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.
EriksonCSalsbergEForteG. Future supply and demand for oncologists: challenges to assuring access to oncology services. J Oncol Pract2007;3:79-86.
2.
KumarSKRajkumarSVDispenzieriA. Improved survival in multiple myeloma and the impact of novel therapies. Blood2008;111: 2516-20.
3.
HowladerNNooneAMKrapchoM. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975-2009 (vintage 2009 populations), National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD. http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2009_pops09/ (accessed 2012 Nov 1).
4.
GoodinHJ. The nursing shortage in the United States of America: an integrative review of the literature. J Adv Nurs2003;43:335-45.
5.
BeurhausPDonelanKDesRochesCLamkinLMalloryG. State of the oncology nursing workforce: problems and implications for strengthening the future. Nursing Econ2001;19:1-11
6.
AndersonKCAlsinaMBensingerW. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Multiple myeloma. V.2. 2013. www.nccn.org (accessed 2013 Apr 21).
MoreauPCoiteuxVHulinC. Prospective comparison of subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of bortezomib in patients with multiple myeloma. Haematologica2008;93:1908-11.
9.
MoreauPPylypenkoHGrosickiS. Subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of bortezomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma: a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority study. Lancet Oncol2011;12:431-40.
10.
ArnulfBPylypenkoHGrosickiS. Updated survival analysis of a randomized phase III study of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. Haematologica2012; 97:1925-8.
11.
MateosMV. Subcutaneous bortezomib: a step towards optimised drug use. Lancet Oncol2011;12:410-1.
12.
LonialS. Is subcutaneous bortezomib ready for prime time?Curr Hematol Malig Rep2011;6:73-4.
13.
ArgyriouAAIconomouGKalofonosHP. Bortezomib-induced peripheral neuropathy in multiple myeloma: a comprehensive review of the literature. Blood2008;112:1593-9.
14.
RichardsonPGBriembergHJagannathS. Frequency, characteristics, and reversibility of peripheral neuropathy during treatment of advanced multiple myeloma with bortezomib. J Clin Oncol2006;24:3113-20.
15.
AllenPBLindsayHThamTCK. How do patients with inflammatory bowel disease want their biological therapy administered?BMC Gastroenterol2010;10:1. doi: 10.1186/1471-230X-10-1
16.
ScarpatoSAntivalleMFavalliEG. Patient preferences in the choice of anti-TNF therapies in rheumatoid arthritis. Results from a questionnaire survey (RIVIERA study). Rheumatology (Oxford)2010; 49:289-94.
17.
LalezariJPSaagMWalworthC. An open-label safety study of enfuvirtide injection with a needle-free injection device or needle/syringe: the Biojector 2000 Open-Label Safety Study (BOSS). AIDS Res Human Retroviruses2008;24:805-13.
18.
CoulterAEntwistleVGilbertD. Sharing decisions with patients: is the information good enough?BMJ1999;318:318-22.
19.
KamimuraTMiyamotoTYokotaN. Higher incidence of injections site reactions after subcutaneous bortezomib administration on the thigh compared with the abdomen. Eu J Haematol2012;90:157-61.
20.
ObeidKMFerraraRSharmaM. Cutaneous lesion induced by a subcutaneous administration of bortezomib. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk2012;4:284-6.
21.
MateosM-VSan MuiguesJF. Safety and efficacy of subcutaneous formulation of bortezomib versus the conventional intravenous formulation in multiple myeoma. Ther Adv Hematol2012;2:117-24.
22.
MoreauPKaramaneshtIDomnikovaN. Pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and covariate analysis of subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of bortezomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. Clin Pharmacokinet2012;51:823-9.
