scholarly journals Effect of Progenitor Cell Mobilization With Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor in Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease

JAMA ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 310 (24) ◽  
pp. 2631 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Poole ◽  
Kreton Mavromatis ◽  
José N. Binongo ◽  
Ali Khan ◽  
Qunna Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peripheral Artery Disease ◽  
Progenitor Cell ◽  
Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
Peripheral Artery ◽  
Macrophage Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
Cell Mobilization ◽  
Artery Disease ◽  
Macrophage Colony ◽  
Stimulating Factor

Die Stimulation von Vorläuferzellen des Gefäßendothels zeigt keinen zum Laufbandtraining zusätzlichen Effekt auf die 6-Minuten Gehstrecke

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (01) ◽  
pp. 4-4
Author(s):  
K. Ammer
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
Peripheral Artery ◽  
Supervised Exercise ◽  
Walking Performance ◽  
Macrophage Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
Artery Disease ◽  
Macrophage Colony ◽  
Stimulating Factor

Referat zur Arbeit von McDermott MM, Ferrucci L, Tian L, Guralnik JM, Lloyd-Jones D, Kibbe MR, Polonsky TS, Domanchuk K, Stein JH, Zhao L, Taylor D, Skelly C, Pearce W, Perlman H, McCarthy W, Li L, Gao Y, Sufit R, Bloomfield CL, Criqui MH. Effect of Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor With or Without Supervised Exercise on Walking Performance in Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease. The PROPEL Randomized Clinical Trial JAMA 2017; 318(21): 2089–2098

scholarly journals Promotion of Collateral Growth by Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease

Circulation ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 104 (17) ◽  
pp. 2012-2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Seiler ◽  
Tilmann Pohl ◽  
Kerstin Wustmann ◽  
Damian Hutter ◽  
Pierre-Alain Nicolet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
Collateral Growth ◽  
Macrophage Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
Artery Disease ◽  
Macrophage Colony ◽  
Stimulating Factor

Randomized Cross-Over Trial of Progenitor-Cell Mobilization: High-Dose Cyclophosphamide Plus Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) Versus Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor Plus G-CSF

2000 ◽  
Vol 18 (9) ◽  
pp. 1824-1830 ◽  
Author(s):  
Omer N. Koç ◽  
Stanton L. Gerson ◽  
Brenda W. Cooper ◽  
Mary Laughlin ◽  
Howard Meyerson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Progenitor Cell ◽  
Hematopoietic Progenitor Cell ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
Hematopoietic Progenitor ◽  
Gm Csf ◽  
Macrophage Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
Macrophage Colony ◽  
Stimulating Factor

PURPOSE: Patient response to hematopoietic progenitor-cell mobilizing regimens seems to vary considerably, making comparison between regimens difficult. To eliminate this inter-patient variability, we designed a cross-over trial and prospectively compared the number of progenitors mobilized into blood after granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) days 1 to 12 plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) days 7 to 12 (regimen G) with the number of progenitors after cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF days 3 to 14 (regimen C) in the same patient. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine patients were randomized to receive either regimen G or C first (G1 and C1, respectively) and underwent two leukaphereses. After a washout period, patients were then crossed over to the alternate regimen (C2 and G2, respectively) and underwent two additional leukaphereses. The hematopoietic progenitor-cell content of each collection was determined. In addition, toxicity and charges were tracked. RESULTS: Regimen C (n = 50) resulted in mobilization of more CD34+ cells (2.7-fold/kg/apheresis), erythroid burst-forming units (1.8-fold/kg/apheresis), and colony-forming units–granulocyte-macrophage (2.2-fold/kg/apheresis) compared with regimen G given to the same patients (n = 46; paired t test, P < .01 for all comparisons). Compared with regimen G, regimen C resulted in better mobilization, whether it was given first (P = .025) or second (P = .02). The ability to achieve a target collection of ≥ 2 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg using two leukaphereses was 50% after G1 and 90% after C1. Three of the seven patients in whom mobilization was poor after G1 had ≥ 2 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg with two leukaphereses after C2. In contrast, when regimen G was given second (G2), seven out of 10 patients failed to achieve the target CD34+ cell dose despite adequate collections after C1. Thirty percent of the patients (nine of 29) given regimen C were admitted to the hospital because of neutropenic fever for a median duration of 4 days (range, 2 to 10 days). The higher cost of regimen C was balanced by higher CD34+ cell yield, resulting in equivalent charges based on cost per CD34+ cell collected. CONCLUSION: We report the first clinical trial that used a cross-over design showing that high-dose cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF results in mobilization of more progenitors then GM-CSF plus G-CSF when tested in the same patient regardless of sequence of administration, although the regimen is associated with greater morbidity. Patients who fail to achieve adequate mobilization after regimen G can be treated with regimen C as an effective salvage regimen, whereas patients who fail regimen C are unlikely to benefit from subsequent treatment with regimen G. The cross-over design allowed detection of significant differences between regimens in a small cohort of patients and should be considered in design of future comparisons of mobilization regimens.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document