Efficacy Insights on Bispecific Antibodies in DLBCL

EP: 1.Bispecific Antibodies in DLBCL: Therapeutic Potential

Now Viewing

EP: 2.Efficacy Insights on Bispecific Antibodies in DLBCL

EP: 3.Bispecific Antibodies in DLBCL Trials

EP: 4.Bispecific Antibodies in DLBCL: Patient Response

EP: 5.Future Insights on Bispecific Therapies

EP: 6.Overcoming DLBCL Treatment Hurdles

EP: 7.Patient Education and Monitoring in DLBCL Treatment

EP: 8.Implementing Bispecific Treatments

EP: 9.Bispecific Toxicity Management in DLBCL Care

EP: 10.Multidisciplinary Bispecific Care

EP: 11.Pharmacists: Bispecifics and Operational Role

EP: 12.Strategies for Reducing Bispecific Therapy Toxicities

EP: 13.Unmet Needs in Bispecific Therapy Access

EP: 14.Implementing Bispecific Antibodies in Lymphoma Care

This is a video synopsis/summary of a Practice Pearls involving Zahra Mahmoudjafari, PharmD, MBA, BCOP, FHOPA; Robert Mancini, PharmD; and Amir Ali, PharmD, BCOP, FHOPA.

Zahra Mahmoudjafari, PharmD, MBA, BCOP, FHOPA, leads a segment focusing on the clinical effectiveness of bispecific antibodies in treating advanced diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). She directs a question to Amir Ali, PharmD, BCOP, inquiring about the current evidence's impact on practice.

Ali highlights 2 FDA-approved bispecifics for DLBCL: epcoritamab (subcutaneous) and glofitamab (intravenous), emphasizing their differences in administration and duration. He underscores their strong efficacy with response rates around 60%, particularly in patients previously treated with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies. Ali notes advantages such as rapid onset and patient preference for subcutaneous administration but acknowledges the need to address adverse effects.

Mahmoudjafari probes further on the practical implications of administration schedules in different health care settings, echoing concerns about chair time constraints and patient preferences. Ali emphasizes the advantage of subcutaneous administration in streamlining treatment and reducing the burden on patients regarding financial and time-related toxicities. Robert Mancini, PharmD, adds a contrasting viewpoint, acknowledging the potential benefits of longer chair time for patient interaction in some settings but agrees that the choice between subcutaneous and intravenous administration remains nuanced, contingent upon patient needs and center-specific considerations.

The conversation explores the complexities of treatment selection concerning administration methods, duration, patient comfort, and institutional capacities, stressing the need for further data to establish definitive preferences.

Video synopsis is AI-generated and reviewed by Pharmacy Times^® editorial staff.