Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Introduction: Intravenous anticancer treatments present challenges for patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs), prompting the development of subcutaneous formulations. In the phase 3 PALOMA-3 study, subcutaneous amivantamab demonstrated noninferior pharmacokinetics and response rates versus intravenous amivantamab (both with lazertinib), with substantially faster administration, a 5-fold reduction in infusion-related reactions, reduced venous thromboembolism, and numerically prolonged survival.
Methods: Participants with EGFR-mutated NSCLC and progression on osimertinib and chemotherapy were randomized to subcutaneous (n = 206) or intravenous amivantamab (n = 212), plus lazertinib. Resource utilization and participant-reported treatment satisfaction were evaluated at cycle (C) 1 day (D) 1 and C3D1.
Results: Time-in-chair was substantially lower for subcutaneous versus intravenous amivantamab (C1D1: median [range], 23 min or 0.4 h [0-12.0 h] vs 6.5 h [0-24.0 h]; C3D1: 35 min or 0.6 h [0-6.6 h] vs 3.4 h [0.5-9.0 h]), as were HCP time and participant time-in-room. More participants who received subcutaneous versus intravenous amivantamab reported feeling unrestricted (C1D1, 66 % vs 29 %; C3D1, 60 % vs 42 %) or unbothered (C1D1, 69 % vs 30 %; C3D1, 71 % vs 45 %) by administration, and reported gaining time for other activities (C1D1, 36 % vs 7 %; C3D1, 37 % vs 6 %). Few participants who received subcutaneous amivantamab reported moderate-to-very severe injection-site pain (C1D1, 14 %; C3D1, 16 %), swelling (C1D1, 5 %; C3D1, 6 %), or redness (C1D1, 5 %; C3D1, 6 %). Most subcutaneous amivantamab recipients preferred and were more satisfied with its administration versus historical experience with intravenous therapies and would recommend it.
Conclusions: In PALOMA-3, subcutaneous amivantamab, which simplifies and shortens administration, reduces resource utilization, and enhances treatment experience, was a preferred option for patients who received amivantamab-lazertinib.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2025.115624 | DOI Listing |