M Rummel1, T M Kim2, F Aversa3, W Brugger4, E Capochiani5, C Plenteda3, F Re6, P Trask7, S Osborne8, R Smith8, A Grigg9. 1. Department of Hematology & Oncology, University Hospital Giessen, Giessen, Germany. 2. Division of Hematology & Medical Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea. 3. University of Parma, Parma, Italy. 4. Schwarzwald-Baar Clinic Villingen-Schwenningen, Academic Teaching Hospital, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 5. Center for Hematology, Livorno, Italy. 6. University Hospital Parma, Parma, Italy. 7. Genentech Inc., South San Francisco, USA. 8. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland. 9. Department of Clinical Haematology, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Australia.
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate patient preference and satisfaction for the subcutaneous (s.c.) versus intravenous (i.v.) formulation of rituximab given with chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with CD20+ diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or follicular lymphoma (FL). Patients and methods: Patients received eight cycles of rituximab according to 2 schedules: Arm A received 1 cycle rituximab i.v. (375 mg/m2) and 3 cycles rituximab s.c. (1400 mg) then 4 cycles rituximab i.v.; Arm B received 4 cycles rituximab i.v. (375 mg/m2) then 4 cycles rituximab s.c. (1400 mg). Alongside rituximab, both arms received 6-8 cycles of chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone (CHOP), cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone (CVP), or bendamustine as per standard local practice). Preference for s.c. or i.v. administration was evaluated using the Patient Preference Questionnaire (PPQ) at cycles 6 and 8. Patient satisfaction and convenience were assessed using the Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire (CTSQ), and Rituximab Administration Satisfaction Questionnaire (RASQ) at cycles 4 and 8. Results: At the primary data cut-off (19 January 2015), the intent-to-treat population comprised 743 patients. The majority had DLBCL (63%) and baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. At cycle 8, 81% of patients completing the PPQ preferred rituximab s.c. Preference was not impacted by treatment sequence or disease type. Patient satisfaction as measured by RASQ was higher for s.c. versus i.v. CTSQ scores were similar between arms. Adverse events were generally balanced between administration routes and no new safety signals were detected. Conclusion: Most previously untreated patients with CD20+ DLBCL or FL preferred s.c. to i.v. rituximab administration. Patient satisfaction with rituximab treatment was generally greater with s.c. administration. Registered clinical trial number: NCT01724021 (ClinicalTrials.gov).
RCT Entities:
Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate patient preference and satisfaction for the subcutaneous (s.c.) versus intravenous (i.v.) formulation of rituximab given with chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with CD20+ diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or follicular lymphoma (FL). Patients and methods: Patients received eight cycles of rituximab according to 2 schedules: Arm A received 1 cycle rituximab i.v. (375 mg/m2) and 3 cycles rituximab s.c. (1400 mg) then 4 cycles rituximab i.v.; Arm B received 4 cycles rituximab i.v. (375 mg/m2) then 4 cycles rituximab s.c. (1400 mg). Alongside rituximab, both arms received 6-8 cycles of chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone (CHOP), cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone (CVP), or bendamustine as per standard local practice). Preference for s.c. or i.v. administration was evaluated using the Patient Preference Questionnaire (PPQ) at cycles 6 and 8. Patient satisfaction and convenience were assessed using the Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire (CTSQ), and Rituximab Administration Satisfaction Questionnaire (RASQ) at cycles 4 and 8. Results: At the primary data cut-off (19 January 2015), the intent-to-treat population comprised 743 patients. The majority had DLBCL (63%) and baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. At cycle 8, 81% of patients completing the PPQ preferred rituximab s.c. Preference was not impacted by treatment sequence or disease type. Patient satisfaction as measured by RASQ was higher for s.c. versus i.v. CTSQ scores were similar between arms. Adverse events were generally balanced between administration routes and no new safety signals were detected. Conclusion: Most previously untreated patients with CD20+ DLBCL or FL preferred s.c. to i.v. rituximab administration. Patient satisfaction with rituximab treatment was generally greater with s.c. administration. Registered clinical trial number: NCT01724021 (ClinicalTrials.gov).
Authors: Richard Norman; Benjamin M Craig; Paul Hansen; Marcel F Jonker; John Rose; Deborah J Street; Brendan Mulhern Journal: Patient Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Heather L Benz; Brittany Caldwell; John P Ruiz; Anindita Saha; Martin Ho; Stephanie Christopher; Dawn Bardot; Margaret Sheehan; Anne Donnelly; Lauren McLaughlin; Brennan Mange; A Brett Hauber; Katrina Gwinn; William J Heetderks; Murray Sheldon Journal: MDM Policy Pract Date: 2021-07-02