Granulocyte Colony-stimulating Factor Group Research Articles

G-CSF-In Patients With Severe Alcohol-Associated Hepatitis: A Real-World Experience.

Severe alcohol-associated hepatitis (SAH) is associated with high short-term mortality, and failure of response to corticosteroids is associated with a mortality of ~70%-80% within 6 months. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) has been studied in steroid non-responders; however, the data are limited. This is a multicentre retrospective cohort study. The study period was from January 2016 to November 2023. SAH was defined as alcohol-associated hepatitis (ICD-10-CM codes) with serum bilirubin ≥ 5.0 mg/dL and INR ≥ 1.5. Other aetiologies of acute hepatitis and biliary obstruction were excluded. The primary outcome was 90-day median overall survival in SAH patients treated with G-CSF compared with standard medical therapy (SMT) or corticosteroids. Propensity score (1:1) matching was performed to control confounding variables. Among 20 132 patients with SAH, 10800 (53.65%) were treated with corticosteroids and 224 (1.11%) G-CSF. The G-CSF group was younger (45.5 vs. 48.4) White (79.91% vs. 72.40%); however, there was no age or gender difference between G-CSF and corticosteroid groups. Whites and patients with more comorbidities received G-CSF more frequently than SMT or corticosteroids. After propensity score matching, 90-day overall survival was better in patients who received G-CSF (88.31% vs. 62.36%, p < 0.01) compared with SMT or corticosteroids (88.31% vs. 74.39%, p < 0.01). Patients on G-CSF had better 6-month transplant-free survival compared with SMT (83.53% vs. 55.36%, p < 0.001) or corticosteroids (82.89% vs. 60.21%, p < 0.001). Gastrointestinal bleeding was less common in G-CSF group compared with corticosteroids (5.02% vs. 10.50%, p < 0.001). A small minority of patients with severe alcohol-associated hepatitis receive G-CSF. G-CSF improves 90-day overall survival in patients with severe alcohol-associated hepatitis and is non-inferior to corticosteroids.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for stem cell mobilisation in acute myocardial infarction: a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundTo determine whether granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) improves clinical outcomes after large ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) when administered early in patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction after successful percutaneous coronary...

The transplantation effect of pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor mobilized hematopoietic stem cells may be superior to that of G-CSF mobilized hematopoietic stem cells in haploidentical allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) mobilized peripheral blood stem cells have become the preferred source of hematopoietic stem cells. We compared the effectiveness of G-CSF and pegylated G-CSF (peg-G-CSF) for hematopoietic stem cell mobilization in haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (haplo-HSCT) donors, and evaluated the transplant outcomes. We conducted a matched retrospective cohort study. Donors mobilized with peg-G-CSF (n = 70) and G-CSF (n = 70). 140 consecutive patients diagnosed with acute leukemia who underwent haplo-HSCT were included in this study. The findings revealed that the peg-G-CSF cohort exhibited significantly elevated myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) levels in their grafts when compared to the G-CSF cohort (P < 0.001). The 100-day cumulative incidence (CI) of grade III-IV acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and 1-year CI of moderate-to-severe chronic GVHD were 4.3% vs 14.3 % (P = 0.047) and 11.2% vs 27.4 % (P = 0.023), in the peg-G-CSF group and G-CSF group. Patients reveiving mobilized stem cell with peg-G-CSF had a significantly greater likelihood of 1-year GVHD-free relapse-free survival (GRFS) compared to patients reveiving mobilized stem cell with G-CSF (74.9% vs 37.9 %, P < 0.001). The higher graft MDSCs proportion was associated with lower grade II-IV aGVHD, cGVHD (P < 0.05) and higher GRFS in the univariate analysis (P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that MDSCs proportion higher than 11.36 % (HR, 0.305; 95 % CI, 0.154–0.606; P = 0.001) and peg-G-CSF for stem cell mobilization (HR, 0.466; 95 % CI, 0.251–0.865; P = 0.016) were independent prognostic factors of GRFS. The superior survival rates observed in recipients of peg-G-CSF-mobilized cells are likely due to reduced acute GVHD, potentially mediated by the increased MDSCs within the grafts.

Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Improves Prednisolone Responsiveness and 90-Day Survival in Steroid-Eligible Severe Alcohol-Associated Hepatitis: The GPreAH Study a Randomized Trial.

Severe alcohol-associated hepatitis (SAH) carries high 1-month mortality. Corticosteroids provide a modest 28-day but not 90-day survival benefit, due to development of infections and organ failures. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) has shown promise in patients with SAH by its immunomodulatory and regenerative capabilities. We studied the safety and efficacy of combination (GCSF + prednisolone, GPred) therapy in management of steroid-eligible patients with SAH. Steroid eligible patients with SAH (discriminant function scores 32-90) were randomized to receive prednisolone (GrA, n = 42), GPred (GrB, n = 42), or GCSF alone (GrC, n = 42). GCSF was given as 150-300 mcg/d for 7 days followed by every third day for a maximum of 12 doses in 1 month. Prednisolone 40 mg/d was given for 7 days and continued for 28 days in responders (Lille score <0.45). Baseline characteristics of patient groups were comparable. On intention-to-treat analysis, the primary endpoint of 90-day survival was achieved in 64.3% (27/42) in prednisolone, 88.1% (37/42) in GPred, and 78.6%(33/42) in GCSF groups, respectively ( P = 0.03, prednisolone vs GPred). The 28-day survival was not different between the groups (85.7%, 95.2%, and 85.7%, respectively [ P = 0.27]). The GPred group had more responders by day 7 (71.4% vs 92.9% vs 76.2%, P = 0.037) and had greater reduction in discriminant function (-7.33 ± 4.78, -24.59 ± 3.7, -14.59 ± 3.41, P = 0.011) and MELDNa (-1.69 ± 1.26, -7.02 ± 1.24, -3.05 ± 0.83, P = 0.002) by day 90. The prednisolone-only group had higher incidence of new infections (35.7%, 19%, 7.1%, respectively, P < 0.002). Acute kidney injury (33.3%, 7.1%, 11.9%, P = 0.002), hepatic encephalopathy (35.7%, 9.5%, 26.2%, P = <0.001), and rehospitalizations (59.5%, 14.3%, 30.9%, P =<0.01) were lower in the GPred group. Addition of GCSF to prednisolone improves steroid responsiveness and 90-day survival with fewer infections and new onset complications in patients with SAH.

Efficacy and safety of G-CSF prophylaxis in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer receiving chemoimmunotherapy

ABSTRACT Objectives We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis during chemoimmunotherapy with carboplatin plus etoposide and atezolizumab in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Methods This retrospective, multicenter study enrolled ES-SCLC patients receiving carboplatin plus etoposide and atezolizumab, categorized into G-CSF and non-G-CSF groups. Demographic and disease-related data were collected. Response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity were analyzed. Results Of 119 patients (median age: 63 years), the overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 72.3% and 81.5%, respectively. In the G-CSF group, the ORR was 76.4% compared to 60.0% in the non-G-CSF group (p = 0.33), and the DCR was 85.4% versus 70.0%, respectively (p = 0.46). Median PFS was 8.3 months (95% CI, 6.8–9.8) in the G-CSF group and 6.8 months (95% CI, 6.2–7.5) in the non-G-CSF group (p = 0.24). Median OS was 13.8 months (95% CI, 9.6–18.1) for the G-CSF group and 10.6 months (95% CI, 7.9–13.3) for the non-G-CSF group (p = 0.47). Grade 3 ≥ adverse events were similar between groups (49.4% vs. 33.3%, respectively, p = 0.12). Conclusion G-CSF prophylaxis can be safely used in ES-SCLC patients undergoing carboplatin plus etoposide and atezolizumab regimen without significantly altering efficacy or increasing toxicity.

The Efficiency of Introducing Intrauterine Infusion of Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma versus Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor in Repeated Implantation Failure Patients: An Unblinded Randomised Clinical Trial.

Repeated implantation failure (RIF) refers to the condition where high quality embryos are unable to successfully implant after multiple cycles of in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of intrauterine granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) on pregnancy rate in patients with RIF. The present randomised clinical trial study was conducted at the IVF Centre of Mehr Medical Institute in Rasht, Iran, from 2020 to 2022. The research consisted of 200 individuals who had experienced multiple failed cycles. These patients were randomised into two groups: intrauterine infusion of 1 ml of G-CSF and intrauterine infusion of 1 ml autologous PRP at least 48 hours before embryo transfer (ET). The groups were compared in terms of implantation rate, and chemical, clinical, and ongoing pregnancy. The implantation rate was significantly higher in patients who received PRP (P=0.016). Chemical pregnancy in the PRP group was significantly higher than G-CSF group (P=0.003). Both clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy rates were significantly higher in the PRP group (P=0.001) compared to the G-CSF group (P=0.02). The utilisation of PRP via intrauterine infusion is considerably more successful than G-CSF in enhancing pregnancy and live birth rates among patients with RIF.

The Role of Combined Treatment of Granulocyte Colony-stimulating Factor and Oestrogen in Treatment of Thin Endometrium: A Rat Model

Background: Thin endometrium, described as endometrial thickness below 7 mm on embryo transfer day in assisted reproduction cycles, is associated with decreased pregnancy rates. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and oestrogen (E) are two medications used for treatment. Aim: The aim of this study is to demonstrate the effect of combined G-CSF+E treatment on thin endometrium in a rat model. Settings and Design: Gazi University Laboratory Animals Breeding and Experimental Researchers Center provided the veterinary care. Materials and Methods: Forty-eight female rats were divided into 8 groups (6 rats/group). Groups were named as group 1: control, group 2: control that received G-CSF, group 3: control that received E, group 4: control that received G-CSF+E, group 5: thin endometrium model, group 6: thin endometrium model that received G-CSF, group 7: thin endometrium model that received E and group 8: thin endometrium model that received G-CSF+E. Twelve days after the establishment of thin endometrium model, G-CSF and/or E treatment was started and continued for 5 days according to the groups. Tissue specimens were collected at the end of the treatment period. Proliferation, apoptosis and angiogenesis were evaluated. Statistical Analysis Used: The data were analysed using one-way analysis of variance and Tamhane post hoc test. Results: Significant increase in uterine wall and endometrial thickness was detected in the thin endometrium + G-CSF group when compared to the thin endometrium group. G-CSF was demonstrated to cause an extensive proliferative response and induction of angiogenesis in thin endometrium without restoration of endometrial glands. E alone restored thin endometrium to almost normal histology. Morphological changes representing the dominant effects of G-CSF were observed in thin endometrium model receiving G-CSF+E. Conclusion: G-CSF+E is not an effective treatment modality in thin endometrium rat model.

G-CSF promotes the development of hepatocellular carcinoma by activating the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway in TAM.

This investigation seeks to elucidate the role of the Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) in the progression of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), as well as the impact of the substance on related signaling pathways within the disease matrix. Nude mouse tumor-bearing assay was used to detect tumor progression. Levels of Mannose/CD68 and CD34/Mannose within these samples and the concentrations of Mannose and inducible Nitric Oxide Synthase (iNOS) in macrophages were quantified using immunofluorescence techniques. The angiogenic capability was assessed via tube formation assays, and protein expressions of G-CSF, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF), Transforming Growth Factor-beta (TGF-β), Matrix Metalloproteinases 2 and 9 (MMP2/9), SH2-containing protein tyrosine phosphatase-2 (SHP-2), phosphorylated PI3K/total PI3K (P-PI3K/t-PI3K), phosphorylated AKT/total AKT (P-AKT/t-AKT), and phosphorylated mTOR/total mTOR (P-mTOR/t-mTOR) were measured through Western Blot analysis in both tumor tissues and macrophages. Administration of G-CSF resulted in a marked augmentation of tumor volume. Macrophage Mannose expression was significantly elevated upon G-CSF treatment, while iNOS levels were conspicuously diminished. G-CSF substantially enhanced the secretion of VEGF, TGF-β, and MMPs in tumor tissues. Macrophage parameters, following incubation in G-CSF pre-treated conditioned medium, indicated enhanced tube-forming capabilities relative to the control, an effect mitigated by the introduction of specific inhibitors. Furthermore, the G-CSF group exhibited a notable reduction in SHP-2 expression, alongside a substantial elevation in the phosphorylation levels of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway proteins across all tumor-bearing paradigms. G-CSF ostensibly facilitates the advancement of hepatocellular carcinoma by activating the PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling cascade within Tumor-Associated Macrophages (TAM).

The Preventive Effect of Levofloxacin Combined with G-CSF or Only G-CSF Supportive Therapy on Infection in Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

To investigate the role of levofloxacin combined with recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) or only G-CSF supportive therapy in preventing infection in autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation(ASCT), and to analyze the length of hospital stay, hospitalization cost and post-transplant survival of the patients. A retrospective analysis was performed in the patients with hematological malignancies who accepted ASCT at our hospital from January 2012 to July 2022, the febrile neutropenia, the incidence of bacterial infection and the use rate of intravenous antibiotics in the levofloxacin+G-CSF group and only G-CSF support group during ASCT were observed. The length of hospital stay, total cost during hospitalization and survival after 90 days of transplantation between the two groups were compared. A total of 102 cases were included in this study, including 57 cases of multiple myeloma, 36 cases of acute leukaemia, 7 cases of lymphoma, 3 cases of myelodysplastic syndrome, 1 case of light chain amyloidosis, and 1 case of POEMS syndrome. 47 patients received levofloxacin+ G-CSF antibacterial prophylaxis, and 55 patients received G-CSF supportive therapy. In the levofloxacin+ G-CSF group, 40 cases (85.11%) developed febrile neutropenia, and 13 cases (27.66%) were confirmed as bacterial infection. In the G-CSF group, 44 cases (80.00%) developed febrile neutropenia, and 16 cases (29.09%) were bacterial infection. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of febrile neutropenia and bacterial infection between the two groups (χ2=0.46，P =0.50; χ2=0.03，P =0.87). The use rate of intravenous antibiotics in the levofloxacin+ G-CSF group was 85.11% (40/47), which was not statistically different from 85.45% (47/55) in the G-CSF group (χ2=0.04，P =0.84). The detection rates of levofloxacin-resistant bacteria in the levofloxacin+ G-CSF group and G-CSF group were 8.57% (3/35) and 21.43% (6/28), respectively, with no statistical difference (χ2=0.65, P >0.05). The median length and median cost of hospitalization in the levofloxacin+ G-CSF group and G-CSF group were 25 d vs 22 d and 78 216.24 yuan vs 80 724.38 yuan, with no statistically significant differences ( t =3.00，P =0.09; t =0.94，P =0.09). Within 90 days after transplantation, two cases (4.26%) died in the levofloxacin+ G-CSF group and one case (1.82%) died in the G-CSF group, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (χ2=0.53，P =0.47). Application of levofloxacin+ G-CSF showed no significant benefit compared to G-CSF support for the prevention of bacterial infections during ASCT.

Does early granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration in autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation shorten the duration of hospitalization in patients with multiple myeloma?

Aims: Autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT), performed with high-dose melphalan support following induction therapy is still the gold standard method of treatment for multipl myeloma (MM)patients suitable for transplantation. It was aimed, with this retrospective study, to investigate the effects of early (1 day after PBSCT) and late (5 days after PBSCT) initiation of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support following PBSCT on engraftment time, febrile neutropenia, and length of hospital stay (LOS) in MM patients. Methods: This study included 70 patients with MM, who underwent PBSCT in Erciyes University. Two groups were administered 5µg/kg filgrastim, subcutaneously, either 1 day or 5 days after PBSCT, until neutrophil engraftment was reached. Results: Both neutrophil and platelet engraftment occurred in significantly shorter times in the early G-CSF group compared to late G-CSF group; the median times to neutrophil engraftment were 10 (8-13) and 11 (7-15) days, respectively, and the median times to platelet engraftment were 11 (10- 16) and 13 (11- 21) days (p=0.001). Also, the median LOS was also significantly shorter in the early G-CSF group compared to late G-CSF group; 14 (10-22) vs 16 (11- 33) days, respectively (p=0.016). No significant difference was found between the groups in terms of frequency of febrile neutropenia. Conclusion: The initiation of G-CSF support early, following PBSCT in MM patients, accelerated neutrophil and platelet engraftment and shortened the LOS as compared to the initiation of G-CSF support late, with no significant difference in the frequency of febrile neutropenia.

Therapeutic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients with febrile neutropenia: a comprehensive systematic review for clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022 from the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

Febrile neutropenia represents a critical oncologic emergency, and its management is pivotal in cancer therapy. In several guidelines, the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia is not routinely recommended except in high-risk cases. The Japan Society of Clinical Oncology has updated its clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF, incorporating a systematic review to address this clinical question. The systematic review was conducted by performing a comprehensive literature search across PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web, focusing on publications from January 1990 to December 2019. Selected studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, and cohort and case-control studies. Evaluated outcomes included overall survival, infection-related mortality, hospitalization duration, quality of life, and pain. The initial search yielded 332 records. Following two rounds of screening, two records were selected for both qualitative and quantitative synthesis including meta-analysis. Regarding infection-related mortality, the event to case ratio was 5:134 (3.73%) in the G-CSF group versus 6:129 (4.65%) in the non-G-CSF group, resulting in a relative risk of 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-2.58; p = 0.54), which was not statistically significant. Only median values for hospitalization duration were available from the two RCTs, precluding a meta-analysis. For overall survival, quality of life, and pain, no suitable studies were found for analysis, rendering their assessment unfeasible. A weak recommendation is made that G-CSF treatment not be administered to patients with febrile neutropenia during cancer chemotherapy. G-CSF treatment can be considered for patients at high risk.

Comparison between a single dose of PEG G-CSF and multiple doses of non-PEG G-CSF: a systematic review and meta-analysis from Clinical Practice Guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is widely used for the primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia (FN). Two types of G-CSF are available in Japan, namely G-CSF chemically bound to polyethylene glycol (PEG G-CSF), which provides long-lasting effects with a single dose, and non-polyethylene glycol-bound G-CSF (non-PEG G-CSF), which must be sequentially administrated for several days. This current study investigated the utility of these treatments for the primary prophylaxis of FN through a systematic review of the literature. A detailed literature search for related studies was performed using PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and the Cochrane Library. Data were independently extracted and assessed by two reviewers. A qualitative analysis or meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate six outcomes. Through the first and second screenings, 23 and 18 articles were extracted for qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis, respectively. The incidence of FN was significantly lower in the PEG G-CSF group than in the non-PEG G-CSF group with a strong quality/certainty of evidence. The differences in other outcomes, such as overall survival, infection-related mortality, the duration of neutropenia (less than 500/μL), quality of life, and pain, were not apparent. A single dose of PEG G-CSF is strongly recommended over multiple-dose non-PEG G-CSF therapy for the primary prophylaxis of FN.

Associations of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor with toxicities and efficacy of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Few studies have reported the associations of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) with cytokine release syndrome (CRS), neurotoxic events (NEs) and efficacy after chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). We present a retrospective study of 67 patients with R/R B-ALL who received anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, 41 (61.2%) patients received G-CSF (G-CSF group), while 26 (38.8%) did not (non-G-CSF group). Patients had similar duration of grade 3–4 neutropenia between the two groups. The incidences of CRS and NEs were higher in G-CSF group, while no differences in severity were found. Further stratified analysis showed that the incidence and severity of CRS were not associated with G-CSF administration in patients with low bone marrow (BM) tumor burden. None of the patients with low BM tumor burden developed NEs. However, there was a significant increase in the incidence of CRS after G-CSF administration in patients with high BM tumor burden. The duration of CRS in patients who used G-CSF was longer. There were no significant differences in response rates at 1 and 3 months after CAR T-cell infusion, as well as overall survival (OS) between the two groups. In conclusion, our results showed that G-CSF administration was not associated with the incidence or severity of CRS in patients with low BM tumor burden, but the incidence of CRS was higher after G-CSF administration in patients with high BM tumor burden. The duration of CRS was prolonged in G-CSF group. G-CSF administration was not associated with the efficacy of CAR T-cell therapy.

Clinical Analysis of PEG-rhG-CSF in Mobilization of Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cells in Hematological Tumors

To investigate the efficiency and optimal time of stem cell apheresis mobilized by pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF) in autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) for hematological malignancies without monitoring pre-collection CD34+ cells. Forty-six patients underwent stem cell mobilization were retrospectively analyzed between August 2017 and January 2022 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University. 27 patients using high dose chemotherapy combined with PEG-rhG-CSF mobilization were enrolled in the PEG-rhG-CSF group, and other 19 patients mobilized with recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) were enrolled in G-CSF group. The mobilization and collection effects of the patients in two groups were compared. A total of 46 patients underwent 86 apheresis procedures, the median amount of mononuclear cell (MNC) in the PEG-rhG-CSF group and G-CSF group was 6.54（3.85-12.61）×108/kg and 6.15（1.13-11.58）×108/kg, respectively (P >0.05), the total CD34+ cells of the grafts were 11.44(1.33-65.02)×106/kg and 4.95(0.30-24.02)×106/kg (P < 0.05), with harvest timing of 14(10-20) days and 14(4-22) days, respectively (P >0.05). In the PEG-rhG-CSF group, there was a significant difference between the number of CD34+ cells collected when white blood cells (WBC) ≥10×109/L and WBC<10×109 /L, 19.04(2.85-65.02)×106/kg and 6.22(0.81-34.86)×106/kg, respectively (P < 0.05). Stem cells mobilization with PEG-rhG-CSF was highly efficient with a median mobilization time of 14 days. In the absence of peripheral blood CD34 monitoring, peripheral blood WBC≥10×109/L can be considered as a threshold for a single stem cell apheresis to collect sufficient stem cells.

The efficacy and safety of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in the treatment of acute-on-chronic liver failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The safety and efficacy of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) for the treatment of acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) remain controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of G-CSF in treating ACLF. The estimated pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) assessed the treatment effects of G-CSF. Mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals were used to analyze continuous data. Heterogeneity was explored by sensitivity analysis. Potential publication bias was assessed using Egger's test. Ten studies, comprising a total of 603 participants, were included in the analysis. The G-CSF group showed significantly lower MELD scores at 7-day (MD = -2.39, 95%CI: -3.95 to -0.82), CTP scores at 7-day (MD = -0.77, 95%CI: -1.41 to -0.14), and MELD scores at 30-day (MD = -3.01, 95%CI: -5.36 to -0.67) compared to the control group. Furthermore, the G-CSF group was associated with a reduced risk of sepsis (RR = 0.53, 95%CI: 0.35-0.80). The 30-day survival (RR = 1.26, 95%CI:1.10-1.43), 60-day survival (RR = 1.47, 95%CI:1.17-1.84, and 90-day survival (RR = 1.73, 95%CI: 1.27-2.35) of patients with ACLF treated with G-CSF were significantly higher than those of the control group. Our meta-analysis suggests that G-CSF therapy may be a promising treatment for ACLF, with significant improvements in liver function and survival rates, however, further studies are needed to verify this conclusion.

Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Use in Patients with Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis: A Single Center Experience

Background: Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) is a rare, life-threatening syndrome caused by activation of T cells that results in extreme inflammation. HLH is commonly associated with underlying conditions such as infection, autoimmune disease, or malignancy. HLH management includes treatment directed at the specific trigger, suppression of maladaptive cytokines, and inhibition of T cell and macrophage proliferation. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) is a myeloid growth factor that stimulates the production, maturation, and activation of neutrophils. GCSF may theoretically promote production of inflammatory cytokines and enhance hemophagocytosis, thereby intensifying HLH. By contrast, GCSF could play a vital role in the treatment of granulocytopenia caused by HLH and thus limit the development of infections. There is a paucity of data examining the role of GCSF in patients with HLH. Current literature is limited to case reports of HLH exacerbated by GCSF administration. Practice patterns of GCSF use in HLH are highly variable, both within and between institutions. Aim: To compare the clinical course and overall survival of patients with HLH who received GCSF treatment and those who did not. Methods: We performed a retrospective, single-center cohort study of patients admitted with a diagnosis code of HLH from July 1997 through February 2023. Patients at least 18 years old with active HLH were included. Each case was reviewed to confirm the diagnosis of HLH based on available diagnostic evaluation and the final discharge diagnoses as documented by the primary treating team. In cases indeterminate for HLH, a second independent reviewer performed additional evaluation to reach consensus. The primary outcome was overall survival as determined by the Kaplan Meier method with statistical comparison using the log-rank test. Other examined outcomes included: incidence of infection, length of hospital stay (LOS), incidence of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, length of ICU stay, incidence of 30-day re-admissions due to HLH, and time to first change in HLH-directed therapy. Results: Database analysis revealed 130 patients with a diagnosis code of HLH, of which 68 patients met inclusion criteria. The study cohort comprised 26 patients that received GCSF treatment and 42 patients that did not. The median follow-up time was 3.1 months (interquartile range [IQR] 0.6-29.4). The most common HLH triggers were infection (30.8% GCSF group vs 45.2% control, p=0.31) and malignancy (65.5% GCSF group vs 19% control, p&amp;lt;0.001). A median of 10 doses (IQR 6-16) of GCSF were administered per patient in the GCSF group, and the median time between diagnosis and the first administered dose was 6.5 days (IQR 2.25-18.75). Median overall survival in the GCSF group was 122.6 months compared to 1.5 months in the control group (p=0.02, Figure 1). There was a higher but statistically insignificant difference in infection rate in the GCSF arm (92.3%) compared to the control arm (71.4%, p=0.06). The median LOS was higher in the GCSF group (38 days vs 15 days, p&amp;lt;0.001). Rates of ICU admission (53.4% vs 62%, p=0.69), intubation and mechanical ventilation (34.6% vs 33.3%, p=1.0), and initiation of renal replacement therapy (23.1% vs 16.7%, p=0.74) were similar across the GCSF and control groups, respectively. Two patients in each group were re-admitted for HLH within 30 days of initial discharge. The median time to change in HLH-directed therapy was not reached in either group, and there was no significant difference in incidence of therapy change between groups at 1, 3, or 6 months (Figure 2). Conclusions: In this single center, retrospective cohort study of patients with HLH, treatment with GCSF was not associated with inferior overall survival. While over-representation of a malignancy-associated trigger in the GCSF group may confound interpretation of this result, it nevertheless reflects an important clinical finding that contradicts previously published case report-level evidence. This study highlights the need for further prospective investigation of GCSF administration in HLH.

On-Demand Plerixafor Added to High-Dose Cyclophosphamide and Pegylated Recombinant Human Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factorin the Mobilization of Patients with Multiple Myeloma: High Effectiveness and Affordable Cost

Background Autologous stem cell transplantation(ASCT) still represents an integral part of treatment for patients with eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. It is important to collect enough stem cells for two transplants in the first mobilization.The combination of high-dose cyclophosphamide(Cy) (3g/m 2) plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor(G-CSF)and on-demand plerixafor has been considered the effective method as mobilization regimen, but G-CSF requires daily, multi-injection administration. Here, we performed a real-world analysis to evaluate the efficacy and cost of high-dose Cy combination pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor（PEG-rhG-CSF）and on-demand plerixafor for the first time, allowing for a single injection given the long half-life and slow elimination of PEG-rhG-CSF. Methods We retrospectively compared 343 patients whith MM mobilized between August 2008 and December 2022 using the following mobilization strategies: Cy+PEG-rhG-CSF+/-plerixafor(n=61), Cy+PEG-rhG-CSF(n=89),Cy+ G-CSF( n=169), G-CSF+plerixafor(n=24). Then the stem cell mobilization and collection results of the four groups were compared. Results Mobilization with Cy+PEG-rhG-CSF+/-plerixafor resulted in a significantly higher total CD34+ cells ( ×10 6/kg )collected( 8.81) compared to patients mobilized with other mobilization regimens：Cy+PEG-rhG-CSF(5.47；p＜0.001),Cy+ G-CSF(4.65; p＜0.001), G-CSF+plerixafor( 2.99; p＜0.001). Day1+Day 2 CD34+ cells ( ×10 6/kg ) collected were higher in Cy+PEG-rhG-CSF+/-plerixafor group too (Cy+PEG-rhG-CSF+/-plerixafor, 7.87 vs. Cy+PEG-rhG-CSF, 4.96 vs. Cy+ G-CSF,3.92 vs. G-CSF+plerixafor, 2.43) (p＜0.001).The percentage of patients who achieved＞6×10 6/kg CD34+ cells were significantly higher in Cy+PEG-rhG-CSF+/-plerixafor group group (77.0%) than other mobilization regimens：Cy+PEG-rhG-CSF (42.7% ；p＜0.001),Cy+ G-CSF( 37.3% ;p＜0.001）, G-CSF+plerixafor( 8 % ;p＜0.001). Apheresis sessions were fewer in Cy+PEG-rhG-CSF+/-plerixafor group ( Cy+PEG-rhG-CSF+/-plerixafor, 2 vs. Cy+PEG-rhG-CSF,3 vs. Cy+ G-CSF ,3 vs. G-CSF+plerixafor,4)(p＜0.001). Patients proceeded to ASCT with a mean of 2.94 CD34+cell (×10 6/kg ) infused for PEG-rhG-CSF+/-plerixafor , 2.94 infused for Cy+PEG-rhG-CSF, 2.61infused for G-CSF+plerixafor, 3.17 infused for Cy+ G-CSF (p=0.057) . The median time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment not different in the four groups. The total cost of mobilization and apheresis using Cy+PEG-rhG-CSF+/-plerixafor was significant lower ($5670.64) compared to G-CSF+plerixafor group($11098.61), and significant higher than Cy+PEG-rhG-CSF group ($3842.23)and Cy+ G-CSF group($3727.82)（p＜0.001）. Multivariate analysis showed that patients who received Cy+PEG-rhG-CSF +/-plerixafor treatment had significantly higher likelihoods of successfully achieving the optimal harvest (6×10 6/kg) in respect to Cy+PEG-rhG-CSF group mobilized without any plerixafor. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, for each 1% increase in probability of achieving a successful optimal harvest, was $62.57 per patient. The incidence of neutropenic fever not different in the Cy+PEG-rhG-CSF+/-plerixafor group(4%), Cy+PEG-rhG-CSF group (10%) and Cy+ G-CSF group(18%)(p=0.051). There was no patients suffered with neutropenic fever in G-CSF+plerixafor group. Conclusion Given higher rates of successful mobilization, affordable cost and toxicity, on-demand plerixafor added to high-dose Cy and PEG-rhG-CSF may be preferable in the mobilization of patients with multiple myeloma.

Comparison of different plerixafor-based strategies for adequate hematopoietic stem cell collection in poor mobilizers

Objectives: The main objective of the present study was to evaluate whether the use of plerixafor in combination with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) or subsequent use of isolated G-CSF and then plerixafor following disease-specific chemotherapy, and whether it would allow for adequate peripheral stem cell collection in patients. Methods: The retrospective study evaluated 54 patients with previous mobilization failure who were administered plerixafor in 2 centers. In patients without any side effects, CD 34+ cell counts, the percentage of patients who were found eligible for autologous transplantation, the engraftment kinetics of the patients who underwent transplantation, and their overall survival results were compared between the two groups where G-CSF was used with plerixafor, or where plerixafor was used after isolated G-CSF following chemotherapy. Results: The median age of the patients was 49 years (range: 17-70), and 64.8% (n = 35) were males. It was identified that 31 (57.4%) patients underwent mobilization treatment with isolated G-CSF and plerixafor, and 23 (42.6%) patients underwent mobilization treatment with chemotherapy plus G-CSF and plerixafor. In all patients, mean hemoglobin level (11.3 ± 1.5 g/dL vs. 9.3 ± 1.3 g/dL; p &amp;lt; 0.001) and median platelet level (129.2 ×103/µL vs. 58.4 ×103/µL) were found to be higher, while febrile neutropenia rate (3.3% vs. 60.9%), the percentage of replacement patients (6.7% vs. 65.2%), and median days of G-CSF (6 vs. 9) were found to be lower on the day of plerixafor administration in the isolated G-CSF and plerixafor group compared to the chemotherapy and G-CSF and plerixafor group. Conclusions: In conclusion, our study demonstrated that administration of plerixafor is generally safe and well-tolerated. Regardless of the underlying disease, it offers an effective alternative for patients with previous failed mobilization attempts using conventional regimens, and allows stem cell collection with fewer apheresis sessions.

Comparison of Plerixafor or Cyclophosphamide Combined with G-CSF in Mobilization of Peripheral Blood Stem Cells in Multiple Myeloma

To compare the efficacy of plerixafor (PXF) combined with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) (PXF+G-CSF) and cyclophosphamide (Cy) combined with G-CSF (Cy+G-CSF) in the mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). The clinical data of 41 MM patients who underwent PBSC mobilization using PXF+G-CSF (18 cases) or Cy+G-CSF (23 cases) in Shanxi Bethune Hospital from January 2019 to December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed, including the count of collected CD34+ cells, acquisition success rate, failure rate, and optimal rate. The correlation of sex, age, disease type, DS staging, ISS staging, number of chemotherapy cycle, disease status before mobilization, and mobilization regimen with the collection results was analyzed, and the adverse reactions, length of hospital stay, and hospitalization costs were compared between the two mobilization regimens. The 41 patients underwent 97 mobilization collections, and the median number of CD34+ cells collected was 6.09 (0-34.07)×106/kg. The acquisition success rate, optimal rate, and failure rate was 90.2%, 56.1%, and 9.8%, respectively. Univariate analysis showed that sex, age, disease type, and disease stage had no significant correlation with the number of CD34+ cells collected and acquisition success rate (P >0.05), but the patients with better disease remission than partial remission before mobilization were more likely to obtain higher CD34+ cell count (P <0.05). The PXF+G-CSF group had a larger number of CD34+ cells and higher acquisition success rate in the first collection than Cy+G-CSF group (both P <0.05), and had lower infection risk and shorter length of hospital stay during mobilization (both P <0.05), but the economic burden increased (P <0.05). PXF+G-CSF used for PBSC mobilization in MM patients has high first acquisition success rate, large number of CD34+ cells, less number of collection times, and short length of hospital stay, but the economic cost is heavy.

Application of G-CSF in high-leukocyte acute myeloid leukemia is a poor prognostic factor

ABSTRACTObjectiveTo analyze the effect of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) on outcomes in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).MethodsA total of 526 patients with AML in the Haematology Department were enrolled. They were divided into a G-CSF treatment group and a no G-CSF group according to whether G-CSF was administered in the induction chemotherapy period, with 355 cases in the G-CSF group and 171 cases in the no G-CSF group. Cox regression analysis and Kaplan-Meier curve analysis were used to analyze the effect of G-CSF on the first complete remission (CR1) phase and overall survival (OS). In addition, further analysis was performed based on an initial white blood cell count of 50 * 10^9/L.ResultsThe application of G-CSF significantly shortened the CR1 phase and OS in patients with high leukocytes.ConclusionsG/GM-CSF should be used with caution in patients with AML, especially those with high leukocytes.