Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
INTRODUCTION: A subcutaneous (SC) formulation of the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, rituximab (Rituxan), is approved in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follicular lymphoma (FL), and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Rituximab-SC (R-SC) has been associated with time and clinic resource savings vs the original intravenous formulation (R-IV). Insight into the resource implications of widening R-SC adoption in a US oncology setting is needed. METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective observational analysis was conducted in adult patients with DLBCL, FL, or CLL. The primary outcome measure was chair occupancy time (difference between patient room-in and room-out times). Prescribing patterns were a secondary outcome. RESULTS: Overall, 1190 patients were analyzed (treatment time frame: pre-R-SC adoption: n = 490 [41%], pre- and post R-SC adoption: n = 189 [16%], post R-SC adoption: n = 511 [43%]). Of the patients in the post-R-SC period, 374 (73%) received R-IV, 52 (10%) received R-IV and R-SC, and 85 (17%) received R-SC. When administered, R-SC reduced combination therapy chair time vs R-IV by a mean 37% (93.2 minutes; P < .001). Monotherapy (any route) reduced chair time vs combination by a mean 35.2 minutes (P < .001), with a further 40.2-minute reduction with R-SC (P < .001), a 62% (133.4-minute) total chair time savings vs R-IV. Doctors were more likely to prescribe R-SC to patients with FL than DLBCL. CONCLUSIONS: R-SC is associated with significantly reduced chair time vs R-IV in a US oncology setting. Widespread adoption would be expected to improve practice efficiency and patient access to care, and to reduce health care resource burden.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Esther Drill (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: