4.7 Article

Single Dose of the CXCR4 Antagonist BL-8040 Induces Rapid Mobilization for the Collection of Human CD34+ Cells in Healthy Volunteers

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 23, 期 22, 页码 6790-6801

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-2919

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The potential of the high-affinity CXCR4 antagonist BL-8040 as a monotherapy-mobilizing agent and its derived graft composition and quality were evaluated in a phase I clinical study in healthy volunteers (NCT02073019). Experimental Design: The first part of the study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose escalation phase. The second part of the study was an open-label phase, in which 8 subjects received a single injection of BL-8040 (1 mg/kg) and approximately 4 hours later underwent a standard leukapheresis procedure. The engraftment potential of the purified mobilized CD34(+) cells was further evaluated by transplanting the cells into NSG immunodeficient mice. Results: BL-8040 was found safe and well tolerated at all doses tested (0.5-1 mg/kg). Themain treatment-related adverse events were mild to moderate. Transient injection site and systemic reactions were mitigated by methylprednisolone, paracetamol, and promethazine pretreatment. In the first part of the study, BL-8040 triggered rapid and substantial mobilization of WBCs and CD34(+) cells in all tested doses. Four hours postdose, the count rose to a mean of 8, 37, 31, and 35 cells/mL (placebo, 0.5, 0.75, and 1 mg/kg, respectively). FACS analysis revealed substantial mobilization of immature dendritic, T, B, and NK cells. In the second part, the mean CD34(+) cells/kg collected were 11.6 x 10(6) cells/kg. The graft composition was rich in immune cells. Conclusions: The current data demonstrate that BL-8040 is a safe and effective monotherapy strategy for the collection of large amounts of CD34(+) cells and immune cells in a one-day procedure for allogeneic HSPC transplantation. (C) 2017 AACR.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据