4.5 Article

Lenograstim-mobilized peripheral blood progenitor cells in volunteer donors:: an open label randomized split dose escalating study

期刊

BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
卷 25, 期 4, 页码 371-376

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1702168

关键词

lenograstim; mobilization; allogeneic stem cell transplant; volunteer donors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mobilization of peripheral blood cell progenitor cells was investigated in 36 healthy sibling donors using three different split doses of glycosylated rhG-CSF (lenograstim), The donors were randomized into three groups: group 1 was given lenograstim at 8, group 2 at 11 and group 3 at 15 mu g/kg/day in two split doses, subcutaneously for 4 and 5 days, respectively. Leukapheresis was performed on day 4 or 5 depending on the WBC and CD34(+) cell count. We were able to demonstrate that there was a significant correlation between circulating CD34(+) cells on the day of harvest and CD34(+) cells in the apheresis products in all three groups. The number of CD34(+) cells pre-apheresis was inversely correlated with age in group 1 and group 2, However, in group 3, the number of CD34(+) sells preapheresis did not correlate with age. There was also a difference between the number of progenitor cells mobilized in the three dose groups regarding the time of harvest. Apheresis was performed in groups 1 and 2 on day 5 of mobilization in order to obtain a sufficient number of stem cells for allogeneic transplantation. In contrast, with the split dose of 15 mu g/kg/day, harvest could be routinely performed on day 4 of stimulation. We conclude that lenograstim given twice a day at doses of 8, 11 and 15 mu g/kg/day provided different CD34(+) cell yields in normal donors, in particular, with regard to the time of harvest. The number of CD34(+) cells preapheresis was not correlated with age in the group of donors mobilized with a split dose of 15 mu g/kg/day, indicating that this dosage might also be suitable for older donors.

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

4.5
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