Patient Preference
Patients with AML or MDS may prefer oral HMA options1-3
Preference for an oral HMA may reflect desire for convenience vs IV or SC regimens1-3
Oral hypomethylating agents (HMAs) enable patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), including chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML), to undergo treatment while avoiding visits to an infusion center or clinic for infusions or injections.1 For such reasons, eligible patients may prefer oral over subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) options.2,3
In a survey of patients with AML who had experience with both oral and IV or SC therapies (N=21)2*:
said they preferred receiving an oral treatment
said they would choose a hypothetical oral vs injection option, assuming they both had similar efficacy and toxicity profiles
responded that they preferred an oral treatment because they could conveniently take it at home
In a noninterventional survey of patients with MDS and MDS caregivers (N=184), a forecast of predicted treatment choices found3†:
expressed a preference for switching to oral treatment when offered alongside other options
- Only 4.3% to 5.6% would choose IV administration based on the number of infusion visits
- Only 11.3% would choose SC administration if a decitabine and cedazuridine oral combination tablet was an option
*In a qualitative study of 21 adult patients with AML ineligible for induction chemotherapy. The objective was to explore patient preferences for different modes of administration (eg, oral vs injectable) of HMA treatments.2
†In a noninterventional, mixed-methods study of patients with MDS and MDS caregivers. The objective was to show preferences of patients in the United States and Canada for HMAs’ benefits, risks, and burden of administration through an online, discrete-choice experiment. Statistical significance was defined with a threshold of 5% of Type I error. 184 out of 275 respondents completed the survey. This study has potential limitations, including the use of online surveys and reliance on patient organization networks for participant recruitment.3
The potential impact of IV/SC therapy
This patient preference video illustrates how patients with MDS feel about the impact of IV/SC therapy and why they may prefer an oral option.
References: 1. Haumschild R, Kennerly-Shah J, Barbarotta L, Zeidan AM. Clinical activity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of oral hypomethylating agents for myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms and acute myeloid leukemia: A multidisciplinary review. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2024;30(4):721-736. 2. Delmas A, Batchelder L, Arora I, et al. Exploring preferences of different modes of administration of hypomethylating agent treatments among patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Front Oncol. 2023;13:1160966. 3. Zeidan AM, Jayade S, Schmier J, et al. Patient preferences for benefits, risks, and administration route of hypomethylating agents in myelodysplastic syndromes. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2022;22(9):e853-e866. 4. Data on file. Taiho Oncology Inc., Princeton, NJ. 5. INQOVI [package insert]. Princeton, NJ: Taiho Oncology, Inc.; 2026. 6. Garcia-Manero G, McCloskey J, Griffiths EA, et al. Oral decitabine-cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine for myelodysplastic syndromes and chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia (ASCERTAIN): a registrational, randomised, crossover, pharmacokinetics, phase 3 study. Lancet Haematol. 2024;11(1):e15-e26.