A Canadian perspective on the subcutaneous administration of rituximab in non-Hodgkin lymphoma

Rituximab Treatment of Primary Cutaneous Follicle Center Lymphoma: A Retrospective Review

BACKGROUND

Primary cutaneous B-cell lymphoma (PCBCL) presents only in the skin at the time of diagnosis with no evidence of extracutaneous disease, and primary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma (PCFCL) is the most common subtype. There is currently a lack of prospective randomized control trials and large retrospective studies investigating the efficacy of different treatment options for PCFCL. This retrospective study was conducted to describe our local clinical experience and outcomes of patients treated with rituximab-containing regimens.

OBJECTIVES

To describe our local clinical experience and treatment outcomes of patients treated with rituximab-containing regimens.

METHODS

A retrospective study consisting of 25 PCFCL patients treated with different modalities. Patient records were reviewed and analyzed using a Kaplan-Meier estimation and SAS 9.4 software.

RESULTS

After the initial treatment, all patients had CR except for 1 patient in the observation group. Further, 60% of patients in surgery, 20% in chemoimmunotherapy, 67% in rituximab monotherapy, 33% in steroid injection/systemic prednisone, and 33% in observation experienced a relapse. Although no significant difference was found between treatment groups due to the small sample size, time to relapse trends provides insight into treatment responses. Chemoimmunotherapy had the lowest relapse rate in the first 5 years post-treatment, whereas surgery had a higher tendency to relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the potential for rituximab-containing chemoimmunotherapy to yield adverse effects, it is effective in achieving a prolonged clinical remission in patients with PCFCL. It remains a reasonable treatment option for diffuse, extensive, or treatment-resistant disease.

Boas Práticas na Administração do Rituximab: Revisão Integrativa da Literatura

Introdução: O rituximab e um anticorpo monoclonal quimérico camundongo/humano, amplamente utilizado no cenário terapêutico de vários diagnósticos. Por apresentar diferentes protocolos de administração, manejo e efeitos adversos, seu uso requer atenção da equipe de saúde. Objetivo: Descrever os protocolos infusionais do rituximab na primeira infusão, nas subsequentes e na dessensibilização, e caracterizar a sua segurança. Método: Revisão integrativa da literatura. A busca pelos periódicos foi realizada nas bases de dados e bibliotecas eletrônicas: LILACS, PubMed, MEDLINE, SciELO e BDEnf. Resultados: O cruzamento dos descritores proporcionou a identificação de 413 artigos. Destes, 113 foram lidos na integra e, ao final, 16 artigos foram aplicáveis ao desenho do estudo. Os artigos foram publicados entre os anos de 2016 e 2020, com predomínio da língua inglesa (87,5%).  uanto as principais formas de administração do medicamento, nove estudos abordaram a infusão por via intravenosa (em variadas modalidades de tempo) e sete por via subcutânea. Conclusão: De acordo com a literatura cientifica, todas as modalidades de infusão intravenosa e subcutânea demostram ser seguras e eficazes se os protocolos forem adequadamente indicados e corretamente aplicados.

Pharmacokinetic Comparison of Three Different Administration Routes for Topotecan Hydrochloride in Rats

Topotecan is actively used in clinic, with its primary use being in treatment of various types of cancer. The approved administration routes are oral and intravenous. The purpose of this study was to investigate and identify pharmacokinetic profiles of different administration routes. We conducted pharmacokinetic studies on three different routes of administration in rats. Five rats in each group received a single dose of 4 mg/kg of topotecan hydrochloride intravenously, orally, or subcutaneously, and the concentrations of lactone and total forms of the drug in plasma, urine, and feces were quantified. Various pharmacokinetic parameters were compared statistically. Plasma concentrations of both the lactone and total forms at elimination phase following subcutaneous administration, were two times higher than was seen with oral administration and 10 times higher than with intravenous administration. Subcutaneous administration of topotecan showed pharmacokinetic profiles similar to sustained release. In addition, subcutaneous administration showed bioavailability from 88.05% (for lactone form) to 99.75% (for total form), and these values were four–five times greater than those of oral administration. The results of this non-clinical study will not only provide greater understanding of the in vivo pharmacokinetics of topotecan, but also be useful for development of additional formulations and/or administration routes.

Update on the subcutaneous administration of rituximab in Canadian cancer centres

Results of studies comparing subcutaneous (sc) with intravenous (iv) rituximab indicate that the two formulations are comparable in efficacy, but most patients and health care professionals prefer the sc route, commonly because of shorter chair time and reduced risk of infusion-related reactions. Recent Canadian data, including those from the scuba study reported here, support the results of earlier international studies showing a reduction in preparation and administration time with the sc formulation, lower cost of administration, and reduced drug wastage because of the fixed sc dosing. Given the significant time and cost savings of the sc formulation, that formulation is generally preferred over the iv formulation for the treatment of follicular lymphoma, diffuse large B cell lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Premedication with montelukast and rupatadine decreased rituximab infusion time, rate, severity of reactions and use of rescue medications

Rituximab-associated infusion reactions (IRs) are significant burdens on oncology patients, caregivers and healthcare providers. We evaluated whether montelukast and rupatadine improve rituximab delivery, decrease frequency/severity of IRs and the number of medications used to control IRs. Using a nonrandomized clinical study design, we assessed adult rituximab naïve patients with B-cell lymphoid malignancies from January 2017 to July 2019. Prior to the first rituximab infusion patients received one of the premedication regimens: (i) standard premedications, diphenhydramine hydrochloride and acetaminophen ("SP" group); (ii) SP + montelukast ("M" group); (iii) SP + rupatadine ("R" group); (iv) SP + rupatadine + montelukast Schedule 1 ("M + R Schedule 1" group); (v) SP + rupatadine + montelukast Schedule 2 ("M + R Schedule 2" group). A total of 223 patients with a median age of 69 years were assessed. Demographics and treatment groups were comparable among all five groups. Mean rituximab infusion time was 290 min in the SP group versus 273, 261, 243 and 236 min in the M, R, M + R Schedule 1 and M + R Schedule 2 groups, respectively. The incidence of rituximab IRs was 75% in the SP group versus 44, 41, 22 and 22% in the M, R, M + R Schedule 1 and M + R Schedule 2 groups, respectively. The median reaction grade was 2 in the SP group and 0 in all other groups. The median number of rescue medications was 3 in the SP group and 0 in all other groups. In conclusion, montelukast and rupatadine significantly improved rituximab delivery, decreased the rate and severity of IRs and reduced the need for rescue medications.

Comparative Cost Analysis Of Intravenous And Subcutaneous Administration Of Rituximab In Lymphoma Patients

Purpose

The availability of different routes of administration of rituximab, with different dosing and times of infusion in the day care unit, raises the question of which formulation would be the best in terms of direct cost, particularly with the approval of new intravenous (IV) rituximab biosimilars. We aim to retrospectively compare the direct costs of IV and subcutaneous (SC) rituximab in lymphoma, considering drug cost, pharmacy handling and occupation in day care unit in Son Espases University Hospital during 2017, now that the IV biosimilar is available.

Patients and methods

The data were collected from Oncosafety^®-AVIDA for doses and SAP^® for economic data. The costs of occupation are published by the Local Health Service.

Results

In 2017, 527 cycles were prescribed for 103 patients with lymphoma: 141 IV and 386 SC. Median doses were 690 mg and 1400 mg with a median cost of the drug of 1458.45€ and 1334.77€ for IV and SC routes, respectively. The nurse handling costs were 4.49€ and 2.24€, respectively. The cost of the day care unit occupation was 493€ and 123€, respectively. Overall, the median total cost per cycle was 1955.94€ for the IV, 1460.01€ for the SC and 1729€ for the biosimilar (p<0.001). The sensitivity analysis showed that it would be necessary for the cost of the IV biosimilar to be 34% lower than the price of SC rituximab to make a difference.

Conclusion

This study shows a reduction in the cost with the administration of SC rituximab in real life compared with using the IV original rituximab and the biosimilar. This information is relevant for healthcare managers and administrations and applies only in the case of drugs with SC original presentations still not available in their correspondent biosimilars.

Practical considerations for the integration of subcutaneous targeted therapies into the oncology clinic

The oncology clinic is changing, with an increasing number of cancer therapies becoming available as formulations for subcutaneous (SC) injection. Using targeted therapies, such as alemtuzumab, bortezomib, rituximab or trastuzumab, via SC injection can be advantageous for patients, healthcare professionals, and healthcare systems. However, their use can also present challenges, and nurses have a unique opportunity to positively influence the integration of SC agents in the clinic. This article summarizes practical suggestions for optimal administration of SC targeted therapies, and provides pragmatic considerations for managing the change process related to their adoption.

Patient and physician preferences for attributes of biologic medications for severe asthma

OBJECTIVE

Despite the increased availability of biologic treatments indicated for severe asthma, patient and physician preferences for these medications remains largely unknown. The purpose of this study was to understand perceptions of biologic therapies, barriers to care with biologic medications, and preferences for biologic therapy attributes.

METHODS

This mixed-methods study involved quantitative surveys and qualitative telephone interviews with patients and physicians from the United States. Participants described preferences for relevant attributes, and barriers to use of biologic medications. Participants rated, ranked, and indicated importance of preferences for different levels of key attributes including: mode of administration, administration setting, dosing frequency, number of injections, and time to onset of effect. Other attributes unique to each group were also included.

RESULTS

A total of 47 patients and 25 physicians participated. Patients ranked out-of-pocket costs, mode of administration, time to onset of efficacy, and administration setting as the most important attributes. Physicians ranked mode of administration, time to onset of efficacy, dosing frequency, and insurance reimbursement/access as most important. Both groups expressed preferences for less frequent administrations (Q8W over Q4W or Q2W) (all P<0.01) and subcutaneous (SC) over intravenous injection (both P<0.0001). Key patient barriers to biologic medications include location of treatment, administration time, scheduling, cost/insurance coverage, number of injections, and mode of administration. Physicians identified patient candidacy, convincing patients, administration setting, mode of administration, cost, and administrative burden as key barriers to initiating therapy; and efficacy, speed of onset, convenience of administration, cost, and patient compliance as barriers to staying on therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and physicians expressed strong preferences for less frequent dosing, SC administration, and faster onset. Cost/insurance coverage and convenience issues were key barriers to use. Increased awareness and understanding of preferences and barriers may be useful in facilitating physician-patient conversations with the goal of individualizing treatment.

Evaluation of subcutaneous rituximab administration on Canadian systemic therapy suites

Background

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (nhl) is the most common hematologic malignancy. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (dlbcl) and follicular lymphoma (fl) constitute 55% of new nhl cases and are initially treated with rituximab-based chemoimmunotherapy. Relative to intravenous (IV) rituximab, a subcutaneous (sc) formulation approved in 2016 has comparable pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety, and a greatly reduced administration time; it is also preferred by patients. The objective of the present study was to estimate the effect (on systemic therapy suite time and on the costs of drug acquisition and administration) of implementing sc rituximab in the initial chemoimmunotherapy for fl and dlbcl over 3 years in the Canadian market.

Methods

An Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, U.S.A.)-based model was created with a population size based on epidemiologic data and current rituximab use, duration of use considering initial therapy, time savings for sc rituximab administration from published studies, costs from standard Canadian sources, and assumed uptake in implementing provinces of 65%, 75%, and 80% over 3 years. Key parameters and sensitivity analysis values were validated by clinical experts located in various Canadian jurisdictions. Costs are reported in 2017 Canadian dollars from the perspective of the health care system.

Results

More than 3 years after implementation of sc rituximab, we estimated that 5762 Canadians would be receiving sc rituximab, resulting in savings of 128,715 hours in systemic therapy suite time and approximately $40 million in drug and administration costs. Sensitivity analyses suggest that the model is most sensitive to sc market uptake, number of induction therapy cycles, and eligible patients.

Conclusions

Subcutaneous administration of rituximab can significantly reduce systemic therapy suite time and achieve substantial savings in drug and administration costs.