Premium
Harvesting peripheral blood progenitor cells from healthy donors: retrospective comparison of filgrastim and lenograstim
Author(s) -
Martino Massimo,
Console Giuseppe,
Irrera Giuseppe,
Callea Ida,
Condemi Antonia,
Dattola Antonella,
Messina Giuseppe,
Pontari Antonella,
Pucci Giulia,
Furlò Giuseppe,
Bresolin Giuseppe,
Iacopino Pasquale,
Morabito Fortunato
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
journal of clinical apheresis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.697
H-Index - 46
eISSN - 1098-1101
pISSN - 0733-2459
DOI - 10.1002/jca.20049
Subject(s) - filgrastim , medicine , nausea , tolerability , granulocyte colony stimulating factor , adverse effect , surgery , gastroenterology , bone pain , anesthesia , chemotherapy
Mobilization of CD34 + into peripheral blood is attained by either glycosylated (lenograstim) or non‐glycosylated recombinant G‐CSF (filgrastim). 101 donors, 57 males, median age 42 years (range 16–63) entered this retrospective study. Group I (55 cases) received filgrastim and group II lenograstim subcutaneously for 5–6 days. The peak number of CD34 + cells/μl blood observed on day 4 and 5 was not significantly different in the two groups. No differences were shown in terms of both circulating CFU‐GM at the time of harvesting and CD34 + target of collection. The most frequent side effects were bone pain (18.2% grade I; 36.4% grade II, 7.3% grade III), headache (18.2%), nausea (9.1%), fever (5.5%) and a mild splenomegaly (>2cm) (5.5%) in filgrastim group, and bone pain (37.0% grade I, 26.1% grade II, 2.2% grade III), headache (17.4%), nausea (15.2%), fever (4.4%) and a mild splenomegaly (4.3%) in lenograstim group, respectively. CD34 + collection was associated with thrombocytopenia, which was not significantly different between the two groups. No donor in either group developed long‐term adverse effects. We conclude that both G‐CSFs are comparable in terms of CD34 + cell collection, safety and tolerability. J. Clin. Apheresis © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.