Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- G-CSF (3) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (3)
Mobilized blood has supplanted bone marrow (BM) as the primary source of hematopoietic stem cells for autologous and allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Pharmacologically enforced egress of hematopoietic stem cells from BM, or mobilization, has been achieved by directly or indirectly targeting the CXCL12/CXCR4 axis. Shortcomings of the standard mobilizing agent, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), administered alone or in combination with the only approved CXCR4 antagonist, Plerixafor, continue to fuel the quest for new mobilizing agents. Using Protein Epitope Mimetics technology, a novel peptidic CXCR4 antagonist, POL5551, was developed. In vitro data presented herein indicate high affinity to and specificity for CXCR4. POL5551 exhibited rapid mobilization kinetics and unprecedented efficiency in C57BL/6 mice, exceeding that of Plerixafor and at higher doses also of G-CSF. POL5551-mobilized stem cells demonstrated adequate transplantation properties. In contrast to G-CSF, POL5551 did not induce major morphological changes in the BM of mice. Moreover, we provide evidence of direct POL5551 binding to hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs) in vivo, strengthening the hypothesis that CXCR4 antagonists mediate mobilization by direct targeting of HSPCs. In summary, POL5551 is a potent mobilizing agent for HSPCs in mice with promising therapeutic potential if these data can be orroborated in humans.
Background: Certain disadvantages of the standard hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell (HSPC) mobilizing agent G-CSF fuel the quest for alternatives. We herein report results of a Phase I dose escalation trial comparing mobilization with a peptidic CXCR4 antagonist POL6326 (balixafortide) vs. G-CSF.
Methods: Healthy male volunteer donors with a documented average mobilization response to G-CSF received, following ≥6 weeks wash-out, a 1–2 h infusion of 500–2500 µg/kg of balixafortide. Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics were assessed.
Results: Balixafortide was well tolerated and rated favorably over G-CSF by subjects. At all doses tested balixafortide mobilized HSPC. In the dose range between 1500 and 2500 µg/kg mobilization was similar, reaching 38.2 ± 2.8 CD34 + cells/µL (mean ± SEM). Balixafortide caused mixed leukocytosis in the mid-20 K/µL range. B-lymphocytosis was more pronounced, whereas neutrophilia and monocytosis were markedly less accentuated with balixafortide compared to G-CSF. At the 24 h time point, leukocytes had largely normalized.
Conclusions: Balixafortide is safe, well tolerated, and induces efficient mobilization of HSPCs in healthy male volunteers. Based on experience with current apheresis technology, the observed mobilization at doses ≥1500 µg/kg of balixafortide is predicted to yield in a single apheresis a standard dose of 4× 10E6 CD34+ cells/kg from most individuals donating for an approximately weight-matched recipient. Exploration of alternative dosing regimens may provide even higher mobilization responses.
Trial Registration European Medicines Agency (EudraCT-Nr. 2011-003316-23) and clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01841476)
Background: Healthy volunteer registry donors have become the backbone of stem cell transplantation programs. While most registrants will never become actual donors, a small minority are called upon twice, most commonly for the same patient because of poor graft function. Anecdotal evidence provides no hard reasons to disallow second-time mobilized apheresis, but few centers have treated enough two-time donors for definitive conclusions. Moreover, for reasons unknown, the efficiency of G-CSF varies greatly between donations.
Methods: Comparison of outcomes of first vs. second donations can formally confirm G-CSF responsiveness as intrinsically, likely genetically, determined. In our database, we identified 60 donors (1.3%) who received two cycles of G-CSF 24 days to 4 years apart and systematically compared mobilization outcomes.
Results: First and second mobilization and collection proceeded without severe or unusual adverse effects. First-time mobilization efficiency was highly predictive of second-time mobilization. Neither mobilization efficiency nor time lag between donations affected the similarity of first- and second-time mobilization outcomes.
Conclusions: With the caveat that only donors with an unremarkable first donation were cleared for a second, our data indicate that a second donation is feasible, equally tolerable as a first donation, and efficient. Moreover, the data strongly support the notion of donor-intrinsic variables dictating mobilization response and argue against relevant damage to the stem cell compartment during mobilization with rhG-CSF.