4.6 Article

Safety and efficacy of upfront plerixafor plus G-CSF versus placebo plus G-CSF for mobilization of CD34+ hematopoietic progenitor cells in patients ≥60 and <60 years of age with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or multiple myeloma

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY
卷 88, 期 12, 页码 1017-1023

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajh.23561

关键词

-

资金

  1. Genzyme Corporation [3101, 3102, 12, 22]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The efficacy and safety of plerixafor 1 GCSF in enhancing hematopoietic stem cell mobilization and collection has been demonstrated in two phase III studies involving patients with NHL or MM. In these pivotal studies, plerixafor 1 GCSF significantly increased the proportion of patients achieving target stem cell yields, compared to placebo 1 GCSF. In this analysis, we compare the efficacy and safety of plerixafor 1 GCSF versus placebo 1 GCSF in patients enrolled in the two phase III studies, stratified by age: >= 60 years of age and < 60 years of age. The proportion of older patients who achieved target stem cell yields was significantly higher in the plerixafor group than in placebo group (NHL: 50.9 vs. 25.4%, P < 0.001; MM: 69.6 vs. 23.7%, P < 0.001). In this older cohort, the median times to neutrophil and to platelet engraftment following autologous stem cell transplant were comparable between the plerixafor and placebo groups. Similar efficacy findings were observed in the younger age group. The most common adverse events (all grades) reported among older patients in the plerixafor group included diarrhea (41.3%), nausea (38.9%), fatigue (30.2%), and injectionsite reaction (29.4%). The frequency of adverse events was similar between the older and the younger age groups. Taken together, our subanalysis demonstrate that plerixafor 1 GCSF can be safely and effectively used in adult patients of all ages, including those >= 60 years, to support optimal stem cell mobilization for autologous stem cell transplantation. Am. J. Hematol. 88: 1017-1023, 2013. (C) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

4.6
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