Biru, Yelak

Abstract Background People of color (POC) and patients (pts) from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds often face financial, geographic, and systemic barriers, limiting access to advanced treatments (Tx). A survey was conducted to better understand how race and socioeconomic factors affect pt awareness of and access to bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies in the US. Methods This study used 30-minute online surveys (March-June 2024) of 1301 pts with RRMM across 7 countries. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and χ2 tests, with P<.01 for all comparisons unless specified; these are presented for the 305 US pts. Results The 305 US pts identified as White (n=227) or POC (n=78), which included Black/African American (n=42); Hispanic/Latino (n=24); and Asian, Pacific Islander, or Arab (n=12). Pts self-reported as having easy/very easy (n=92), neutral (n=117), or difficult/very difficult (n=96) financial burden, being employed (n=142) or not employed (n=163), and having ≤secondary (n=72) or >secondary education (n=232). In the US, more POC reported difficult/very difficult financial circumstances than White pts (47% v 26%). Fewer POC stated they were in remission (28% v 49%) or had consulted an MM specialist (41% v 59%, P=.028), even after adjusting for self-reported good financial circumstances. Among pts with neutral-very easy financial situations, stated remission rates were still lower for POC (n=41) v White pts (n=168) (34% v 59%, P=.026), as were MM specialist visits (41% v 66%, P=.022). Pts with >secondary education (n=232) and those who were employed (n=142) had higher stated remission rates than those with ≤secondary education (n=72) and those who were not employed (n=163) (47% v 32%, P=.025 and 66% v 24%, respectively). Physical burden was experienced by more POC v White pts (91% v 66%), even after adjusting for financial circumstances (90% v 65%, P=.011, for POC v White pts in neutral/very easy financial circumstances). POC and pts with difficult financial circumstances (including POC and White pts) perceived their Tx as less effective than expected across several measures, including emotional and mental health, overall impact on daily life, side effects, Tx costs, and the effect of Tx schedule on everyday life. Awareness of BsAbs and CAR-T was lower among POC v White pts (BsAb: 49% v 77%; CAR-T: 67% v 81%, P=.032), pts who were not employed v employed (BsAb: 63% v 77%, P=.015; CAR-T: 74% v 81%, P=.046), pts with ≤secondary v >secondary education (CAR-T only: 75% v 78%, P=.021), and those in difficult/very difficult v easy/very easy financial circumstances (BsAb: 54% v 90%; CAR-T: 64% v 90%). Among pts aware of BsAbs, 18% (n=39) reported that the Tx was offered by their physician. More employed v not employed pts were offered BsAbs (26% v 10%). There were non-statistically significant differences in the proportion offered BsAbs based on race (POC 8% v White pts 21%, P=.065), financial status (difficult/very difficult 15% v easy/very easy 23%, P=.288), or level of education (≤secondary education 15% v >secondary education 20%, P=.428). Among pts aware of CAR-T, 24% (n=56) reported that the Tx was offered by their physician. Fewer POC than White pts were offered CAR-T (6% v 29%), even after adjusting for financial status (10% v 32%, P=.04 for pts with good finances). Among those aware of CAR-T, fewer pts not employed v employed (12% v 37%), pts with ≤secondary v >secondary education (11% v 27%, P=.015), and pts with financial burden (difficult/very difficult 10% v easy/very easy 31%) were offered CAR-T. Overall, fewer POC received CAR-T than White pts (1.3% v 10.7%, P=.03). Additionally, more employed v not employed pts received CAR-T (15.2% v 2.5%) or BsAbs (23.5% v 4.4%). Conclusions Consistent with existing health equity inequalities (Chen et al, Int J Equity Health, 2025), POC and pts in poorer socioeconomic circumstances had less awareness of and access to BsAbs and CAR-T. To address these disparities, partnering with trusted messengers and pt advocacy groups supporting Black, Hispanic, and Asian pts and those with socioeconomic hardships can enhance healthcare infrastructure, support initiatives to help pts navigate advanced Tx options, and develop pt- and physician-targeted education. These strategies can improve awareness and promote Tx equity, ultimately ensuring that all pts with MM receive optimal care regardless of their socioeconomic status and race.

Introduction: Given the major treatment advancements in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) such as bispecific antibodies (BsAbs), understanding patient and healthcare provider (HCP) decision-making perspectives is crucial. This study investigated barriers to adopting resource-intensive novel therapies, unmet needs in access to care, and treatment decision priorities in one of the largest surveys of RRMM patients and HCPs. Methods: This prospective study was conducted from March to June 2024 using 30-minute web-based quantitative surveys fielded in 2269 participants (1301 RRMM patients and 968 HCPs) across 7 countries (US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan). The survey collected data on pre-defined patient subgroups (line of treatment, ages <45, 46-65, 65+]) and in HCP subgroups (care settings: academic, community [non-Center of Excellence [COE]). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests. Results: Two themes that emerged from the findings were: 1) discrepancies in treatment considerations between patients and HCPs, and 2) Familiarity with and considerations around BsAbs among patients Discrepancies in HCP and Patient considerations HCPs and patients prioritized different considerations during treatment decision-making, particularly related to the importance of treatment related adverse events (TRAEs). 3L+ patients equally prioritized disease control and minimizing TRAEs (49% and 49%); HCPs prioritized disease control more often than minimizing TRAEs (59% and 40% for 3L+ patients). Patients considered many TRAEs extremely challenging to manage, whereas HCPs were less likely to do so (patients vs HCPs: bone-related AEs: 64% vs 39%, p<0.001; hypertension: 54% vs 28%, p<0.001; cholesterol: 53% vs 21%, p<0.001; skin-related AEs: 49% vs 30%, p<0.001). Limiting TRAEs was a concern particularly among patients over 65 (52%, p<0.001) and those with comorbidities (52%, p<0.001). Limiting costs and financial challenges (3L+ patients: 33% vs HCPs: 13%, p<0.001) and avoiding compromising the potential to receive treatment options in later lines (3L+ patients: 25% vs HCPs:14%, p<0.001) were other considerations patients prioritized more than HCPs. HCPs prioritized limiting side effects 9% more in 3L settings compared to 2L. Discrepancies in decision-making in 2L setting included a desire to limit treatment-related logistical burden (patients: 35% vs HCP: 17%, p<0.001), limit challenges for care partners (25% vs 13%, p<0.001), and ensure treatment without referral (24% vs 16%, p=0.001). Compared to their older counterparts, younger patients (<45 y v ≥45y) prioritized convenient treatment administration (39% vs 29%, p=0.024) and avoiding referrals to other institutions (32% vs 22%, p<0.001). Perspectives on treatment considerations specific to BsAbs Among 3L+ patients, most have not heard of BsAbs, or have heard but were unfamiliar with the option. A small proportion of 3L+ patients recalled their HCPs suggesting BsAbs as a treatment option (14%) although most patients decided to receive BsAbs treatment when it was offered (71%). Among patients on BsAb treatment, patients most often cited clinical reasons for going on BsAbs (i.e., remission, symptom relief, and likelihood of greater longevity). Among non-clinical reasons, lower time commitment and lower likelihood of negative financial impact compared with other treatments were also common. Notably, 36% of HCPs reported low confidence in identifying RRMM patients eligible for BsAbs. Compared with academic HCPs (32%), more community/non-COE HCPs (42% p=0.018) reported low confidence. Conclusions: HCPs and patients have different priorities during treatment decision-making, particularly regarding the importance of minimizing TRAE and in prioritizing efficacy and managing logistical burdens in later treatment lines. Among novel treatments, BsAbs are not frequently recalled by patients as a treatment option provided by HCPs. HCPs, especially in community settings, are often uncertain about identifying eligible patients for BsAbs, indicating a need for greater educational resources for HCPs. Increasing patient awareness of available treatments, HCP understanding of novel treatments, and fostering dialogue on patient priorities can increase the likelihood of informed, personalized shared decision-making, and optimize evidence-based patient outcomes.