Close Window
Aetna Aetna
Clinical Policy Bulletin:
Plerixafor (Mozobil) Injection
Number: 0779


Policy

Aetna considers the addition of plerixafor injection (Mozobil) to granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) medically necessary to mobilize hematopoietic stem cells, where, during that same attempt, G-CSF alone was unsuccessful in mobilizing sufficient numbers of stem cells to the peripheral blood for collection and subsequent autologous transplantation in persons with lymphoma (i.e., Hodgkin's disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma), multiple myeloma, and germ cell tumors.

Aetna considers plerixafor injection experimental and investigational for all other indications including the following (not an all-inclusive list) because its effectiveness for indications other than the ones listed above has not been established.

  • Acute lymphoblastic leukemia
  • Acute myeloid leukemia
  • Chronic lymphocytic leukemia
  • Chronic myeloid leukemia
  • Lung cancer
  • Prevention of acute renal injury
  • WHIM (warts, hypogammaglobulinemia, infections and myelokathexis) syndrome

See also CPB 0055 - Hematopoietic Colony-Stimulating Factors (CSFs).



Background

There has been a steady rise in the use of peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) as a source of hematopoietic stem cells.  In general, less than 0.05 % of white blood cells (WBC) are CD34+ cells.  Chemotherapy results in a 5- to 15-fold increase of PBSC.  Chemotherapy in combination with growth factors increases CD34+ cells up to 6 % of WBC.  In the allogeneic setting, granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is used alone for mobilization of PBSC.  Several factors affect PBSC mobilization; including age, gender, type of growth factor, dose of the growth factor, and in the autologous setting, the patient's diagnosis, chemotherapy regimen and number of previous chemotherapy cycles or radiation.  Muscle and bone pain are common side effects in allogeneic stem cell mobilization, but are usually tolerated with the use of analgesics.  Spleen enlargement followed by rupture is a serious complication in allogeneic donors (Arslan and Moog, 2007).

While G-CSF is the standard mobilizing agent for PBSC donors, it is associated with some significant side effects and requires a multi-day dosing regimen.  The other cytokine approved for stem cell mobilization, granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF), alters graft composition and may reduce the development of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), but a significant minority of donors fails to provide sufficient CD34+ cells with GM-CSF and some experience unacceptable toxicity.  Plerixafor (AMD3100) is a new mobilizing agent that may have several advantages over G-CSF for donor mobilization.  As it is a direct antagonist of the interaction between the chemokine stromal-derived factor-1 and its receptor, CXC chemokine receptor 4 (CXCR4), plerixafor mobilizes PBSC more readily and is also well-tolerated.  Studies of autologous and allogeneic transplantation of plerixafor-mobilized grafts have shown prompt and stable engraftment (Cashen et al, 2007).

Flomenberg et al (2005) tested the hypotheses that the combination of AMD3100 plus G-CSF (A + G) would be superior to G-CSF alone (G) in mobilizing hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPC) and that A + G-mobilized cells would engraft as well as G-mobilized cells.  The primary objective was to determine whether patients mobilized more progenitor cells per unit of blood volume of apheresis after A + G administration versus G alone.  Secondary objectives were to determine whether patients mobilized with A + G compared with G alone required fewer apheresis procedures to reach the target level of at least 5 x 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg for transplant and to determine whether patients mobilized with A + G had at least a 90 % success rate of autologous transplantation as indexed by neutrophil engraftment by day 21.  Each patient served as his or her own control in a sequential mobilization design.  All study objectives were met without significant toxicity.  The results demonstrated that the combination of A + G is generally safe, effective, and superior to G alone for autologous HPC mobilization.

In a phase II clinical trial, Gazitt and associates (2007) evaluated the effect of AMD3100 on the mobilization of CD34+ cells, dendritic cells (DC) and lymphoma cells in patients with refractory or relapsed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL).  A total of 11 patients received 16 microg/kg daily of G-CSF for 4 days followed by 240 microg/kg of AMD3100 given subcutaneously on a new schedule of 9 to 10 hours before apheresis collection on day 5.  Administration of G-CSF and AMD3100 were continued daily until greater than or equal to 2 x 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg were collected.  Adequate collection of the target of CD34+ cells was achieved in all but 1 patient within 2 days, and 10/11 patients were transplanted within 2 months.  All transplanted patients engrafted with a mean of 10 and 12 days for neutrophils and platelets, respectively.  Addition of AMD3100 to G-CSF resulted with  greater than 2.5-fold increase in CD34+ cells/microl (p = 0.0001) and in a greater than 2-fold increase in precursor dendritic cell type 1 and precursor dendritic cell type 2 cells/microl (p = 0.003).  Adverse events related to AMD3100 were minimal.  AMD3100 was generally safe and improved PBSC and DC cell mobilization with no apparent contamination of lymphoma cells.

Cashen and colleagues (2008) examined the safety and effectiveness of hematopoietic stem cell mobilization with plerixafor in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL).  A total of 22 patients with HL who were candidates for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) underwent hematopoietic stem cell mobilization with a combination of G-CSF, 10 microg/kg daily, and plerixafor, 240 microg/kg subcutaneous, 10 to 11 hours prior to apheresis.  The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who collected greater than or equal to 5 x 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg.  Outcomes were compared to a historical control population of HL patients mobilized with G-CSF alone.  Pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis of plerixafor was performed in a subset of patients.  Fifteen patients (68 %) collected greater than or equal to 5 x 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg, and 21 patients (95 %) achieved the minimum collection of greater than or equal to 2 x 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg, in a median 2 apheresis procedures.  Both the proportion of patients collecting greater than or equal to 5 x 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg and the median CD34+ cells collected in days 1 to 2 of apheresis were significantly improved over historical controls.  The PK of plerixafor in this patient population was similar to that previously seen in healthy volunteers.  The regimen was generally safe and well-tolerated.

Calandra and colleagues (2008) reported that AMD3100 plus G-CSF can successfully mobilize CD34+ cells from NHL, HL and multiple myeloma (MM) patients previously failing mobilization with chemotherapy and/or cytokine treatment.  A cohort of 115 data-audited poor mobilizers was assessed, with the objective being to collect greater than or equal to 2 x 10(6) CD34+ cells per kg following AMD3100 plus G-CSF mobilization.  The rates of successful CD34+ cell collection were similar for patients who previously failed chemotherapy mobilization or cytokine-only mobilization: NHL -- 60.3 %, MM -- 71.4 % and HL -- 76.5 %.  Following transplantation, median times to neutrophil and platelet engraftment were 11 days and 18 days, respectively.  Engraftment was durable.  There were no drug-related serious adverse events.  Of the adverse events considered related to AMD3100, 2 (1.6 %) were severe (headache, n = 1; nightmares, n = 1).  Other AMD3100-related adverse events were mild (84.8 %) or moderate (13.6 %).  The most common AMD3100-related adverse events were paresthesias, gastrointestinal reactions, and injection site reactions.

Devine et al (2008) discussed their findings on rapid mobilization of functional donor hematopoietic cells without G-CSF using AMD3100.  Donors (n = 25) were treated with AMD3100 at a dose of 240 mug/kg by subcutaneous injection, and leukapheresis was then initiated just 4 hours later.  Two-thirds of the donors collected an allograft with a CD34(+) cell dose sufficient for transplantation after just 1 dose of AMD3100.  No donor experienced more than grade 1 toxicity.  After a myeloablative regimen, 20 patients with hematologic malignancies received allografts collected after AMD3100 alone.  All patients engrafted neutrophils (median day 10) and platelets (median day 12) promptly.  Acute GVHD grades 2 through 4 occurred in 35 % of patients; 1 patient died of complications related to acute GVHD.  No unexpected adverse events were observed in any of the recipients.  All 14 patients surviving in remission have robust trilineage hematopoiesis and are transfusion-free with a median follow-up of 277 days (range of 139 to 964 days).

Pusic et al (2008) examined historic institutional autologous stem cell mobilization practices and assessed factors influencing mobilization failure and kinetics.  In this retrospective study, these researchers analyzed clinical records of 1834 patients who underwent stem cell mobilization for autologous transplantation from November 1995 to October 2006 at the Washington University in St. Louis.  Successful mobilization was defined as collection of greater than or equal to 2 x 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg.  From 1834 consecutive patients, 1040 met the investigators' inclusion criteria (502 NHL, 137 HL, and 401 MM).  A total of 976 patients received G-CSF and 64 received G-CSF plus chemotherapy (G/C) for the initial mobilization.  Although the median CD34(+) cell yield was higher in G/C group than in G-CSF alone group, the failure rates were similar: 18.8 % and 18.6 %, respectively.  Overall, 53 % of patients collected greater than or equal to 2 x 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg during the first apheresis with either mobilization regimen.  Regardless of mobilization regimen used, MM patients had the highest total CD34(+) cell yield and required less aphereses to collect greater than or equal to 2 x 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg.  Mobilized, pre-apheresis, peripheral blood CD34(+) count correlated with first day apheresis yield (r = 0.877, p < 0.001) and 20 cells/microl was the minimum threshold needed for a successful day 1 collection.  For the re-mobilization analysis, these investigators included patients from the whole database.  A total of 269 of 1834 patients underwent re-mobilization using G/C, G-CSF, and/or GM-CSF, and G-CSF plus plerixafor.  Only 23 % of re-mobilized patients achieved greater than or equal to 2 x 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg and 29.7 % failed to pool sufficient number of stem cells from both collections.  Patients receiving G-CSF plus plerixafor had lowest failure rates, p = 0.03.  Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients re-mobilized with G-CSF who waited greater than or equal to 25 days before re-mobilization had lower CD34(+) cell yield than those who waited greater than or equal to 16 days, p = 0.023.  Current mobilization regimens are associated with a substantial failure rate irrespective of underlying disease.  Patients who fail initial mobilization are more likely to fail re-mobilization.  These findings suggested that there is a need for more effective first-line mobilization agents.

On December 18, 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Mozobil (plerixafor injection) to be used in combination with G-CSF for the treatment of adults with MM or NHL.  The FDA approval is based on the findings of two clinical studies: one in patients with MM, the other with NHL.  In these two placebo-controlled clinical trials (Studies 1 and 2, Genzyme, 2008), patients were randomized to receive either plerixafor 0.24 mg/kg or placebo on each evening prior to apheresis.  Patients received daily morning doses of G-CSF 10 micrograms/kg for 4 days prior to the first dose of plerixafor or placebo and on each morning prior to apheresis.  In Study 1, a total of 298 NHL patients were included in the primary effectiveness analyses.  The mean age was 55.1 years (range of 29 to 75) and 57.5 years (range of 22 to 75) in the plerixafor and placebo groups, respectively, and 93 % of subjects were Caucasian.  In Study 2, a total of 302 MM patients were included in the primary effectiveness analyses.  The mean age was 58.2 years (range of 28 to 75) and 58.5 years (range of 28 to 75) in the plerixafor and placebo groups, respectively, and 81 % of subjects were Caucasian.

In Study 1, 59 % of NHL patients who were mobilized with plerixafor and G-CSF collected greater than or equal to 5 x 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg from the peripheral blood in 4 or fewer apheresis sessions, compared with 20 % of patients who were mobilized with placebo and G-CSF (p < 0.001).  Other CD34+ cell mobilization outcomes showed similar findings.  The median number of days to reach greater than or equal to 5 x 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg was 3 days for the plerixafor group and not evaluable for the placebo group. 

In Study 2, 72 % of MM patients who were mobilized with plerixafor and G-CSF collected greater than or equal to 6 x 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg from the peripheral blood in 2 or fewer apheresis sessions, compared with 34 % of patients who were mobilized with placebo and G-CSF (p < 0.001).  Other CD34+ cell mobilization outcomes showed similar findings.  The median number of days to reach greater than or equal to 6 x 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg was 1 day for the plerixafor group and 4 days for the placebo group.  Multiple factors can influence time to engraftment and graft durability following stem cell transplantation.  For transplanted patients in the phase 3 studies, time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment and graft durability were similar across the treatment groups.

Common side effects reported in these clinical trials and other smaller studies include diarrhea, fatigue, headaches, nausea, joint pain, injection site reactions, as well as dizziness and vomiting.

Flomenberg and colleagues (2010) evaluated the safety and efficacy of plerixafor as a single agent when given subcutaneously and followed by apheresis 6 hours later for the mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells (HSC) for transplantation in 9 patients with MM.  All patients mobilized enough cells for at least 1 transplant, and demonstrated prompt recovery of hematopoietic function.  Median time to engraftment was 10.5 days for neutrophils and 21 days for platelets.  Significant adverse events were not observed.  Recovery of peripheral blood cell counts was durable in all surviving patients.  Despite these successes, mobilization with plerixafor alone was modest.  However, in clinical circumstances where G-CSF or chemotherapy based-mobilization should not be used, mobilization with plerixafor alone may be required and effective.  The authors concluded that further research into single agent use should focus on alternate route of administration as well as adjustment of the timing of the apheresis to improve HSC yield.

WHIM (warts, hypogammaglobulinemia, infections, and myelokathexis) syndrome, a rare congenital immunodeficiency disorder characterized by chronic non-cyclic neutropenia, is caused by autosomal dominant mutations in the gene for the chemokine receptor, CXCR4, resulting in a carboxy-terminus truncation of the receptor of between ten and 19 residues.  This condition is one of only a few diseases directly and primarily caused by an aberrant chemokine.  Patients with WHIM syndrome exhibit increased susceptibility to bacterial and viral infections, especially from common serotype human papilloma virus, resulting in warts on the hands and feet starting in childhood.  Myelokathexis refers to retention of neutrophils in the bone marrow.  Furthermore, lymphocytes and gammaglobulins are often deficient.

Dale and colleagues (2011) stated that mutations in CXCR4 cause severe leukopenia in myelokathexis or WHIM syndrome.  Plerixafor inhibits binding of CXCR4 to its ligand CXCL12.  These researchers investigated the effects of plerixafor (0.04 to 0.24 mg/kg body weight) administered at 2 to 4 day intervals in 6 patients.  Outcome measures were the patients' complete blood cell counts, CD34+ cell counts and lymphocyte subtypes compared with 5 normal subjects similarly treated with plerixafor.  All patients showed prompt leukocytosis with maximum blood neutrophils and lymphocytes at 6 to 12 hrs.  Blood neutrophils peaked at 6 to 12 hrs, increasing from a mean baseline of 0.4 +/- 0.1 x 10(9)/L, to mean peak of 4.5 +/- 0.78 x 10(9)/L.  Lymphocytes also increased; the greatest increase was in B cells (CD19+ cells), a greater than 40-fold increase over baseline at the 0.08 mg/kg dose.  None of the patients experienced any significant adverse effects.  The authors concluded that plerixafor is a promising therapy for this condition.

Burger and associates (2011) stated that despite advances in surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy over the last decades, the death rate from lung cancer has remained largely unchanged, which is mainly due to metastatic disease.  Because of the overall poor prognosis, new treatment strategies for lung cancer patients are urgently needed, and targeting CXCR4 constitutes such a novel, attractive strategy.  Tumor cell migration and metastasis share many similarities with leukocyte trafficking, which is critically regulated by chemokine receptors and adhesion molecules.  Lung cancer cells express CXCR4 (CD184), a seven-transmembrane G-protein-coupled chemokine receptor.  Stromal cells within the tumor microenvironment constitutively secrete stromal cell-derived factor-1 (SDF-1/CXCL12), the ligand for CXCR4.  Activation of CXCR4 induces lung cancer cell migration and adhesion to stromal cells, which in turn provides growth- and drug-resistance signals to the tumor cells.  CXCR4 antagonists, such as plerixafor (AMD3100) and T140 analogs (TN14003/BKT140), can disrupt CXCR4-mediated tumor cell adhesion to stromal cells and sensitize lung cancer cells to cytotoxic drugs.  Thus, targeting the CXCR4-CXCL12 axis is a novel, attractive therapeutic approach in small-cell lung cancer and non-small-cell lung cancer.  The authors summarized data about the cellular and molecular microenvironment in small-cell lung cancer and non-small-cell lung cancer, as well as the role of CXCR4 in tumor-stroma cross-talk.  In addition, they reviewed the current status of the pre-clinical and clinical development of CXCR4 antagonists.

Uy and colleagues (2012) stated that the interaction of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) blasts with the leukemic micro-environment is postulated to be an important mediator of resistance to chemotherapy and disease relapse.  These investigators hypothesized that inhibition of the CXCR4/CXCL12 axis by plerixafor would disrupt the interaction of leukemic blasts with the environment and increase the sensitivity of AML blasts to chemotherapy.  In a phase I/II study, 52 patients with relapsed or refractory AML were treated with plerixafor in combination with mitoxantrone, etoposide, and cytarabine.  In phase I, plerixafor was escalated to a maximum of 0.24 mg/kg/day without any dose-limiting toxicities.  In phase II, 46 patients were treated with plerixafor 0.24 mg/kg/day in combination with chemotherapy with an overall complete remission and complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery rate (CR + CRi) of 46 %.  Correlative studies demonstrated a 2-fold mobilization in leukemic blasts into the peripheral circulation.  No evidence of symptomatic hyper-leukocytosis or delayed count recovery was observed with the addition of plerixafor.  The authors concluded that the addition of plerixafor to cytotoxic chemotherapy is feasible in AML, and resulted in encouraging rates of remission with correlative studies demonstrating in-vivo evidence of disruption of the CXCR4/CXCL12 axis.  These preliminary findings need to be validated by well-designed studies.

Stamatopoulos and co-workers (2012) the ability of plerixafor (AMD3100), a CXCR4 antagonist, to sensitize chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) cells to chemotherapy in a CLL/mesenchymal stromal cell based or nurse-like cell based micro-environment co-culture model.  Plerixafor decreased CXCR4 expression signal (n = 15, p = 0.0078) and inhibited actin polymerization/migration in response to SDF-1α (n = 8, p < 0.01) and pseudo-emperipolesis (n = 10, p = 0.0010), suggesting that AMD3100 interferes with CLL cell trafficking.  Plerixafo did not have a direct effect on apoptosis when CLL cells were cultured alone (n = 10, p = 0.8812).  However, when they were cultured with SDF-1α, mesenchymal stromal cells or nurse-like cells (protecting them from apoptosis, p < 0.001), CLL cell pre-treatment with AMD3100 significantly inhibited these protective effects (n = 8, p < 0.01) and decreased the expression of the anti-apoptotic proteins MCL-1 and FLIP.  Furthermore, combining AMD3100 with various drugs (fludarabine, cladribine, valproïc acid, bortezomib, flavopiridol, methylprednisolone) in the authors' mesenchymal stromal cell co-culture model enhanced drug-induced apoptosis (n = 8, p < 0.05) indicating that AMD3100 could mobilize CLL cells away from their protective micro-environment, making them more accessible to conventional therapies.  The authors concluded that taken together, these data demonstrated that interfering with the SDF-1α/CXCR4 axis by using plerixafor inhibited CLL cell trafficking and micro-environment-mediated protective effects.  They stated that combining plerixafor with other drugs may, therefore, represent a promising therapeutic approach to kill CLL cells.

Agarwal and colleagues (2012) stated that sequestration in the bone marrow niche may allow leukemic stem cells (LSC) to evade exposure to drugs.  Since the CXCR4/SDF-1 axis is an important mechanism of LSC interaction with marrow stroma, these researchers examined if plerixafor may dislodge chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) cells from the niche, sensitizing them to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).  They initially treated mice with retrovirally induced CML-like disease with imatinib plus plerixafor.  Plerixafor mobilized CXCR4-positive cells, but no difference was observed in leukemia burden, possibly reflecting insufficient disease control by imatinib.  In a 2nd series of experiments, these investigators tested the combination of plerixafor with dasatinib in the same as well as an attenuated CML model.  Despite much improved leukemia control, plerixafor failed to reduce leukemia burden over dasatinib alone.  Additionally mice receiving plerixafor had an increased incidence of neurological symptoms in association with central nervous system (CNS) infiltration by BCR-ABL expressing cells.  The authors concluded that plerixafor is ineffective in reducing leukemia burden in this model, but promotes CNS infiltration.

Vives et al (2012) noted that some malignant tumors in childhood require high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell support to achieve a cure.  In patients heavily pre-treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy or irradiation, G-CSF may fail to mobilize stem cells from the bone marrow.  Based on the experience with lymphoma and myeloma patients in whom PBSC collection following mobilization with G-CSF failed, these researchers successfully employed plerixafor in a 14-year old female diagnosed with Ewing's sarcoma in early relapse treated with 3 lines of chemotherapy in whom PBSC could not be mobilized using either G-CSF alone or G-CSF following chemotherapy.  No side effects were observed.  The authors stated that plerixafor may be an effective and safe agent for stem cell collection in pediatric patients with solid tumors, although new studies are needed to evaluate its safety and effectiveness.

Worel and colleagues (2012) stated that plerixafor with G-CSF has been shown to enhance stem cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma and lymphoma with previous mobilization failure.  These investigators reported the experience in insufficiently mobilizing patients diagnosed with non-hematologic diseases.  A total of 33 patients with germ cell tumor (n = 11), Ewing sarcoma (n = 6), Wiscott-Aldrich disease (n = 5), neuroblastoma (n = 4), and other non-hematologic diseases (n = 7) were included in the study.  Plerixafor was limited to patients with previous or current stem cell mobilization failure and given after 4 days of G-CSF (n = 21) or after chemotherapy and G-CSF (n = 12) in patients who mobilized poorly.  Overall, 28 (85 %) patients succeeded in collecting at least 2 × 10(6) /kg body weight (b.w.) CD34+ cells (median, 5.0 × 10(6) /kg b.w. CD34+ cells; range of 2.0 × 10(6)  to 29.5 × 10(6) /kg b.w. CD34+ cells), and 5 (15 %) patients collected a median of 1.5 × 10(6) /kg b.w. CD34+ cells (range of 0.9 × 10(6) to 1.8 × 10(6) /kg b.w. CD34+ cells).  Nineteen patients proceeded to transplantation.  The median dose of CD34+ cells infused was 3.3 × 10(6)/kg b.w. (range of 2.3 × 10(6) to 6.7 × 10(6) /kg b.w. CD34+ cells).  The median numbers of days to neutrophil and platelet engraftment were 11 (range of 9 to 12) and 15 (range of 10 to 25) days, respectively.  The authors concluded that these findings emphasized the role of plerixafor in combination with G-CSF or chemotherapy and G-CSF as an effective mobilization regimen with the potential of successful stem cell collection.  Accordingly, plerixafor seems to be safe and effective in patients with non-hematologic diseases.  However, they stated that larger prospective studies are needed to further evaluate its use in these patients.

van den Berk et al (2014) noted that malignant cells infiltrating the bone marrow (BM) interfere with normal cellular behavior of supporting cells, thereby creating a malignant niche.  These researchers found that CXCR4-receptor expression was increased in pediatric precursor B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (BCP-ALL) cells compared with normal mononuclear hematopoietic cells (p < 0·0001).  Furthermore, high CXCR4-expression correlated with an unfavorable outcome in BCP-ALL (5-year cumulative incidence of relapse ± standard error: 38.4 % ± 6.9 % in CXCR4-high versus 12 % ± 4.6 % in CXCR4-low expressing cases, p < 0.0001).  Interestingly, BM levels of the CXCR4-ligand (CXCL12) were 2.7-fold lower (p = 0.005) in diagnostic BCP-ALL samples compared with non-leukemic controls.  Induction chemotherapy restored CXCL12 levels to normal.  Blocking the CXCR4-receptor with plerixafor showed that the lower CXCL12 serum levels at diagnosis could not be explained by consumption by the leukemic cells, nor did these investigators observed an altered CXCL12-production capacity of BM-mesenchymal stromal cells (BM-MSC) at this time-point.  These researchers rather observed that a very high density of leukemic cells negatively affected CXCL12-production by the BM-MSC while stimulating the secretion levels of G-CSF.  The authors concluded that these results suggested that highly proliferative leukemic cells are able to down-regulate secretion of cytokines involved in homing (CXCL12), while simultaneously up-regulating those involved in hematopoietic mobilization (G-CSF).  Therefore, interference with the CXCR4/CXCL12 axis may be an effective way to mobilize BCP-ALL cells.

McDermott et al (2014) noted that warts, hypogammaglobulinemia, infections, and myelokathexis (WHIM) syndrome is a rare immunodeficiency disorder caused by gain-of-function mutations in the G protein-coupled chemokine receptor CXCR4.  The CXCR4 antagonist plerixafor, which is approved by the FDA for stem cell mobilization in cancer and administered for that indication at 0.24 mg/kg, has been shown in short-term (1- to 2-week) phase 1 dose-escalation studies to correct neutropenia and other cytopenias in WHIM syndrome.  However, long-term safety and long-term hematologic and clinical efficacy data are lacking.  In a phase I study, these investigators reported findings from the first long-term clinical trial of plerixafor in any disease, in which 3 adults with WHIM syndrome self-injected 0.01 to 0.02 mg/kg (4 % to 8 % of the FDA-approved dose) subcutaneously twice-daily for 6 months.  Circulating leukocytes were durably increased throughout the trial in all patients, and this was associated with fewer infections and improvement in warts in combination with imiquimod; however, immunoglobulin levels and specific vaccine responses were not fully restored.  No drug-associated side effects were observed.  The authors concluded that these results provided preliminary evidence for the safety and clinical efficacy of long-term, low-dose plerixafor in WHIM syndrome and support its continued study as mechanism-based therapy in this disease.

An UpToDate review on “Combined immunodeficiencies” (Bonilla, 2014) states that “Immune globulin replacement therapy is effective for reducing bacterial infections in patients with WHIM syndrome.  Therapy with either granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) or granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) results in increases in peripheral blood neutrophils.  Preliminary evidence suggests treatment with the CXCR4 antagonist and stem cell mobilizing agent plerixafor is effective in increasing circulating leukocytes and decreasing infection frequency and the size of some warts, which were also treated with imiquimod.  However, improvement in immunoglobulin levels and vaccine responses was not seen in a six-month phase 1 trial with three patients”.

Zuk and colleagues (2014) examined if antagonism of the CXCR4 receptor ameliorates the loss of renal function following ischemia-reperfusion.  CXCR4 is ubiquitously expressed on leukocytes, known mediators of renal injury, and on bone marrow HSC.  Plerixafor (AMD3100, Mozobil) is a small molecule CXCR4 antagonist that mobilizes HSCs into the peripheral blood and also modulates the immune response in in-vivo rodent models of asthma and rheumatoid arthritis.  Treatment with plerixafor before and after ischemic clamping ameliorated kidney injury in a rat model of bilateral renal ischemia-reperfusion.  Serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen were significantly reduced 24 hours after re-perfusion, as was tissue injury and cell death.  Plerixafor prevented the renal increase in the pro-inflammatory chemokines CXCL1 and CXCL5 and the cytokine IL-6.  Flow cytometry of kidney homogenates confirmed the presence of significantly fewer leukocytes with plerixafor treatment; additionally, myeloperoxidase activity was reduced.  AMD3465, a monocyclam analog of AMD3100, was likewise reno-protective.  Four weeks post-reperfusion, long-term effects included diminished fibrosis, inflammation and ongoing renal injury.  The mechanism by which CXCR4 inhibition ameliorates acute kidney injury (AKI) is due to modulation of leukocyte infiltration and expression of pro-inflammatory chemokines/cytokines, rather than a HSC mediated effect.  The authors concluded that these data suggested that CXCR4 antagonism with plerixafor may be a potential option to prevent AKI.

 
CPT Codes / HCPCS Codes / ICD-9 Codes
Other CPT codes related to the CPB:
38230 Bone marrow harvesting for transplantation; allogenic
38232       autologous
38241 Hematopoietic progenitor cell (HPC); autologous transplantation
96372 Therapeutic, prophylactic, or diagnostic injection (specify substance or drug); subcutaneous or intramuscular
HCPCS codes covered if selection criteria are met:
J2562 Injection, plerixafor, 1 mg [Mozobil]
Other HCPCS codes related to the CPB:
J1442 Injection, filgrastim (g-csf), 1 microgram
J1446 Injection, tbo-filgrastim, 5 micrograms
J2820 Injection, sargramostim (GM-CSF), 50 mcg
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
183.0 Malignant neoplasm of ovary [germ cell tumors]
186.0 - 186.8 Malignant neoplasm of testis [germ cell tumors]
200.00 - 200.88 Lymphosarcoma and reticulosarcoma and other specified malignant tumors of lymphatic tissue
201.00 - 201.98 Hodgkin's disease
202.00 - 202.98 Other malignant neoplasms of lymphoid and histiocytic tissue
203.00 - 203.82 Multiple myeloma
ICD-9 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB (not all inclusive):
162.0 - 162.9 Malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus, and lung
204.00 - 204.02 Acute lymphoid leukemia [lymphoblastic]
204.10 - 204.12 Lymphoid leukemia, chronic
205.00 - 205.12 Myeloid leukemia
279.3 Unspecified immunity deficiency [covered for WHIM syndrome]
584.5 - 584.9 Acute kidney failure


The above policy is based on the following references:
  1. Flomenberg N, Devine SM, Dipersio JF, et al. The use of AMD3100 plus G-CSF for autologous hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization is superior to G-CSF alone. Blood. 2005;106(5):1867-1874.
  2. Arslan O, Moog R. Mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells. Transfus Apher Sci. 2007;37(2):179-185.
  3. Cashen AF, Lazarus HM, Devine SM. Mobilizing stem cells from normal donors: Is it possible to improve upon G-CSF? Bone Marrow Transplant. 2007;39(10):577-588.
  4. Gazitt Y, Freytes CO, Akay C, et al. Improved mobilization of peripheral blood CD34+ cells and dendritic cells by AMD3100 plus granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients. Stem Cells Dev. 2007;16(4):657-666.
  5. Devine SM, Vij R, Rettig M, Todt L, et al. Rapid mobilization of functional donor hematopoietic cells without G-CSF using AMD3100, an antagonist of the CXCR4/SDF-1 interaction. Blood. 2008;112(4):990-998.
  6. Calandra G, McCarty J, McGuirk J, et al. AMD3100 plus G-CSF can successfully mobilize CD34+ cells from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease and multiple myeloma patients previously failing mobilization with chemotherapy and/or cytokine treatment: Compassionate use data. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2008;41(4):331-338.
  7. Pusic I, Jiang SY, Landua S, et al. Impact of mobilization and remobilization strategies on achieving sufficient stem cell yields for autologous transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008;14(9):1045-1056.
  8. Cashen A, Lopez S, Gao F, et al. A phase II study of plerixafor (AMD3100) plus G-CSF for autologous hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008;14(11):1253-1261.
  9. Genzyme Corporation. Mozobil (plerixifor). Full Prescribing Information. Cambridge, MA: Genzyme; revised December 2008. Available at: http://www.genzyme.com/corp/investors/Mozobil_PI.pdf. Accessed December 19, 2008.
  10. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA approves drug that boosts stem cell yield for bone marrow transplants. FDA News. Rockville, MD: FDA; December 18, 2008. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2008/NEW01929.html. Accessed December 19, 2008. 
  11. Giralt S, Stadtmauer EA, Harousseau JL, et al. International myeloma working group (IMWG) consensus statement and guidelines regarding the current status of stem cell collection and high-dose therapy for multiple myeloma and the role of plerixafor (AMD 3100). Leukemia. 2009;23(10):1904-1912. 
  12. Tricot G, Cottler-Fox MH, Calandra G. Safety and efficacy assessment of plerixafor in patients with multiple myeloma proven or predicted to be poor mobilizers, including assessment of tumor cell mobilization. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2010;45(1):63-68.
  13. Dugan MJ, Maziarz RT, Bensinger WI, et al. Safety and preliminary efficacy of plerixafor (Mozobil) in combination with chemotherapy and G-CSF: An open-label, multicenter, exploratory trial in patients with multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma undergoing stem cell mobilization. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2010;45(1):39-47. 
  14. DiPersio JF, Stadtmauer EA, Nademanee A, et al.; 3102 Investigators. Plerixafor and G-CSF versus placebo and G-CSF to mobilize hematopoietic stem cells for autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma. Blood. 2009 Jun 4;113(23):5720-5726. 
  15. Fruehauf S, Ehninger G, Hübel K, et al. Mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells for autologous transplant in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and multiple myeloma patients by plerixafor and G-CSF and detection of tumor cell mobilization by PCR in multiple myeloma patients. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2010;45(2):269-275.
  16. Hintringer K. Plerixafor (Mozobil) for autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with lymphoma and multiple myeloma. Decision Support Document: Horizon Scanning in Oncology No. 8. Vienna, Austria: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut fuer Health Technology Assessment (LBI-HTA); 2010.
  17. All Wales Medicines Strategy Group. Plerixafor (Mozobil). Llandough, UK: Final Appraisal Report. NHS Wales; March 2010.
  18. Flomenberg N, Comenzo RL, Badel K, Calandra G. Plerixafor (Mozobil) alone to mobilize hematopoietic stem cells from multiple myeloma patients for autologous transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2010;16(5):695-700.
  19. Brave M, Farrell A, Ching Lin S, et al. FDA review summary: Mozobil in combination with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor to mobilize hematopoietic stem cells to the peripheral blood for collection and subsequent autologous transplantation. Oncology. 2010;78(3-4):282-288.
  20. Shaughnessy P, Islas-Ohlmayer M, Murphy J, et al. Cost and clinical analysis of autologous hematopoietic stem cell mobilization with G-CSF and plerixafor compared to G-CSF and cyclophosphamide. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2011;17(5):729-736.
  21. Dale DC, Bolyard AA, Kelley ML, et al. The CXCR4 antagonist plerixafor is a potential therapy for myelokathexis, WHIM syndrome. Blood. 2011;118(18):4963-4966.
  22. McDermott DH, Liu Q, Ulrick J, et al. The CXCR4 antagonist plerixafor corrects panleukopenia in patients with WHIM syndrome. Blood. 2011;118(18):4957-4962.
  23. Burger JA, Stewart DJ, Wald O, Peled A. Potential of CXCR4 antagonists for the treatment of metastatic lung cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2011;11(4):621-630.
  24. Bakanay SM, Demirer T. Novel agents and approaches for stem cell mobilization in normal donors and patients. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2012;47(9):1154-1163.
  25. Uy GL, Rettig MP, Motabi IH, et al. A phase 1/2 study of chemosensitization with the CXCR4 antagonist plerixafor in relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2012;119(17):3917-3924.
  26. Stamatopoulos B, Meuleman N, De Bruyn C, et al. AMD3100 disrupts the cross-talk between chronic lymphocytic leukemia cells and a mesenchymal stromal or nurse-like cell-based microenvironment: Pre-clinical evidence for its association with chronic lymphocytic leukemia treatments. Haematologica. 2012;97(4):608-615.
  27. Agarwal A, Fleischman AG, Petersen CL, et al. Effects of plerixafor in combination with BCR-ABL kinase inhibition in a murine model of CML. Blood. 2012;120(13):2658-2668.
  28. Worel N, Apperley JF, Basak GW, et al. European data on stem cell mobilization with plerixafor in patients with nonhematologic diseases: An analysis of the European consortium of stem cell mobilization. Transfusion. 2012;52(11):2395-2400.
  29. Vives S, Sancho JM, Almazan F, et al. Plerixafor plus G-CSF in combination with chemotherapy for stem cell mobilization in a pediatric patient with Ewing's sarcoma. J Clin Apher. 2012;27(5):260-262.
  30. Russell N, Douglas K, Ho AD, et al. Plerixafor and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for first-line steady-state autologous peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in lymphoma and multiple myeloma: Results of the prospective PREDICT trial. Haematologica. 2013;98(2):172-178.
  31. Chambon F, Merlin E, Rochette E, et al. Mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells by plerixafor alone in children: A sequential Bayesian trial. Transfus Apher Sci. 2013;49(3):453-458.
  32. Micallef IN, Stiff PJ, Stadtmauer EA, et al. Safety and efficacy of upfront plerixafor + G-CSF vs. Placebo + G-CSF for mobilization of CD34+ hematopoietic progenitor cells in patients ≥60 and <60 years of age with Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or multiple myeloma. Am J Hematol. 2013;88(12):1017-1023.
  33. Kosmas C, Athanasopoulos A, Dimitriadis G, et al. Plerixafor added to G-CSF-supported paclitaxel-ifosfamide-cisplatin salvage chemotherapy enhances mobilization of adequate numbers of hematopoietic stem cells for subsequent autografting in hard-to-mobilize patients with relapsed/refractory germ-cell tumors: A single-center experience. Anticancer Drugs. 2014;25(7):841-847.
  34. Daphne O'Hara VJ, Karr AH, et al. Experience with plerixafor for hematopoietic cell mobilization in nine patients with germ cell tumors. Pharmacotherapy. 2014;34(1):85-88.
  35. De Blasio A, Rossi L, Zappone E, et al. Plerixafor and autologous stem cell transplantation: Impressive result in a chemoresistant testicular cancer patient treated with high-dose chemotherapy. Anticancer Drugs. 2013;24(6):653-657.
  36. Worel N, Apperley JF, Basak GW, et al. European data on stem cell mobilization with plerixafor in patients with nonhematologic diseases: An analysis of the European consortium of stem cell mobilization. Transfusion. 2012;52(11):2395-2400.
  37. Horwitz ME, Long G, Holman P, et al. Efficacy and safety of hematopoietic stem cell remobilization with plerixafor+G-CSF in adult patients with germ cell tumors. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2012;47(10):1283-1286.
  38. Tuffaha H, Abdel-Rahman FA. Successful stem-cell mobilization and transplantation using plerixafor in a patient with a germ cell tumor. Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Ther. 2010;3(4):203-205.
  39. Kobold S, Isernhagen J, Hübel K, et al. Plerixafor is effective and safe for stem cell mobilization in heavily pretreated germ cell tumor patients. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2011;46(8):1053-1056. 
  40. van den Berk LC, van der Veer A, Willemse ME, et al. Disturbed CXCR4/CXCL12 axis in paediatric precursor B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Br J Haematol. 2014;166(2):240-249.
  41. McDermott DH, Liu Q, Velez D, et al. A phase 1 clinical trial of long-term, low-dose treatment of WHIM syndrome with the CXCR4 antagonist plerixafor. Blood. 2014;123(15):2308-2316.
  42. Bonilla FA. Combined immunodeficiencies. UptoDate [serial online]. Waltham, MA: UpToDate; reviewed July 2014.
  43. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Plerixafor. NCCN Drugs & Biologics Compendium. Fort Washington, PA: NCCN; 2014.
  44. Zuk A, Gershenovich M, Ivanova Y, et al. CXCR4 antagonism as a therapeutic approach to prevent acute kidney injury. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2014 Jul 30 [Epub ahead of print].


email this page   


Copyright Aetna Inc. All rights reserved. Clinical Policy Bulletins are developed by Aetna to assist in administering plan benefits and constitute neither offers of coverage nor medical advice. This Clinical Policy Bulletin contains only a partial, general description of plan or program benefits and does not constitute a contract. Aetna does not provide health care services and, therefore, cannot guarantee any results or outcomes. Participating providers are independent contractors in private practice and are neither employees nor agents of Aetna or its affiliates. Treating providers are solely responsible for medical advice and treatment of members. This Clinical Policy Bulletin may be updated and therefore is subject to change.
Aetna
Back to top