Predictors for successful PBSC collection on the fourth day of G‐CSF‐induced mobilization in allogeneic stem cell donors

Peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) used for allogeneic transplantation are collected by apheresis after pre‐treatment of donors with G‐CSF. Using modern apheresis devices stem cells can be collected more efficiently. It was studied whether collection on the 4th instead of the 5th day after initiation of G‐CSF treatment might be feasible. Stem cell yields that could have been collected on day 4 were calculated in two cohorts treated with 10 µg/kg G‐CSF once daily (n = 106, cohort I) or 5 µg/kg twice daily schedule (n = 85, cohort II). Harvests were predicted using the median collection efficiency (CE) of the apheresis machine and regarded successful when > 5.0 x10⁶ CD34^+/kg recipient body weight. Successful harvests at day 4 could have been obtained in only 22.6% and 41.2% of donors in cohort I and II respectively, while the expected successful collections on day 5 were 55.7% and 76.5%. Individual donor factors that correlated with a successful harvest on day 4 were weight, BMI, age, ratio donor/recipient weight and total G‐CSF dose in cohort I, whereas ratio donor/recipient weight was the only significant predictor in cohort II. Donor weight, BMI and total G‐CSF dose correlated positively with CD34⁺ values in the blood on day 4 in all donors. However, donor characteristics were not able to be used as strong predictors in daily practice. In conclusion, PBSC collection on day 4 will not result in a successful harvest in most stem cell donors, however using a twice daily G‐CSF scheme increases the yield.     

Serum-Mediated Inhibition of Enzyme Replacement Therapy in Fabry Disease

Fabry disease (FD) is a progressive multisystemic disorder, treatable with recombinant enzyme replacement therapy (agalsidase). However, recent studies suggest an endogenous inhibition of agalsidase in patients with FD, as reported for other lysosomal storage diseases. To assess the clinical consequences of serum-mediated agalsidase inhibition in affected patients, we determined the agalsidase inhibition status of 168 patients (68 male) with FD and compared outcomes of inhibition-positive patients with those of inhibition-negative patients. The assessment included clinical events during time on agalsidase, determination of renal and cardiac function, and evaluation of FD-related symptoms. The frequency of serum-mediated agalsidase inhibition was 40% in agalsidase-treated males. Inhibition did not depend on the compound initially used (agalsidase-α or -β). Agalsidase inhibition was associated with higher lyso-globotriaosylceramide levels and worse disease severity scores in patients. Compared with agalsidase inhibition-negative men, agalsidase inhibition-positive men showed greater left ventricular mass (P=0.02) and substantially lower renal function (difference in eGFR of about –30 ml/min per 1.73 m²; P=0.04), which was confirmed by a longitudinal 5-year retrospective analysis. Additionally, affected patients presented more often with FD-typical symptoms, such as diarrhea, fatigue, and neuropathic pain, among others. Therefore, patients with poor clinical outcome on agalsidase should be tested for agalsidase inhibition. Future studies are warranted to determine if affected patients with FD benefit from acute reduction of anti-agalsidase antibodies or long-term immune modulation therapies to suppress agalsidase inhibition and to identify mechanisms that minimize antibody generation against agalsidase.