A Systematic Review of Time and Resource Use Costs of Subcutaneous Versus Intravenous Administration of Oncology Biologics in a Hospital Setting

Recent Developments in Convenience of Administration of the Anti-CD38 Antibody Isatuximab: Subcutaneous Delivery and Fast Intravenous Infusion in Patients With Multiple Myeloma

Isatuximab-based combinations are among the accepted standard-of-care regimens for early-line treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), based on the results of the Phase 3 ICARIA-MM and IKEMA trials. Further study findings have shown benefit with Isa-based combinations in patients with newly diagnosed MM, as reported from the randomized GMMG-HD7 and CONCEPT trials. Isa is currently approved in various countries for intravenous (IV) administration in patients with RRMM. A more convenient route of administration, such as subcutaneous (SC) injection, and faster IV infusion may substantially increase convenience of treatment. In this review, we outline evidence emerging from clinical trials that shows increasing clinical applicability of Isa across the MM therapeutic spectrum. We then review recent study results demonstrating that new treatment modalities, either SC Isa administration via an on-body delivery system (OBDS) or fast, 30-minute, fixed-volume IV infusion, are safe and effective, and enhance convenience of treatment with Isa for MM patients and healthcare providers. In the recently reported Phase 1b study, the safety profile and efficacy of Isa administered SC plus pomalidomide-dexamethasone were comparable to those observed with Isa administered IV plus pomalidomide-dexamethasone in the control arm and in the ICARIA-MM trial. Analysis of patient-reported outcomes indicated patient confidence in SC Isa administration and satisfaction with treatment delivery by OBDS. These findings point to SC administration as the preferred route for future treatment with Isa-based combinations, as well as to the use of fast, 30-minute IV infusions in settings where SC administration of Isa might not be available.

Evaluating unmet needs in large-volume subcutaneous drug delivery: U.S. payer perspectives on a novel, large-volume on-body delivery system

OBJECTIVE

Existing healthcare systems face finite resource allocation and budgetary constraints, resulting in a substantial need for innovative solutions to enhance service delivery at reduced costs. A novel, user-friendly on-body delivery system (OBDS) was developed which enables administration of large-volume subcutaneous (SC) drugs in both clinical and home-based settings (at-home healthcare professional [HCP] administration or at-home self-administration).

METHODS

This research sought to evaluate the potential economic impact of at-home self- or HCP- administration with the OBDS through a comprehensive review of published literature and semi-structured interviews with 17 US payers representing approximately 227 million covered lives.

RESULTS

Published literature on OBDS remains limited, but available research highlights the cost-savings of SC administration due to reduced healthcare resource utilization, particularly with home-based care, and improved patient compliance. In interviews, payers identified several attributes that would help address unmet clinical and economic needs. Clinically, the hidden needle and ease-of-use compared to SC syringe pumps was deemed valuable to improve patient compliance and, as OBDS required minimal training, reduce the risk of administration errors. The flexibility to administer drugs at home (self-administration or HCP-administration) or in-clinic was identified as the most impactful attribute on coverage decision making as it has the greatest potential to reduce costs associated with HCP administration for several therapeutic areas.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the ability to help address critical unmet needs for the patient and healthcare system, a large proportion of the payers stated that the novel OBDS would warrant a price premium versus the cost of the standalone SC vial and certainly over the IV counterpart. Future research to quantify the value that OBDS efficiencies could bring to healthcare delivery are warranted.

Brief Report: Updated Data From IMscin001 Part 2, a Randomized Phase III Study of Subcutaneous Versus Intravenous Atezolizumab in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic NSCLC

INTRODUCTION

Subcutaneous atezolizumab is approved for the treatment of various solid tumors. Previous results from the IMscin001 study (NCT03735121) revealed that the pharmacokinetics, efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of subcutaneous and intravenous atezolizumab were consistent (data cutoff: April 26, 2022). We present updated data from this trial (data cutoff: January 16, 2023).

METHODS

Eligible patients aged above or equal to 18 years with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC were randomized (2:1) to receive atezolizumab subcutaneously (1875 mg, n = 247) or intravenously (1200 mg, n = 124) every 3 weeks. Here, we present updated efficacy (overall survival [OS]; progression-free survival; objective response rate; duration of response), safety, and immunogenicity end points, alongside patient-reported outcomes and health care practitioner (HCP) perspectives.

RESULTS

In this updated analysis, the median survival follow-up was 9.5 months. Median subcutaneous injection time was 7.1 minutes, with an average subcutaneous injection time of 4 to 8 minutes in most patients (75.7%). OS data were mature: median OS was similar between treatment arms, at 10.7 and 10.1 months in the subcutaneous and intravenous arms, respectively (hazard ratio: 0.88; 95% confidence interval: 0.67-1.16). Other efficacy end points, as well as immunogenicity, patient-reported outcomes, and safety, were similar between arms. Most HCPs found subcutaneous administration convenient (79.5%), easy to administer (89.7%), and were satisfied with the treatment (84.6%); 75.0% of HCPs agreed that administering atezolizumab subcutaneously compared with intravenously could save time.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis, mature OS data were similar between treatments. The updated efficacy and safety profile of subcutaneous atezolizumab is consistent with previous findings and equivalent to intravenous atezolizumab.

Advancing Subcutaneous Dosing Regimens for Biotherapeutics: Clinical Strategies for Expedited Market Access

In recent years, subcutaneous administration of biotherapeutics has made significant progress. The self-administration market for rheumatoid arthritis has witnessed the introduction of additional follow-on biologics, while the first subcutaneous dosing options for monoclonal antibodies have become available for multiple sclerosis. Oncology has also seen advancements with the authorization of high-volume subcutaneous formulations, facilitated by the development of high-concentration formulations and innovative delivery systems. Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment bodies increasingly consider preference data in filing dossiers, particularly in evaluating novel drug delivery methods. The adoption of a pharmacokinetic-based clinical bridging approach has become standard for transitioning from intravenous to subcutaneous administration. Non-inferiority studies with pharmacokinetics as the only primary endpoint have started deviating from traditional randomization schemes, favoring the subcutaneous route and comparing with historical intravenous data. While nonclinical and computational models made progress in predicting safety and immunogenicity for subcutaneously dosed antibodies, clinical trial evidence remains essential due to inter-individual variations and the impact of formulation parameters on anti-drug antibody formation. Ongoing technological advancements and the expanding knowledge base on pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic correlation across specialty areas are expected to further accelerate clinical development of subcutaneous biologics.

Subcutaneous versus intravenous tramadol for extremity injury with moderate pain in the emergency department: a randomised controlled noninferiority trial

BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE

Musculoskeletal trauma is a common presentation in the emergency department (ED). Tramadol as an analgesic has been recommended by pain management guidelines for musculoskeletal pain. Parenteral tramadol in the ED is commonly administered intravenously. Subcutaneously administered tramadol may have other advantages such as easier and faster preparation, avoids the need for intravenous (i.v.) access, and reduces the incidence of respiratory and gastrointestinal effects. However, studies comparing subcutaneous (s.c.) and i.v. tramadol for the management of acute moderate pain in patients with extremity injury are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of s.c. tramadol vs. i.v. tramadol in patients with moderate pain due to extremity injury in the ED.

DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS

This non-inferiority randomized controlled trial included adult patients presented to an academic, tertiary hospital ED with moderate pain (pain score of 4-6 on the visual analog scale) due to extremity injury. Intervention patients stratified to pain score were randomized to receive 50 mg of i.v. or s.c. tramadol.

OUTCOMES MEASURE AND ANALYSIS

Primary outcome measure was the difference in the pain score reduction at 30 min after tramadol administration between the two groups. The noninferiority null hypothesis was that the therapeutic difference in terms of pain score reduction of more than 0.8 exists between the two treatment groups at the endpoint.

MAIN RESULTS

In total 232 patients were randomized to i.v. ( n  = 115) or s.c. ( n  = 117). Although 225 were analyzed in the per-protocol population (i.v. = 113; s.c. = 112). The baseline median pain score was 6 (IQR, 5-6). Median pain score reduction at 30 min after administration was 2 (IQR, 1-3) in the IV group vs. 2 (IQR, 1-2) in the s.c. group with a median difference of 0 (IQR, 0-0), which was below the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.8. Adverse events in the i.v. group were higher compared to the s.c. group (33.6% vs. 8.9%, P  ≤ 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The s.c. tramadol is noninferior to i.v. tramadol in the treatment of moderate pain from extremity injuries.

Drug Expenditure, Price, and Utilization in US Medicaid: A Trend Analysis for New Multiple Myeloma Medications from 2016 to 2022

INTRODUCTION

Multiple myeloma (MM) is the most common plasma cell tumor type. In late 2015, the FDA approved three new medications for MM. These medications were ixazomib, daratumumab, and elotuzumab. However, their utilization, reimbursement, and price in the Medicaid program have not been analyzed before.

METHODS

A retrospective drug utilization study using the national Medicaid pharmacy claims data from 2016 to 2022 in the US. The primary metrics of analysis were utilization (number of prescriptions), reimbursement (total spending), and price (reimbursement per prescription).

RESULTS

The overall Medicaid utilization of MM medications increased from 1671 prescriptions in 2016 to 34,583 prescriptions in 2022 (1970% increase). Moreover, the overall Medicaid reimbursement for the new MM medications increased from USD 9,250,000 in 2016 to over USD 214,449,000 in 2022 (2218% increase). Daratumumab had much higher utilization, reimbursement, and market shares than its competitors. Ixazomib was the most expensive medication compared to daratumumab and elotuzumab.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study demonstrate that CMS utilization and spending on MM medications have significantly grown since 2016. Daratumumab has by far the highest utilization, spending, and market share. The utilization of and spending on specific pharmaceuticals are clearly impacted by policy and clinical guideline recommendations.