Extracorporeal photopheresis, a therapeutic option for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma and immunological diseases: state of the art.

INTRODUCTION: Extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) has been extensively used for the treatment of immune-mediated diseases for over 20 years and has a consistent and predictable safety profile with long-term use. Documenting the efficacy of ECP as therapeutic treatment has long been a matter of importance for physicians. AREAS COVERED: The authors reviewed publications in this field with the goal of providing an overview of this therapeutic approach. EXPERT OPINION: ECP is efficacious in a high percentage of those cutaneous T-cell lymphoma patients who have circulating malignant T cells in the context of a still-near-normal immune competence. From the side of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), the use of ECP showed a clinical benefit in patients with steroid-refractory acute GVHD (aGVHD) and it is believed that ECP deserves to be evaluated as part of a combination strategy in first-line therapy of aGVHD. In chronic GHVD, the published data show that ECP can be effective in extensive and long-standing disease even when treatment is initiated at an advanced stage after conventional immunosuppressive and corticosteroid therapy has failed. ECP should be considered most beneficial for patients with predominantly mucocutaneous chronic GVHD. The fields of application of the procedure could be vast, and could also include autoimmune and metabolic diseases. The most important methodological issues which affect ECP evaluation is that the large majority of data about ECP result from single-arm observational series and the significant efficacy is mainly based on small and retrospective studies. ECP has never been proved to offer any survival advantage in a context of a randomized trial and the above-mentioned limitation also affects the accuracy of many biological modifications observed during ECP. Starting from these considerations, the need of a prospective randomized study becomes increasingly urgent.

Harvesting peripheral blood progenitor cells from healthy donors: retrospective comparison of filgrastim and lenograstim.

Mobilization of CD34+ into peripheral blood is attained by either glycosylated (lenograstim) or non-glycosylated recombinant G-CSF (filgrastim). 101 donors, 57 males, median age 42 years (range 16-63) entered this retrospective study. Group I (55 cases) received filgrastim and group II lenograstim subcutaneously for 5-6 days. The peak number of CD34+ cells/microl blood observed on day 4 and 5 was not significantly different in the two groups. No differences were shown in terms of both circulating CFU-GM at the time of harvesting and CD34+ target of collection. The most frequent side effects were bone pain (18.2% grade I; 36.4% grade II, 7.3% grade III), headache (18.2%), nausea (9.1%), fever (5.5%) and a mild splenomegaly (> 2 cm) (5.5%) in filgrastim group, and bone pain (37.0% grade I, 26.1% grade II, 2.2% grade III), headache (17.4%), nausea (15.2%), fever (4.4%) and a mild splenomegaly (4.3%) in lenograstim group, respectively. CD34+ collection was associated with thrombocytopenia, which was not significantly different between the two groups. No donor in either group developed long-term adverse effects. We conclude that both G-CSFs are comparable in terms of CD34+ cell collection, safety and tolerability.