Browsing by Subject "Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Inflammation triggers emergency granulopoiesis through a density-dependent feedback mechanism.
    (PLoS One, 2011) Cain, Derek W; Snowden, Pilar B; Sempowski, Gregory D; Kelsoe, Garnett
    Normally, neutrophil pools are maintained by homeostatic mechanisms that require the transcription factor C/EBPα. Inflammation, however, induces neutrophilia through a distinct pathway of "emergency" granulopoiesis that is dependent on C/EBPβ. Here, we show in mice that alum triggers emergency granulopoiesis through the IL-1RI-dependent induction of G-CSF. G-CSF/G-CSF-R neutralization impairs proliferative responses of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPC) to alum, but also abrogates the acute mobilization of BM neutrophils, raising the possibility that HSPC responses to inflammation are an indirect result of the exhaustion of BM neutrophil stores. The induction of neutropenia, via depletion with Gr-1 mAb or myeloid-specific ablation of Mcl-1, elicits G-CSF via an IL-1RI-independent pathway, stimulating granulopoietic responses indistinguishable from those induced by adjuvant. Notably, C/EBPβ, thought to be necessary for enhanced generative capacity of BM, is dispensable for increased proliferation of HSPC to alum or neutropenia, but plays a role in terminal neutrophil differentiation during granulopoietic recovery. We conclude that alum elicits a transient increase in G-CSF production via IL-1RI for the mobilization of BM neutrophils, but density-dependent feedback sustains G-CSF for accelerated granulopoiesis.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Neutropenia in glycogen storage disease Ib: outcomes for patients treated with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.
    (Current opinion in hematology, 2019-01) Dale, David C; Bolyard, Audrey Anna; Marrero, Tracy; Kelley, Merideth L; Makaryan, Vahagn; Tran, Emily; Leung, Jamie; Boxer, Laurence A; Kishnani, Priya S; Austin, Stephanie; Wanner, Corbinian; Ferrecchia, Iris A; Khalaf, Dina; Maze, Dawn; Kurtzberg, Joanne; Zeidler, Cornelia; Welte, Karl; Weinstein, David A

    Purpose of review

    Glycogen storage disease Ib (GSD Ib) is characterized by hepatomegaly, hypoglycemia, neutropenia, enterocolitis and recurrent bacterial infections. It is attributable to mutations in G6PT1, the gene for the glucose-6-phosphate transporter responsible for transport of glucose into the endoplasmic reticulum. Neutropenia in GSD Ib is now frequently treated with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). We formed a cooperative group to review outcomes of the long-term treatment of GSD Ib patients treated with G-CSF.

    Recent findings

    The study enrolled 103 patients (48 men and 55 women), including 47 currently adult patients. All of these patients were treated with G-CSF, starting at a median age of 3.8 years (range 0.04-33.9 years) with a median dose of 3.0 mcg/kg/day (range 0.01-93.1 mcg/kg/day) for a median of 10.3 years (range 0.01-29.3 years). Neutrophils increased in response to G-CSF in all patients (median values before G-CSF 0.2 × 10/l, on G-CSF 1.20 x 10/l). Treatment increased spleen size (before G-CSF, 47%, on treatment on G-CSF 76%), and splenomegaly was the dose-limiting adverse effect of treatment (pain and early satiety). Clinical observations and records attest to reduce frequency of infectious events and the severity of inflammatory bowel symptoms, but fever and recurrent infections remain a significant problem. In the cohort of patients followed carefully through the Severe Chronic Neutropenia International Registry, four patients have developed myelodysplasia or acute myeloid leukemia and we are aware of four other cases, (altogether seven on G-CSF, one never treated with G-CSF). Liver transplantation in five patients did not correct neutropenia. Four patients had hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; two adults and two children were transplanted; one adult and one child survived.

    Summary

    GSD Ib is a complex disorder of glucose metabolism causing severe chronic neutropenia. G-CSF is effective to raise blood neutrophil counts and reduce fevers and infections in most patients. In conjunction with other therapies (salicylates, mesalamine sulfasalazine and prednisone), G-CSF ameliorates inflammatory bowel symptoms, but doses must be limited because it increases spleen size associated with abdominal pain.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Outcomes and costs of autologous stem cell mobilization with chemotherapy plus G-CSF vs G-CSF alone.
    (Bone Marrow Transplant, 2013-11) Sung, AD; Grima, DT; Bernard, LM; Brown, S; Carrum, G; Holmberg, L; Horwitz, ME; Liesveld, JL; Kanda, J; McClune, B; Shaughnessy, P; Tricot, GJ; Chao, NJ
    Chemotherapy plus G-CSF (C+G) and G-CSF alone are two of the most common methods used to mobilize CD34(+) cells for autologous hematopoietic SCT (AHSCT). In order to compare and determine the real-world outcomes and costs of these strategies, we performed a retrospective study of 226 consecutive patients at 11 medical centers (64 lymphoma, 162 multiple myeloma), of whom 55% of lymphoma patients and 66% of myeloma patients received C+G. Patients with C+G yielded more CD34(+) cells/day than those with G-CSF alone (lymphoma: average 5.51 × 10(6) cells/kg on day 1 vs 2.92 × 10(6) cells/kg, P=0.0231; myeloma: 4.16 × 10(6) vs 3.69 × 10(6) cells/kg, P<0.00001) and required fewer days of apheresis (lymphoma: average 2.11 vs 2.96 days, P=0.012; myeloma: 2.02 vs 2.83 days, P=0.0015), although nearly all patients ultimately reached the goal of 2 × 10(6) cells/kg. With the exception of higher rates of febrile neutropenia in myeloma patients with C+G (17% vs 2%, P<0.05), toxicities and other outcomes were similar. Mobilization with C+G cost significantly more (lymphoma: median $10,300 vs $7300, P<0.0001; myeloma: $8800 vs $5600, P<0.0001), although re-mobilization adds $6700 for drugs alone. Our results suggest that although both C+G and G-CSF alone are effective mobilization strategies, C+G may be more cost-effective for patients at high risk of insufficient mobilization.