall 68 of 74 in the FIL group and 52 of 57 patients in the PEG group met the mobilization target. Only one patient in each cohort required remobilization. Median PB-CD34+ on Day 4 was significantly higher in patients in the PEG group (18.1×10(6) vs. 28.7×10(6)cells/L, p=0.01). Consequently, patients in the PEG group were less likely to require administration of plerixafor (67.5% vs. 45.6%, p=0.01). Cohorts had near identical mean number of apheresis sessions and comparable CD34+ yield. The estimated cost associated with growth factor was higher in patients in the PEG group, but it was counterbalanced by lower cost associated with use of plerixafor. CONCLUSION: Single administration of 12 mg of PEG is associated with better CD34+ mobilization than FIL allowing for effective, convenient mobilization with less frequent use of plerixafor.