Summary

Background

Although granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) mobilization is generally well tolerated by healthy donors, there is also a wide spectrum of adverse events associated with it. Among these events, rhabdomyolysis in peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) donors is very rare. In this paper, we present a first case of rhabdomyolysis after administration of filgrastim for PBSC mobilization.

Case Report

A 6-year-old donor received 10 μg/kg/day filgrastim subcutaneously for 5 days. On the 3rd day of filgrastim, the donor complained of bone pain; a single dose of paracetamol (250 mg) was given to relieve pain. On the 4th day, she complained of bone pain, myalgia, and vomiting. On laboratory analysis, serum creatine phosphokinase was 1,095 U/l (40–226 U/l), LDH 312 U/l (100–190 U/l), aspartate aminotransferase 85 U/l (0–40 U/l), potassium 3.3 mmol/l (3.6–5.1 mmol/l). Urine myoglobin was 110 ng/ml (<5 ng/ml). Rhabdomyolysis was suspected on clinical and laboratory findings. Clinical manifestations regressed and the laboratory results returned to normal within three days after intravenously forced diuresis and potassium replacement. Stem cells were successfully harvested from peripheral blood on the 5th day of G-CSF therapy.

Conclusion

Rhabdomyolysis is a rare but important adverse effect of G-CSF. Allogeneic PBSC donors should be closely monitored with regard to rhabdomyolysis after G-CSF administration in the mobilization setting.

Summary

Background

A variety of apheresis devices are now available on the market for plateletapheresis. We compared two apheresis instruments (Fenwal Amicus and Fresenius COM.TEC) with regard to processing time, platelet (PLT) yield and efficiency, and white blood cell (WBC) content.

Material and Methods

Donors undergoing plateletpheresis were randomly separated into two groups (either the Amicus or the COM.TEC cell separator).

Results

In the pre-apheresis setting, 32 plateletpheresis procedures performed with each instrument revealed no significant differences in donors’ sex, age, weight, height and total blood volume between the two groups. However, the pre-apheresis PLT count was higher with the COM.TEC than with the Amicus (198 × 103/μl vs. 223 × 103/μl; p = 0.035). The blood volume processed to reach a target PLT yield of ≥3.3 × 1011 was higher in the COM.TEC compared to the Amicus (3,481 vs. 2,850 ml; p < 0.001). The median separation time was also significantly longer in the COM.TEC than in the Amicus (61 vs. 44 min; p < 0.001). 91 and 88% of the PLT products collected with the Amicus and the COM.TEC, respectively, had a PLT count of >3.3 × 1011 (p = 0.325). All products obtained with both instruments had WBC counts lower than 5 ↔ 106, as required. There was no statistical difference with regard to collection efficiency between the devices (55 ± 15 vs. 57 ± 15%; p = 0.477). However, the collection rate was significantly higher with the Amicus compared to the COM.TEC instrument (0.077 ± 0.012 × 1011 vs. 0.057 ± 0.008 × 1011 PLT/min; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Both instruments collected platelets efficiently. Additionally, consistent leukoreduction was obtained with both instruments; however, compared with the COM.TEC instrument, the Amicus reached the PLT target yield more quickly.