At our institution, montelukast is an automatically included order in daratumumab-containing electronic regimens for all cycles as an added safety precaution, but it may be removed at the discretion of the treating physician after cycle 1 day 1. For this study, acetaminophen, dexamethasone, and diphenhydramine were considered required medications and montelukast was considered optional. Any omission or dose reduction of one of the required premedications was considered to be a deviation and reported as such in the results.
Eligible patients’ charts were reviewed for documentation of an ARR in the physician’s note, nursing note summary, or as evidenced by any additional documentation surrounding the dates of administration. It should be noted that per our institutional practice, a nurse calls each patient the day after daratumumab administration to assess for delayed reactions. Lack of documentation of tolerance and/or reactivity was assumed to indicate that the patient tolerated without issues and was categorized as such during data collection. Only the first 3 injections were reviewed because, as noted in the COLUMBA trial, no patients had an ARR beyond the fourth injection.10 Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
Results
The baseline characteristics of the 33 patients are illustrated in Table 1. There were no documented reactions for the first, second, or third dose of SC daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj in any patients. Four patients experienced reactions deemed unrelated to SC daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj injection by the attending physician; these reactions are detailed in Table 2. Further injections were tolerated by all 4 of these patients.
Premedications were given appropriately in 30 patients (90.9%). One patient had dexamethasone omitted, 1 patient received a decreased dexamethasone dose, and 1 patient received ibuprofen instead of acetaminophen and a decreased dose of dexamethasone. Of note, none of the patients with premedication modifications experienced a hypersensitivity reaction.
In our study, 18 patients (54.5%) who received SC daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj had previously received IV daratumumab. One of these stopped IV daratumumab due to experiencing a severe hypersensitivity reaction but was able to tolerate SC daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj without reported reactions in this study.
Of the 33 patients who received SC daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj, 24 patients (72.7%) had at least 1 specific documentation of tolerance on any of the 3 doses, whereas only 2 patients (6.1%) had documentation of tolerance after all 3 doses. It was assumed that the lack of documentation of both tolerance and/or reactivity indicated that the patient did not have an ARR.
Discussion
Although not indicated, our institution’s SC daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj administration policy included an observational period based on time to ARR seen in clinical trials, a practice that inadvertently increased chair time due to a 3-hour observation period after the first injection and 1-hour observation on all subsequent injections. This review illustrates the low incidence of ARRs with SC daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj at our institution, as there were no reported reactions on the first, second, or third injections in the 33 patients treated during the 6-month period.
As a result of this pharmacy department–driven review, our center amended the observation policy for SC daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj in March 2021 to eliminate the 1-hour observational period on subsequent doses if the first injection is tolerated. However, if a reaction occurs during the first dose’s 3-hour observation period, the patient must be monitored for 1 hour post injection on subsequent doses until no reaction occurs, after which the observation period can be eliminated (Figure).
To address the inconsistency with documentation of tolerance, a new and more automated process was created for documenting injection tolerance in the electronic health record. Currently, a table is located within the patient’s chart with sections to record if the patient received a monoclonal antibody such as daratumumab and a section to record the patient’s tolerance of treatment and whether any complications occurred during the injection or observation period. Overall, the institutional policy change was well received by key stakeholders.
The policy change was initially presented by the pharmacy department at the hematology subcommittee physician meeting, where it received initial approval by the hematology physicians. It was subsequently presented to the oncology pharmacy and therapeutics committee and received approval by physician and nursing leadership. In the implementation phase, education was provided to nursing staff on the new protocol before an official go-live date was set. The policy also was made available on the institution’s intranet. Patients were not officially surveyed for their feedback as part of this study, but they anecdotally expressed their appreciation for the reduced observation time.
Limitations
Limitations of this study include its retrospective, single-center design and the manual chart review for data collection. Additionally, this study had a small sample size due to the timing of data collection being relatively close to the FDA approval of SC daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj for multiple myeloma; at the time, not all insurance daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj, leading to denials in coverage. It is likewise a limitation of the study that the lack of documentation of tolerance and/or reactivity was assumed to indicate that the patient tolerated without issues. Furthermore, only information surrounding the first 3 SC daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj injections was collected. Thus, any reactions occurring after the third injection were not captured. Moreover, because this study was performed retrospectively, patient satisfaction feedback was not able to be collected; however, it has been described in other studies.14
About the Authors
Monica Tadros, PharmD, BCPS, BCOP, is a malignant hematology/bone marrow transplant clinical pharmacy specialist at Miami Cancer Institute–Baptist Health South Florida.
Tiba Al Sagheer, PharmD, BCOP, BCACP, is an outpatient hematopoietic stem cell transplant/bone marrow transplant/malignant hematology clinical pharmacy specialist at Miami Cancer Institute–Baptist Health South Florida.
Morgan Alvah, PharmD, is a postgraduate year 1 resident at South Florida Baptist Hospital–BayCare in Plant City, Florida. At the time of writing, she was a 4th-year pharmacy student at Palm Beach Atlantic University Lloyd L. Gregory School of Pharmacy in West Palm Beach, Florida.
Conclusion
As noted in our study results, patients with modified premedications including corticosteroid omission and/or dose decrease did not experience an ARR. Eliminating premedications prior to SC daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj injection has the potential to save an additional 30 minutes to 1 hour of chair time and has been investigated in previous studies. In the study by Maples et al, acetaminophen and diphenhydramine premedications were omitted in cycle 3 and beyond for patients without previous reaction.14 Furthermore, in a study by Yudchyts et al, acetaminophen and diphenhydramine premedications were safely omitted in cycle 4 and beyond for patients without previous reaction.15 In addition, 18 patients stopped corticosteroids and were able to tolerate treatment without any ARRs.15 Thus, it may be of value to perform a follow-up prospective study at our institution to determine whether premedications may be eliminated with SC daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj due to the low risk of reaction.
Additionally, 1 patient included in our review had a previous reaction to IV daratumumab but received SC daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj without complications. This is interesting to note because previous studies have reported an overall increase in risk of reactivity to SC daratumumab if prior IV daratumumab intolerance has been noted.16
Reducing observation time has several implications in clinical practice, including a reduction in chair time (increasing chair availability and access to care), optimization of health care resources (ie, staffing), and cost savings. Overall, our analysis demonstrated that SC daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj was well tolerated by patients and that eliminating observation time on subsequent injections is a safe practice that may result in reduced chair time and cost savings for the institution.
References
Facon T, Kumar S, Plesner T, et al; MAIA Trial Investigators. Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone for untreated myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(22):2104-2115. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1817249
Mateos MV, Dimopoulos MA, Cavo M, et al; ALCYONE Trial Investigators. Daratumumab plus bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone for untreated myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(6):518-528. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1714678
Moreau P, Attal M, Hulin C, et al. Bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone with or without daratumumab before and after autologous stem-cell transplantation for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (CASSIOPEIA): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2019;394(10192):29-38. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31240-1
Dimopoulos MA, Oriol A, Nahi H, et al; POLLUX Investigators. Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(14):1319-1331. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1607751
Palumbo A, Chanan-Khan A, Weisel K, et al; CASTOR Investigators. Daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(8):754-766. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1606038
Dimopoulos M, Quach H, Mateos MV, et al. Carfilzomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab versus carfilzomib and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (CANDOR): results from a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2020;396(10245):186-197. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30734-0
Chari A, Suvannasankha A, Fay JW, et al. Daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma. Blood. 2017;130(8):974-981. doi:10.1182/blood-2017-05-785246
Mateos MV, Nahi H, Legiec W, et al. Subcutaneous versus intravenous daratumumab in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (COLUMBA): a multicenter, open-label, non-inferiority, randomized, phase 3 trial. Lancet Haematol. 2020;7(5):e370-e380. doi:10.1016/S2353-3026(20)30070-3
Davis JA, Youngberg H, Gaffney K, Duco M, Hashmi H. ‘Fast but not so furious’: short observation time after subcutaneous daratumumab administration is both a safe and cost-effective strategy. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2022;22(8):e680-e684. doi:10.1016/j.clml.2022.03.006
Kim EB, O’Donnell E, Branagan A, et al. P-002: real-world observations and practical considerations of subcutaneous daratumumab administration in multiple myeloma. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2021;21(suppl 2):S40. doi:10.1016/S2152-2650(21)02136-4
Hamadeh IS, Moore DC, Martin A, et al. Transition from intravenous to subcutaneous daratumumab formulation in clinical practice. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2021;21(7):470-475. doi:10.1016/j.clml.2021.02.014
Maples KT, Hall KH, Joseph NS, et al. Eliminating the monitoring period with subcutaneous daratumumab: a single-center experience. Blood Cancer J. 2023;13(1):29. doi:10.1038/s41408-023-00801-1
Yudchyts A, Lin T, Vescio R. Optimizing care: discontinuing medications prior to daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj subcutaneous injection (OMIT). Blood. 2020;136 (suppl 1):22-23. doi:10.1182/blood-2020-141644
Kim CK, Douglass L, Gustafson B, et al. Characteristics of daratumumab reactions in patients who transitioned from intravenous daratumumab to subcutaneous daratumumab. Blood. 2021;138(suppl 1):4744. doi:10.1182/blood-2021-154174
The authors have no disclosures.