Citations

Abstract Background Several bispecific antibodies (BsAbs), including mosunetuzumab, glofitamab, and epcoritamab, are approved for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). However, real-world patient-centered data evaluating treatment-related time burden and preferences are lacking. Methods We conducted an online survey of 120 patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (FL; N = 60) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; N = 60) receiving BsAbs. Participants reported all-cause healthcare visits and time spent on cancer-related healthcare resource utilization over the past 30 days, including travel, treatment administration, recovery, and impact on daily activities. Participants also evaluated two hypothetical treatment profiles to assess preference for fixed-duration versus treat-to-progression therapy. Results Participants with FL reported a mean of 2.5 healthcare visits in the past 30 days, with significantly fewer visits for mosunetuzumab versus epcoritamab (1.7 vs 3.3, respectively; P < .01). In DLBCL, the mean was 2.6 visits, with fewer visits for glofitamab versus epcoritamab (2.2 vs 3.0; P =.01). Although epcoritamab visits were shorter in FL, more frequent visits and longer recovery time resulted in significantly lower monthly time burden with mosunetuzumab versus epcoritamab (31.2 vs 61.9 hours; P < .05). Similarly, monthly time burden was also lower with glofitamab than epcoritamab in DLBCL (43.0 vs 87.7 hours; P < .05). Most participants reported little to moderate impact on daily activities. Across treatment groups, ≥92% preferred a hypothetical fixed-duration regimen over a treat-to-progression therapy. Conclusion Our real-world data, including novel aspects of time toxicity, demonstrate clinically meaningful differences in time burden associated with BsAbs and emphasize the importance of incorporating patient convenience and preference into shared decision-making in NHL.

Abstract Background Several BsAbs with different treatment (Tx) approaches have been approved by the FDA for Tx of lymphoma, including: fixed-duration and less frequently dosed mosunetuzumab (mosun) and glofitamab (glofit) (Option 1 Tx approach); and treat to progression and more frequently dosed epcoritamab (epcor) (Option 2 Tx approach). Differences in Tx approaches have implications for time spent receiving care, known as “time toxicity”. We previously reported that mosun and glofit were associated with about 2 weeks lower time toxicity vs epcor over the first year in R/R FL and DLBCL, based on registrational trial protocols (Torka et al. Blood 2024; Ma et al. Value in Health 2025). In this study, we assessed time toxicity from the perspective of patients (pts) receiving BsAbs for R/R FL or DLBCL. Methods An online survey was conducted aiming for input from 120 pts with R/R FL or DLBCL, who have received BsAb for ≥1 month in the US. Time toxicity was measured by pts recalling time spent on healthcare contacts related to BsAb Tx, cancer management, and any other reasons in the past 30 days. Pts' preferences were assessed through direct elicitation of choice between 2 hypothetical Tx profiles with different Tx approaches and time toxicity, assuming the same efficacy and safety. The survey was pre-tested and refined based on input from 3 BsAb pts with R/R DLBCL to ensure relevance and comprehension. Descriptive analyses were performed on pts characteristics, mean and standard deviation (SD) of time spent per pt per month, and the proportion of pts preferring the convenience of different Tx profiles. Results At this interim analysis, 101 pts receiving BsAbs responded to the survey: 48 pts with R/R FL (mosun n=28; epcor n=20) and 53 pts with R/R DLBCL (glofit n=32; epcor n=21). Most pts with R/R FL lived in urban/suburban areas (87.5% vs 12.5% in rural areas) and had a shorter one-way travel time to receive care vs pts in rural areas (mean±SD: 28.2±13.5 vs 60.3±30.2 minutes). The median age was 58 years for both mosun and epcor. Mean±SD Tx duration was 6.2±1.8 months for mosun vs 4.5±1.3 months for epcor. In the past 30 days, pts on mosun had fewer BsAb Tx visits vs epcor (mean±SD: 1.0±0.2 vs 2.0±1.2), and fewer all-cause healthcare contacts vs epcor (mean±SD: 1.7±0.8 vs 3.5±2.0). The mean±SD time spent per BsAb Tx visit was 5.0±1.4 hours for mosun vs 3.8±1.8 hours for epcor. Less time was spent per pt per month on recovery at home after Tx visit for mosun vs epcor (22.7±16.5 vs 43.2±47.6 hours). Less time was spent per pt per month on Tx and cancer management for mosun vs epcor (mean±SD: 30.5±16.9 vs 56.9±59.3 hours). Most pts with R/R DLBCL lived in urban/suburban areas (88.7% vs 11.5% in rural areas) and had a shorter one-way travel time to receive care vs pts in rural areas (mean±SD: 31.4±14.1 vs 103.3±19.4 minutes). The median age was 67 years for glofit and 66 years for epcor. The mean±SD Tx duration was 6.1±2.0 months for glofit vs 5.9±1.8 months for epcor. In the last 30 days, pts on glofit had fewer BsAb Tx visits vs epcor (mean±SD: 1.1±0.2 vs 1.7±0.5), and fewer all-cause healthcare contacts vs epcor (mean±SD: 2.2±1.3 vs 3.0±1.1). Irrespective of the route of administration, the time spent per BsAb Tx visit was similar (mean±SD: 5.1±1.6 hours for mosun; 5.6±1.2 hours for epcor). Less time was spent per pt per month on recovery at home after Tx visit for glofit vs epcor (mean±SD: 34.3±23.8 vs 69.3±39.4 hours). Less time was spent per pt per month on Tx visits and cancer management for glofit vs epcor (mean±SD: 43.0±25.9 vs 85.0±44.2 hours). Regardless of which BsAb pts received, most pts (93%) preferred the convenience of Option 1 Tx approach with less time required over Option 2 Tx approach with more time required. Conclusions This is the first study to directly measure pt-reported time toxicity from pts with R/R FL and DLBCL receiving BsAbs in a real-world setting. Fixed-duration less frequently dosed mosun and glofit (Option 1 Tx approach) had less pt-reported time toxicity, with less healthcare contact and less time spent per pt per month vs treat to progression more frequently dosed epcor (Option 2 Tx approach). Over 90% of pts preferred the convenience of a fixed-duration, less frequently dosed, and less time required Tx option, suggesting that time toxicity is a significant factor in shared Tx decision-making for pts with R/R FL and DLBCL. Analysis is ongoing to comprehensively measure pt-reported time toxicity.

Abstract Background: Venetoclax (VEN)+obinutuzumab (VO) is an effective therapy for CLL/SLL requiring regular monitoring for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) during VEN ramp-up. The CLL14 trial of VO reported no TLS during VEN ramp-up; however, there are limited real-world data on monitoring practices and TLS outcomes for different dose levels and monitoring timepoints. This study assessed VEN initiation prophylaxis and monitoring outcomes for patients (pts) with CLL/SLL starting VO in first line (1L) in an outpatient, real-world setting. Methods This interim analysis relied onretrospective observational data from 4 US sites of the CLL Collaborative Study of Real-World Evidence (CORE). Adult pts with CLL/SLL were eligible if they: (1) started VO per-label outside of a clinical trial in 1L, or immediately after exposure in 1L to agents with different mechanisms of action (i.e., BTKi, anti-CD20 only) of <30 days; (2) prior to VEN start, had either (i) low physician-determined tumor burden (TB) (i.e., all lymph nodes [LN] <5 cm and ALC <25 x 109/L), or (ii) medium physician-determined TB (i.e., any LN ≥5-<10 cm or ALC ≥25 x 109/L) with creatinine clearance ≥80 mL/min; (3) had no strong CYP3A inhibitors or prophylactic rasburicase from 3 days prior to VEN start until end of VEN ramp-up; and (4) had VEN ramp-up in an outpatient setting. TB-related labs/imaging was assessed from 2 months prior to obinutuzumab initiation (i.e., index date) until VEN start. VEN characteristics (i.e., dosing, duration), prophylaxis measures (i.e., antihyperuricemics and IV hydration), and TLS-related monitoring and management (i.e., lab results and interventions received) were collected per ramp-up week and TLS monitoring timepoint. Results Of 128 pts in CORE who initiated VO in any line, 72 pts met inclusion criteria (low TB: 57 [79.2%]; medium TB: 15 [20.8%]). Median (IQR) age was 62 (56.0, 68.5) years, 58.3% were male, and 81.9% had ECOG grade ≤1. Among pts tested, 7/68 (10.3%) had del(17p)/TP53 mutation and 43/66 (65.2%) had unmutated IGHV. Median (IQR) time from index to VEN start was 23.0 (22.0, 30.0) days. Most pts completed ramp-up (98.6% [71/72]) and followed a per-label regular dosing schedule (93.1% [67/72]). Prior to VEN ramp-up, all pts received prophylactic antihyperuricemics (allopurinol: 71 [98.6%]; febuxostat: 2 [2.8%]) and prophylactic hydration. In the 2 days prior to a dose escalation for at least 1 week of ramp-up, prophylactic IV hydration was reported for 27 (37.5%) pts based on physician determination. One pt stopped VEN after week 2 due to neutropenia (grade 3+). During ramp-up (median [IQR] of 9 [8, 12] blood tests per pt), no lab or clinical TLS was reported. Of 21 (29.2%) pts who received an intervention following a lab assessment, most had low TB at VEN start (16 [76.2%]). All interventions were either prophylactic or non-TLS-related. Following a lab assessment for at least 1 week of ramp-up, prophylactic IV or escalated oral hydration intervention was reported in 17/21 pts (81.0%) based on physician determination (e.g., to manage impaired baseline renal function in those with low TB, patient request, or institutional practice) (IV hydration: 15 pts; escalated oral hydration: 2 pts). By per-label monitoring timepoints, hydration intervention was given prophylactically following pre-dose lab tests for 7 pts (across weeks 1-5), 6-8 hours post-dose for 5 pts (weeks 1-2), and 24 hours post-dose for 10 pts (weeks 1-2). By per-label monitoring timepoints, other non-TLS-related interventions (i.e., blood transfusion for anemia, insulin for hyperglycemia, and potassium for non-TLS-related hypokalemia) were given following pre-dose lab tests for 2 pts (weeks 1-5) and 24 hours post-dose for 4 pts (weeks 1-2). Conclusion Consistent with the CLL14 trial, no TLS was reported in this real-world, interim analysis of pts with mostly low TB and good renal function at 1L VO initation. All interventions during VEN ramp-up were prophylactic or non-TLS-related, with prophylactic hydration commonly given based on physician preference. These results suggest that VO initiation is manageable in an outpatient setting. Consideration should be given for simplified monitoring requirements including potential removal of 6-8 hour post-dose lab in this population and be further explored in prospective studies. Data collection for this study is ongoing to further contextualize real-world VEN initiation prophylaxis and monitoring outcomes in a larger cohort.

Background: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) reduces quality of life and burdens healthcare systems. This study identified factors associated with frequent use of IBS diagnostic tests and procedures. Methods: Using a United States claims database (2001–2012), tests and procedures in IBS patients occurring in the 2-year study period (12 months before/following the first IBS diagnosis) were analyzed: endoscopy, GI transit testing, anorectal procedures, and radiologic imaging. Patients were classified based on test/procedure frequency (3+, 1–2, or 0). Multivariate logistic regression identified factors associated with more frequent tests/procedures. Results: Among 201,322 IBS patients, 41.7% had 3+ tests/procedures, 35.1% had 1–2, and 23.3% had 0. Patients with more tests/procedures were older [mean age 50.6 (3+ group), more likely to be female and had more comorbidities, including anxiety, depressive disorders, and somatization. Dyspepsia [odds ratio (95% confidence interval): 1.80 (1.72–1.87)], interstitial cystitis [1.60 (1.45–1.77)], gastroesophageal reflux disease [1.59 (1.55–1.63)], constipation [1.50 (1.45–1.54)], and dyspareunia [1.38 (1.25–1.52)] were significantly associated with more tests/procedures (3+ versus 1–2), while anxiety, depressive disorders, and somatization were not. Patients with more frequent specialist visits [emergency department (ED; 1.10 (1.09–1.11)) and gastroenterologists (1.26 (1.26–1.27))] or at least one GI-related ED visit or inpatient admission [1.95 (1.86–2.04) and 3.67 (3.48–3.87), respectively] were more likely to have more tests/procedures (all p < 0.05). Conclusions: Test frequency in patients with IBS is strongly associated with demographic and clinical characteristics, especially comorbid conditions related to IBS. Presence of common overlapping comorbid conditions should increase clinicians’ confidence in making the diagnosis of IBS, thus curtailing redundant testing and reducing healthcare costs.