Streamlining the Route of Administration of Monoclonal Antibody Therapies for Better Patient Outcomes in the NSCLC Population

Author(s):

Lauren Ledbetter, PharmD, BCOP

A panelist discusses how the PALOMA-3 study demonstrated that subcutaneous amivantamab is noninferior to intravenous (IV) administration with significantly lower infusion-related reaction (IRR) rates (13% vs 66%), shorter administration time (5 minutes vs 5 hours), higher patient-reported convenience (85% vs 35%), and improved clinical outcomes, making it potentially preferable for most eligible patients once FDA approved.

EP: 1.Overcoming Challenges in NSCLC Management From a Pharmacist’s Perspective

EP: 2.First-Line Focus: Molecular Testing and Guideline-Directed Therapy in EGFR-Positive NSCLC

EP: 3.Recent Clinical Trial Highlights for NSCLC Treatment

EP: 4.Integrating Clinical Trial Findings Into Everyday Pharmacy Practice

EP: 5.Barriers to Bridging Clinical Trial Data to Routine Pharmacy Practice

EP: 6.Enhancing Patient Care Through Multidisciplinary Team Collaboration in Management of NSCLC

EP: 7.Breaking New Ground: Emerging Therapies for Treatment of EGFR-Positive NSCLC

EP: 8.Balancing Treatment and Quality of Life: Adverse Events of First-Line Agents in NSCLC

EP: 9.Strategies to Minimize Toxicities, and the Pharmacist’s Role in Educating and Supporting Patients With NSCLC

EP: 10.Infusion-Related Reactions: Clinical Trials and Guideline-Driven Prophylaxis and Management Strategies for Patients Undergoing NSCLC Treatment

EP: 11.Infusion Hesitancy and the Impact of Route of Administration of NSCLC Treatment Options in Patients’ Quality of Life

Now Viewing

EP: 12.Streamlining the Route of Administration of Monoclonal Antibody Therapies for Better Patient Outcomes in the NSCLC Population

EP: 13.Personalized Care: How Do NSCLC Treatment Modifications and Patient-Specific Factors Impact Health Outcomes?

Subcutaneous vs IV Amivantamab

PALOMA-3 study findings:
Similar efficacy: 30% response rate (subcutaneous) vs 33% (IV)

Improved PFS: 6.1 months (subcutaneous) vs 4.3 months (IV) in heavily pretreated population

Significantly reduced IRRs: 13% (subcutaneous) vs 66% (IV)

Fewer venous thromboembolism events with subcutaneous administration
Operational advantages:
Dramatically reduced administration time: 5 minutes (subcutaneous) vs 5 hours (IV)

Improved infusion chair turnover

No split dosing required (unlike IV which requires day 1/day 2 split)

Patient preference: 85% rated subcutaneous as convenient vs 35% for IV

Not yet FDA approved outside clinical trials