Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21861545›Full record

ReviewDrugs2011

Plerixafor: a review of its use in stem-cell mobilization in patients with lymphoma or multiple myeloma.

Gillian M Keating

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The unique structural and functional features of CXCL12.Cellular & molecular immunology · 2018
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gillian M KeatingAdis, a Wolters Kluwer Business, Auckland, New Zealand. demail@adis.co.nz
Wolters Kluwer Health · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plerixafor (Mozobil®) is a CXCR4 chemokine receptor antagonist that is indicated for use in combination with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to mobilize stem cells to the peripheral blood for collection and subsequent autologous stem-cell transplantation in patients who have non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) or multiple myeloma (MM) [US] and in patients who have lymphoma or MM and are poor mobilizers (EU). This article reviews the clinical efficacy and tolerability of subcutaneous plerixafor for stem-cell mobilization in patients with lymphoma or MM, as well as summarizing its pharmacological properties. Pharmacoeconomic analyses of plerixafor and decision-making algorithms intended to optimize its use are also discussed. Plerixafor plus G-CSF mobilized stem cells more efficiently than placebo plus G-CSF in adults with NHL or MM, according to the results of two randomized, double-blind, multicentre trials. In these trials, significantly more plerixafor plus G-CSF recipients than placebo plus G-CSF recipients reached primary apheresis targets in significantly fewer apheresis days. In the trial in patients with NHL, significantly more plerixafor plus G-CSF than placebo plus G-CSF recipients proceeded to transplantation. Results of compassionate-use studies in patients with lymphoma or MM demonstrated that plerixafor plus G-CSF successfully mobilized stem cells in the majority of patients who were poor mobilizers (i.e. sufficient CD34+ cells had not been collected during apheresis or apheresis had not occurred because of low peripheral blood CD34+ cell counts). Results of compassionate-use studies and additional studies in patients with lymphoma or MM also demonstrated that plerixafor plus G-CSF successfully mobilized stem cells in predicted poor mobilizers, such as heavily pretreated patients considered to be at high risk of mobilization failure. In addition, a small study showed mobilization with pre-emptive plerixafor to be effective. Subcutaneous plerixafor was generally well tolerated during stem-cell mobilization in patients with NHL or MM; the most commonly occurring treatment-related adverse events in plerixafor plus G-CSF recipients included injection-site reactions and gastrointestinal adverse events. Preliminary results of a US cost-effectiveness analysis suggest that plerixafor plus G-CSF is a cost-saving option compared with cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF. A retrospective US cost analysis found no significant difference between plerixafor plus G-CSF and cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF recipients in the median total cost of initial mobilization, suggesting that the cost of plerixafor may be offset by increased utilization of other resources in patients receiving alternative mobilization regimens. Additional cost analyses examined the use of pre-emptive plerixafor; institutions have developed decision-making algorithms, mainly relating to the use of pre-emptive plerixafor, to help optimize its use. In conclusion, plerixafor is a valuable stem-cell mobilizer for use in combination with G-CSF in patients with lymphoma or MM, particularly in patients who are poor mobilizers or predicted poor mobilizers.

Indexed as

Hematopoietic Stem Cell MobilizationBenzylaminesChemokine CXCL12Clinical Trials as TopicCyclamsHeterocyclic CompoundsHumansLymphomaMultiple MyelomaBenzylaminesChemokine CXCL12CyclamsHeterocyclic Compoundsplerixafor

Identifiers

PMID21861545
OpenAlexW2034776183

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.