Evaluating unmet needs in large-volume subcutaneous drug delivery: U.S. payer perspectives on a novel, large-volume on-body delivery system

References

• Bittner B, Richter W, Schmidt J. Subcutaneous administration of biotherapeutics: an overview of current challenges and opportunities (in eng). BioDrugs. 2018;32(5):425–440. doi: 10.1007/s40259-018-0295-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim J, De Jesus O. Medication routes of administration. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing LLC; 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein RS. Payer perspectives on intravenous versus subcutaneous administration of drugs (in eng). Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2021;13:801–807. doi: 10.2147/ceor.S317687.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polinski JM, Kowal MK, Gagnon M, et al. Home infusion: safe, clinically effective, patient preferred, and cost saving (in eng). Healthc (Amst). 2017;5(1–2):68–80. doi: 10.1016/j.hjdsi.2016.04.004.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mateos M-V, Rigaudeau S, Basu S, et al. Switching to daratumumab SC from IV is safe and preferred by patients with multiple myeloma (in eng). J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2022;29(5):1172–1177. doi: 10.1177/10781552221103551.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelhorn HL, Balantac Z, Ambrose CS, et al. Patient and physician preferences for attributes of biologic medications for severe asthma (in eng). Patient Prefer Adherence. 2019;13:1253–1268. doi: 10.2147/ppa.S198953.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mateos M-V, Nahi H, Legiec W, et al. Subcutaneous versus intravenous daratumumab in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (COLUMBA): a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial (in eng). Lancet Haematol. 2020;7(5):e370–e380. doi: 10.1016/s2352-3026(20)30070-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merz M, Salwender H, Haenel M, et al. Subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib in two different induction therapies for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an interim analysis from the prospective GMMG-MM5 trial (in eng). Haematologica. 2015;100(7):964–969. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2015.124347.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mu SD, Ai LS, Qin Y, et al. Subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib administration for multiple myeloma patients: a meta-analysis (in eng). Curr Med Sci. 2018;38(1):43–50. doi: 10.1007/s11596-018-1844-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bestsennyy O, Michelle C, Koffel A, Shah A. From facility to home: how healthcare could shift by 2025. 2022. [Online]. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/healthcare/our-insights/from-facility-to-home-how-healthcare-could-shift-by-2025#/.
   Google Scholar
• Howard J, Kent T, Stuck AR, et al. Improved cost and utilization among medicare beneficiaries dispositioned from the ED to receive home health care compared with inpatient hospitalization. Am J Accountable Care. 2019;7(1):10–16. [Online]. https://www.ajmc.com/view/improved-cost-and-utilization-among-medicare-beneficiaries-dispositioned-from-the-ed-to-receive-home-health-care-compared-with-inpatient-hospitalization.
   Google Scholar
• Wardley A, Canon J-L, Elsten L, et al. Flexible care in breast cancer. ESMO Open. 2021;6(1):100007. doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2020.100007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denys H, Martinez-Mena CL, Martens MT, et al. Safety and tolerability of subcutaneous trastuzumab at home administration, results of the phase IIIb open-label BELIS study in HER2-positive early breast cancer (in eng). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020;181(1):97–105. doi: 10.1007/s10549-020-05604-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sánchez-Félix M, Burke M, Chen HH, et al. Predicting bioavailability of monoclonal antibodies after subcutaneous administration: open innovation challenge. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2020;167:66–77. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2020.05.009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strickley RG, Lambert WJ. A review of formulations of commercially available antibodies. J Pharm Sci. 2021;110(7):2590–2608.e56. doi: 10.1016/j.xphs.2021.03.017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Senior M. Fresh from the biotech pipeline: fewer approvals, but biologics gain share. Nat Biotechnol. 2023;41(2):174–182. doi: 10.1038/s41587-022-01630-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Datta-Mannan A, Estwick S, Zhou C, et al. Influence of physiochemical properties on the subcutaneous absorption and bioavailability of monoclonal antibodies (in eng). MAbs. 2020;12(1):1770028. doi: 10.1080/19420862.2020.1770028.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Badkar AV, Gandhi RB, Davis SP, et al. Subcutaneous delivery of high-dose/volume biologics: current status and prospect for future advancements. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2021;15:159–170. doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S287323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desai M, Kundu A, Hageman M, et al. Monoclonal antibody and protein therapeutic formulations for subcutaneous delivery: high-concentration, low-volume vs. low-concentration, high-volume. MAbs. 2023;15(1):2285277. doi: 10.1080/19420862.2023.2285277.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ammor W, Chapron P, Goubil A, et al. 5PSQ-151 optimisation of the subcutaneous administration of daratumumab. Eur J Hospital Pharmacy. 2022;29(Suppl 1):A165–A165. doi: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2022-eahp.347.
   Google Scholar
• Wasserman RL, Cunningham-Rundles C, Anderson J, et al. Systemic IgG exposure and safety in patients with primary immunodeficiency: a randomized crossover study comparing a novel investigational wearable infusor versus the crono pump. Immunotherapy. 2022;14(16):1315–1328. doi: 10.2217/imt-2022-0097.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arendt-Nielsen L, Egekvist H, Bjerring P. Pain following controlled cutaneous insertion of needles with different diameters (in eng). Somatosens Mot Res. 2006;23(1–2):37–43. doi: 10.1080/08990220600700925.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaber A, Bozzato GB, Vedrine L, et al. A novel needle for subcutaneous injection of interferon beta-1a: effect on pain in volunteers and satisfaction in patients with multiple sclerosis (in eng). BMC Neurol. 2008;8(1):38. doi: 10.1186/1471-2377-8-38.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wågø KJ, Skarsvåg TI, Lundbom JS, et al. The importance of needle gauge for pain during injection of lidocaine (in eng). J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2016;50(2):115–118. doi: 10.3109/2000656x.2015.1111223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iqbal SMA, Mahgoub I, Du E, et al. Advances in healthcare wearable devices. NPJ Flex Electron. 2021;5(1):9. doi: 10.1038/s41528-021-00107-x.
   Google Scholar
• FDA. ULTOMIRIS (ravulizumab-cwvz) Injection Prescribing Information for intravenous or subcutaneous use. 2022. Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2022/761108s021lbl.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Apellis. Release details. Apellis announces U.S. FDA approval of the EMPAVELI® injector, a device to streamline self-administration. 2023. Available from: https://investors.apellis.com/news-releases/news-release-details/apellis-announces-us-fda-approval-empavelir-injector-device/. Accessed October 12, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• van den Bemt BJF, Gettings L, Domańska B, et al. A portfolio of biologic self-injection devices in rheumatology: how patient involvement in device design can improve treatment experience. Drug Deliv. 2019;26(1):384–392. doi: 10.1080/10717544.2019.1587043.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alsina L, Montoro JB, Moral PM, et al. Cost-minimization analysis of immunoglobulin treatment of primary immunodeficiency diseases in Spain (in eng). Eur J Health Econ. 2022;23(3):551–558. doi: 10.1007/s10198-021-01378-x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson KC, Landgren O, Arend RC, et al. Humanistic and economic impact of subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of oncology biologics. Future Oncol. 2019;15(28):3267–3281. doi: 10.2217/fon-2019-0368.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bittner B. Drug delivery improvements to enable a flexible care setting for monoclonal antibody medications in oncology - Analogue-based decision framework (in eng). Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2023;20(4):457–470. doi: 10.1080/17425247.2023.2184343.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Cock E, Kritikou P, Sandoval M, et al. Time savings with rituximab subcutaneous injection versus rituximab intravenous infusion: a time and motion study in eight countries. PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0157957. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157957.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Cock E, Pivot X, Hauser N, et al. A time and motion study of subcutaneous versus intravenous trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (in eng). Cancer Med. 2016;5(3):389–397. doi: 10.1002/cam4.573.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harvey MJ, Zhong Y, Morris E, et al. Assessing the transition from intravenous to subcutaneous delivery of rituximab: benefits for payers, health care professionals, and patients with lymphoma. PLoS One. 2022;17(1):e0261336. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261336.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Igarashi A, Kanegane H, Kobayashi M, et al. Cost-minimization analysis of IgPro20, a subcutaneous immunoglobulin, in Japanese patients with primary immunodeficiency (in eng). Clin Ther. 2014;36(11):1616–1624. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.08.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mallick R, Jolles S, Kanegane H, et al. Treatment satisfaction with subcutaneous immunoglobulin replacement therapy in patients with primary immunodeficiency: a pooled analysis of six hizentra® studies (in eng). J Clin Immunol. 2018;38(8):886–897. doi: 10.1007/s10875-018-0562-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCloskey C, Ortega MT, Nair S, et al. A systematic review of time and resource use costs of subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of oncology biologics in a hospital setting. Pharmacoecon Open. 2023;7(1):3–36. doi: 10.1007/s41669-022-00361-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olofsson S, Norrlid H, Karlsson E, et al. Societal cost of subcutaneous and intravenous trastuzumab for HER2-positive breast cancer - An observational study prospectively recording resource utilization in a Swedish healthcare setting. Breast. 2016;29:140–146. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2016.07.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perraudin C, Bourdin A, Vicino A, et al. Home-based subcutaneous immunoglobulin for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy patients: a Swiss cost-minimization analysis (in eng). PLoS One. 2020;15(11):e0242630. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242630.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ritchie B, Martins KJB, Tran DT, et al. Economic impact of self-administered subcutaneous versus clinic-administered intravenous immunoglobulin G therapy in Alberta, Canada: a population-based cohort study. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2022;18(1):99. doi: 10.1186/s13223-022-00735-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmier J, Ogden K, Nickman N, et al. Costs of providing infusion therapy for rheumatoid arthritis in a hospital-based infusion center setting. Clin Ther. 2017;39(8):1600–1617. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.06.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slavcev M, Spinelli A, Absalon E, et al. Results of a time and motion survey regarding subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of daratumumab in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (in eng). Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2021;13:465–473. doi: 10.2147/ceor.S302682.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Townley, C, McMullen N, Porter C. Comparing grade 4 neutropenia associated with pegfilgrastim administered via the onpro device versus manual injection with a prefilled syringe. J Hematol Oncol Pharm. 2018;8(3):119–125.
   Google Scholar
• Parra A, Hernández C, Prieto-Pinto L. Evaluation of the economic benefits, administration times, and patient preferences associated with the use of biotechnological drugs administered subcutaneously and intravenously in patients with cancer: a systematic review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2023;23(9):1017–1026. doi: 10.1080/14737167.2023.2249232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alsbrooks K, Hoerauf K. Prevalence, causes, impacts, and management of needle phobia: an international survey of a general adult population. PLoS One. 2022;17(11):e0276814. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276814.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell CF, Lau M, Lee M, et al. Insights into the choice between intravenous infusion and subcutaneous injection: physician and patient characteristics driving treatment in SLE (in eng). Clin Rheumatol. 2021;40(2):581–590. doi: 10.1007/s10067-020-05226-w.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dashiell-Aje E, Harding G, Pascoe K, et al. Patient evaluation of satisfaction and outcomes with an autoinjector for self-administration of subcutaneous belimumab in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (in eng). Patient. 2018;11(1):119–129. doi: 10.1007/s40271-017-0276-2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gonzalez JM, Ballow M, Fairchild A, et al. Primary immune deficiency: patients’ preferences for replacement immunoglobulin therapy (in eng). Front Immunol. 2022;13:827305. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.827305.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreau P, Pylypenko H, Grosicki S, et al. Subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of bortezomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma: a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority study. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(5):431–440. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70081-X.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Overton PM, Shalet N, Somers F, et al. Patient preferences for subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of treatment for chronic immune system disorders: a systematic review. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2021;15:811–834. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S303279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joshi RS, Egbuna OI, Cairns AS, et al. Performance of the pegfilgrastim on-body injector as studied with placebo buffer in healthy volunteers. Curr Med Res Opin. 2017;33(2):379–384. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2016.1257980.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahler LJ, DiBlasi R, Perez A, et al. On-body injector: an administration device for pegfilgrastim (in eng). Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2017;21(1):121–122. doi: 10.1188/17.Cjon.121-122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deeb A, Al Yaarubi S, Abbas BB, et al. Patients’ perception of the use of the EasyPod growth hormone injector device and impact on injection adherence: a multi-center regional study. Front Pediatr. 2022;10:839278. doi: 10.3389/fped.2022.839278.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yenerel MN, Sicre de Fontbrune F, Piatek C, et al. Phase 3 study of subcutaneous versus intravenous ravulizumab in eculizumab-experienced adult patients with PNH: primary analysis and 1-year follow-up. Adv Ther. 2023;40(1):211–232. doi: 10.1007/s12325-022-02339-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Shaughnessy J, Sousa S, Cruz J, et al. Preference for the fixed-dose combination of pertuzumab and trastuzumab for subcutaneous injection in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (PHranceSCa): a randomised, open-label phase II study (in eng). Eur J Cancer. 2021;152:223–232. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.03.047.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United States Census Bureau. Population projections: Census Burea Projects U.S. and World Populations on New Year’s Day. 2023. Available from: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popproj.html#:∼:text=News,-View%20More&text=The%20U.S.%20Census%20Bureau%20projected,334%2C233%2C854%20on%20January%201%2C%202023.&text=New%20population%20estimates%20and%20projections,International%20Data%20Base%20(IDB).
   Google Scholar
• Kuter DJ, Arnold DM, Rodeghiero F, et al. Safety and efficacy of self-administered romiplostim in patients with immune thrombocytopenia: results of an integrated database of five clinical trials (in eng). Am J Hematol. 2020;95(6):643–651. doi: 10.1002/ajh.25776.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AHIP. Hospital price hikes: markups for drugs cost patients thousands of dollars. 2023. [Online]. Available from: https://www.ahip.org/documents/202304-AHIP_1P_Specialty_Pharmacy_report_update-v02.pdf.
   Google Scholar