Patient perspectives and preferences for step-up dosing and treatment with teclistamab and talquetamab: Insights from a patient survey

Abstract

Abstract Background Teclistamab (Tec) and Talquetamab (Tal) are the two first FDA approved bispecific antibodies (BsAb) for the treatment of patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Both Tec and Tal should be initiated with step-up dosing (SUD) in an inpatient (IP) setting to mitigate the risk of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), per US label. However, standard of care practice continues to evolve and more pts receive SUD as an outpatient (OP) to reduce healthcare resource utilization and improve pt convenience. While most real-world evidence has focused on clinical and safety outcomes of pts treated with Tec and Tal, pt experience associated with these novel BsAb therapies is relatively unexplored. Methods HealthTree Foundation, a multiple myeloma pt advocacy group which provides enrolled pts with information on treatments, community groups, and research participation, surveyed RRMM patients who have received Tec or Tal. Eligible pts who completed the treatment experience survey had at least 4 months of follow-up after starting BsAb. The survey was fielded from May 2024 through June 2025. Data collection followed IRB-exempt protocols with informed consent. Results A total of 32 patients (24 Tec, 8 Tal) completed the survey. The median age was 70 years, 50% were male, and 84% were white. Most pts (n=24; 75%) received SUD at their primary oncology clinic (n=19, 59% at an academic center; n=5, 16% at local community center), and 8 (25%) at an academic center which was not their primary oncology clinic. All pts who received SUD at an academic center that was not their primary oncology clinic later transitioned to their local community clinic post-SUD and reported being satisfied or very satisfied with their transition of care experience. Overall, most pts (n= 21; 66%) received their entire step-up dosing during a single hospitalization, while some (n=6; 19%) received all doses of the SUD during separate hospitalizations for each dose. About 13% (n=4) received all SUD in an OP setting, and 3% (n=1) received SUD in a hybrid setting (mix of IP and OP). Although 85% (n=27) of the pts received IP SUD, 66% (n=21) would have preferred IP SUD in one hospitalization, while the remaining 34% (n=11) would have preferred OP or hybrid SUD. Among pts who received IP SUD (n=27), almost a quarter reported a preference for either OP (n=4; 15%) or hybrid SUD (n=2; 7%) and 78% (n=21) preferred one IP hospitalization for SUD. The factors influencing their preference for the setting of SUD in this IP sub-group were feeling more secure with IP monitoring (78%), convenience (26%), less worry about staying near healthcare centers (15%), being able to stay with their local physician (11%), staying closer to home (7%), and lower costs to the pt (4%). Among pts receiving OP SUD (n=4), 75% (n=3) preferred fully OP SUD and 25% (n=1) preferred hybrid SUD because of convenience (n=2; 50%), lower cost to pt (n=1; 25%), flexible dosing schedule (n=1; 25%), and feeling of security with IP monitoring (n=1; 25%). All the pts receiving hybrid SUD (n=1) preferred fully OP SUD due to convenience. Although Tec and Tal are subcutaneous (SC) injections, when patients were asked to compare the options of BsAbs with comparable efficacy and safety profile, they favored SC injection (n= 22; 69%) over intravenous infusion (n = 3; 9%), while 22% (n=7) had no preference for mode of drug administration. The challenges that impacted pt experience with Tec or Tal were treatment side effects (Tal pts: n=6, 75%; Tec pts: n=9, 38%) and distance or travel time to the treatment facility (Tal pts: n=2, 25%; Tec pts: n=4; 17%). Other reasons included caring for others, continuing to work, cost and insurance, lack of caregiver/care partner, being away from home, unavailability of the therapy in community setting near home, and eligibility criteria. Conclusions Most pts in this study received SUD at their primary oncology clinic. While most pts received IP SUD and preferred a single planned IP visit, one third preferred OP or hybrid SUD due to convenience. As the field moves toward OP-only SUD, this study underscores the need to consider pt preferences. There is an unmet need for community clinics providing SUD options closer to pt homes.