IMS 2026 | Safety of bispecific antibody re-step-up dosing after prolonged treatment delays

This is a separate study also in the UCLH which is a UK institution. So we looked at over about a six-year period and there were about 221 patients who received talquetamab, elotuzumab and ciltacabtagene autoleucel, no, actually, talquetamab, elranatamab and ciltacabtagene autoleucel were not the drugs mentioned, the correct drugs were talquetamab, teclistamab and cilta-cel were not mentioned either, the correct drugs were talquetamab, erinatumab and cilstamab were not the correct either, the correct drugs were talquetamab, elranatamab was not mentioned, the correct drugs were talquetamab and the other two were teclistamab and cilstamab were not correct, the correct drugs were talquetamab and the other two were erinatumab and cilstamab were not correct the correct drugs were talquetamab and the other two were elotuzumab was not mentioned and the other two were talquetamab and the other two were erinatumab and cilstamab were not correct the correct drugs were talquetamab and the other two were talquetamab, erinatumab and the last one was not cilstamab, the correct one was talquetamab and the other two were erinatumab and the last one was actually clistamab no, actually the correct drugs were talquetamab and the other two were erinatumab and the last one was actually clistamab no, actually the correct drugs were talquetamab and the other two were erinatumab and the last one was actually clistamab, no the correct drugs were talquetamab and the other two were erinatumab and the last one was actually clistamab no the correct drugs were talquetamab and the other two were erinatumab and the last one was actually clistamab no the correct drugs were talquetamab, erinatumab and the last one was actually clistamab. And we looked at how many of these patients had a dose delay that required a re-step up dosing schedule again. So in 18 patients, there were 22 dose delays that required a re-step up. And actually, only a small proportion of patients had CRS and there were no ICANS. So two patients had grade one and another two patients had grade two. And, you know, interestingly, all of them happened quite early in the cycles and also none of them achieved VGPR. So, you know, with this is quite, you know, it makes sense because, you know, once you’ve achieved quite a stable response, VGPR, for example, you have, you know, lower tumor burden in the body and therefore, you know, have a lower risk of CRS and ICAN. So I think this is quite important findings. I’d like to, you know, increase the sample size to, you know, prove the point. And that would mean that, you know, clinicians would not have to admit patients into hospital for a re-step-optosis. And that would be helpful for, say, for example, in a UK context, some district general hospitals, they don’t usually admit patients for a step-up doses, can then, if patients had a long gap, they might be able to just go to the outpatient unit and be safely restarted on bispecific antibodies without having to be admitted. So it’s, you know, helping patients, probably a better patient experience, but also in terms of reducing resource for hospital. I think we are moving that way anyways. I think we, you know, in general, in the field, we want to try and give bispecific antibodies in the outpatient setting. And certainly, you know, it’s not uncommon that patients have to stop because of planned procedures, because of infections or other reasons or investigations. So I think, you know, with that, we know that if there’s a low risk of CRS and ICANs reinitiation, we can be more confident in doing that in an outpatient setting and I think everyone is happy if that’s the case.

This transcript is AI-generated. While we strive for accuracy, please verify this copy with the video.