BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous bortezomib is noninferior in efficacy to intravenous bortezomib and is associated with a lower incidence of neuropathy in the treatment of multiple myeloma. However, there are no data assessing the effect of subcutaneous bortezomib administration on practice variables or patient preferences. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the difference in efficiency practice variables and patient preferences regarding subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib administration in patients with multiple myeloma. METHODS: This study was divided into 2 parts consisting of mutually exclusive patients: a retrospective efficiency study and a survey study. Patients' medical records were reviewed for efficiency data measures including length of infusion chair time and overall infusion center visit time in patients who received at least 6 doses of bortezomib. Patients who received at least 1 dose each of subcutaneous and intravenous administration were surveyed regarding preference, satisfaction, injection site reactions, and quality of life measures. A database was used to identify eligible patients for each portion of the study. RESULTS: A review of 92 medical records demonstrated a 38% reduction in chair time (143 vs 89 minutes; p < 0.001) and a 27% reduction in infusion center visit time (169 vs 123 minutes; p < 0.001) with subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of bortezomib. Of 47 eligible patients, 60% (28) completed the survey; 68% (19; p = 0.0002) of these patients preferred and were more satisfied with subcutaneous bortezomib administration. The overall incidence of injection site reactions was 39% (11) in the surveyed population and was not significantly different between the 2 preference groups. Limitations of the study include single-center design, small sample size, and nonvalidated survey. CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous administration of bortezomib is more time efficient for the patient and institution and is preferred by patients compared to intravenous bortezomib.
BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous bortezomib is noninferior in efficacy to intravenous bortezomib and is associated with a lower incidence of neuropathy in the treatment of multiple myeloma. However, there are no data assessing the effect of subcutaneous bortezomib administration on practice variables or patient preferences. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the difference in efficiency practice variables and patient preferences regarding subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib administration in patients with multiple myeloma. METHODS: This study was divided into 2 parts consisting of mutually exclusive patients: a retrospective efficiency study and a survey study. Patients' medical records were reviewed for efficiency data measures including length of infusion chair time and overall infusion center visit time in patients who received at least 6 doses of bortezomib. Patients who received at least 1 dose each of subcutaneous and intravenous administration were surveyed regarding preference, satisfaction, injection site reactions, and quality of life measures. A database was used to identify eligible patients for each portion of the study. RESULTS: A review of 92 medical records demonstrated a 38% reduction in chair time (143 vs 89 minutes; p < 0.001) and a 27% reduction in infusion center visit time (169 vs 123 minutes; p < 0.001) with subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of bortezomib. Of 47 eligible patients, 60% (28) completed the survey; 68% (19; p = 0.0002) of these patients preferred and were more satisfied with subcutaneous bortezomib administration. The overall incidence of injection site reactions was 39% (11) in the surveyed population and was not significantly different between the 2 preference groups. Limitations of the study include single-center design, small sample size, and nonvalidated survey. CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous administration of bortezomib is more time efficient for the patient and institution and is preferred by patients compared to intravenous bortezomib.
Authors: Mary Slavcev; Allison Spinelli; Elisabeth Absalon; Tara Masterson; Christoph Heuck; Annette Lam; Erwin De Cock Journal: Clinicoecon Outcomes Res Date: 2021-06-08
Authors: Joo Young Jung; Ho Young Kim; Boram Han; Dae Ro Choi; Dae Young Zang; Hyo Jung Kim Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2014-06-04 Impact factor: 3.411