Hi, my name is Mohamed Bailović. I'm an associate professor of medicine, director of multiple myeloma and multidisciplinary amyloidosis programs at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. At the previously just completed ASCO, there was an interesting data that was presented from IRACLIA study that looked at administering a subcutaneous version of isatuximab, which is an alternative CD38 monoclonal antibody. That's also packaged in an innovative device, an on-body injector device. And the purpose of IRACLIA was to define safety and non-inferiority of this on-body injector versus the intravenous isatuximab in ISAPOMDEX treated patients with at least one prior line of therapy. They had a dual co-primary endpoints, which were both met and notably there's perhaps a convenience aspect of having this done with the on-body injector device. I would say this is important because it brings a second option of subcutaneous delivery to the market for the benefit of patients and convenience of patients. I don't necessarily think that one drug that's subcutaneous is better than the other, but it's certainly beneficial that there's two now available in subcutaneous form. Certainly innovative that isatuximab is now packaged with this device as well, so this may potentially end up being something that allows some convenience and does not require subcutaneous pushing of the drug, etc. But again, to me the main point as a provider is availability of second subcutaneous drug, which can open more options in terms of coverage and presence of these important CD38 antibodies in all phases of disease when it comes to treatment of newly diagnosed as well as relapsed fracture and multiple myeloma.
HealthTree • June 26, 2025