Journals / Yeni Tıp Dergisi / 2013 / Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of filgrastim and lenograstim on mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells in healthy donors

Filgrastim ve lenograstimin sağlıklı donörlerde periferik kan kök hücre mobilizasyonu üzerine etkilerinin karşılaştırılması

Pages
42–45
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Filgrastim and lenograstim were found to have similar effects on allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell mobilization.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF has been widely used to treat neutropenia and peripheral blood stem cell mobilization.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Method: A total of 130 healthy allogeneic donors were enrolled for mobilization with either filgrastim (n=103) or lenograstim (n=27) for 5 consecutive days.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Filgrastim and lenograstim were found to have similar effects on allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell mobilization.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF has been widely used to treat neutropenia and peripheral blood stem cell mobilization. It shortens neutropenia and thus reduces the frequency of neutropenic fever. Material and Method: A total of 130 healthy allogeneic donors were enrolled for mobilization with either filgrastim (n=103) or lenograstim (n=27) for 5 consecutive days. The peripheral blood CD34+ apheresis was done on the 6th day. Results: The mean dose of G-CSF/kg was 5.33±1.38 MIU for filgrastim and 5.65±1.91 MIU for lenograstim. No significant difference was seen in the median number of CD34+ cell yield per apheresis cycle mobilized (6.88 ±0.47 x106/kg vs 5.90±0.74 x 106/kg, p=0.335). Neutrophil (11.43±0.29 vs 11.96±0.42, p=0.382) and platelet engraftment days (12.77±0.47 vs 12.38± 0.90, p=0.709) were similar in both groups. Number of CD34+ cell yield per apheresis cycle and neutrophil engraftment in days did not corralete with donor age (p= 0.257, r=-0.101; p=0.164, r=0.123, respectively) and donor weight (p=0.540, r=0.058; p=0.454, r=-0.070, respectively). The number of CD34+ cell yield per apheresis cycle did not corralate with G-CSF dose/kg either with filgrastim (p=0.107, r=0.173) or lenograstim (p=0.543, r=-0.145). The type of the apheresis device did not effect the CD34+ yield (p=0.535). Conclusion: Filgrastim and lenograstim were found to have similar effects on allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell mobilization.

Özet

Amaç: Granülosit koloni-uyarıcı faktör (G-CSF) nötro-peni tedavisinde ve otolog ve allojeneik transplantasyon öncesi periferik kan kök hücre mobilizasyonunda yaygın olarak kullanılmaktadır. Nötropeninin süresini kısaltır ve böylece nötropenik ateşin sıklığını azaltır. Bu çalışmada filgrastim ve lenograstimin CD34+ kök hücre mobilizas-yonundaki etkinliğini kıyaslamayı amaçladık. Materyal ve Metot: Çeşitli hematolojik maliniteli hasta-ların allojeneik donörü olan 130 sağlıklı bireye mobili-zasyon amacıyla filgrastim (n=103) veya lenograstim (n=27) 5 gün boyunca uygulandı. Altıncı gün periferik kandan CD34+ kök hücre aferezi yapıldı. Results: Ortalama G-CSF dozu filgrastim için 5,33±1,38 MIU, lenograstim içinse 5,65±1,91 MIU idi. Aferez siklusu başına CD34+ ürün miktarı (6,88±0,47x106/kg; 5,90± 0,74x106/kg, p=0,335), nötrofil (11.43±0,29; 11.96± 0,42, p=0,382) ve trombosit (12,77±0,47; 12,38 ±0,90, p=0,709) engrafman günleri açısından iki grup arasında anlamlı farklılık saptanmadı. Aferez başına CD34+ ürün miktarı ile nötrofil engrafman zamanı donör yaşı (sıra-sıyla p=0,257, r=-0,101; p=0,164, r=0,123) ve donör kilosu (sırasıyla p=0,540, r=0,058; p=0,454, r=-0,070) ile korelasyon göstermedi. Ek olarak, aferez başına CD34+ ürün miktarı filgrastim (p=0,107, r=0,173) veya lenogras-tim dozu/kg (p=0,543, r=-0,145) ile korele değildi. Aferez cihazının tipi CD34+ ürün miktarını etkilemedi (p=0,535). Sonuç: Filgrastim ve lenograstim periferik kan kök hücre mobilizasyonunda benzer etkilere sahip bulundu.

🔖

Cite This Article

UZ, B., GÖKER, H., BÜYÜKAŞIK, Y., AKSU, S., SAYINALP, N., HAZNEDAROĞLU, C. İ., TEKİN, F., ÜNAL, S., TURGUT, M., ÖZCEBE, İ. O. (2013). Comparison of filgrastim and lenograstim on mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells in healthy donors. Yeni Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 1, 42–45. https://ajindex.com/articles/338171

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Bronchud MH, Potter MR, Morgenstern G, Blasco MJ, Scarffe JH, Thatcher N, et al. In vitro and in vivo analysis of the effects of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in patients. Br J Cancer 1988;58(1):64-9
  2. Lord BI, Bronchud MH, Owens S, Chang J, Howell A, Souza L, et al. The kinetics of human granulopoiesis following treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1989; 86(23):9499-503
  3. Yamamoto Y, Klein TW, Friedman H, Kimura S, Yamaguchi H. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor potentiates anti-Candida albicans growth inhibitory activity of polymorphonuclear cells. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 1993;7(1):15-22
  4. Crawford J, Ozer H, Stoller R, Johnson D, Lyman G, Tabbara I, et al. Reduction by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor of fever and neutropenia induced by chemotherapy in patients with small cell lung cancer. New Engl J Med 1991;325(3):164-70
  5. Trillet-Lenoir V, Green J, Manegold C, Von Pawel J, Gatzemeier U, Lebeau B, et al. Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor reduces the infectious complications of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer 1993; 29A(3):319-24
  6. Welte K, Reiter A, Mempel K, Pfetsch M, Schwab G, Schrappe M, et al. A randomized phase-III study of the efficacy of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor in children with high-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 1996;87(8):3143-50
  7. Sourgens H, Lefère F. A systematic review of available clinical evidence–filgrastim compared with lenograstim. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2011;49(8):510-8
  8. Welte K, Gabrilove J, Bronchud MH, Platzer E, Morstyn G. Filgrastim (rmetHuG-CSF): the first 10 years. Blood 1996;88(6):1907-29
  9. Kubota N, Orita T, Hattori K, Oh-eda M, Ochi N, Yamazaki T. Structural characterization of natural and recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factors. J Biochem 1990;107(3):486-92
  10. Nissen C. Glycosylation of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: implications for stability and potency. Eur J Cancer 1994;30A (Suppl. 3):12-4
  11. Pedrazzoli P, Gibelli N, Pavesi L, Preti P, Piolini M, Bertolini F, et al. Effects of glycosylated and non-glycosylated G-CSFs, alone and in combination with other cytokines, on the growth of human progenitor cells. Anticancer Res 1996;16(4A):1781-5
  12. Mire-Sluis AR, Das RG, Thorpe R. The international standard for granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Evaluation in an international collaborative study. J Immunol Meth 1995