Skip to Content
Important Safety Information

Treatment Burden

Patients with AML or MDS may face significant treatment challenges1-6

IV and SC HMA therapies may add complexity to daily life1-6

For patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), including chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML), treatment can involve much more than the therapy itself.1-6

These patients are commonly prescribed hypomethylating agents (HMAs) administered through intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) injections.1 However, IV and SC options often require frequent visits to an infusion center or clinic.2,3 They may also cause injection site reactions.4

Time burden

Patients receiving an IV or SC HMA can spend substantial time traveling to each visit, waiting for their appointment, and receiving their infusion.5,6

Examples of the extra time burden parenteral HMA
administration places on patients2,3

One clinic visit for an HMA
infusion can take up to 3 hours

IV or SC HMA treatment may
require patients to visit the
clinic 5 to 7 days a month

Injection site reactions

The venous access of IV and SC administration may cause injection site reactions such as pain, redness, swelling, or discomfort during and after treatment.4

Patient adherence

Suboptimal persistence with IV or SC HMA therapy may limit its clinical benefits.1,3,7

Understand adherence

Patient preference

Patients with AML or MDS may prefer oral HMA options.1,8,9

Explore patient preference

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. Jensen CE, Heiling HM, Beke KE, et al. Time spent at home among older adults with acute myeloid leukemia receiving azacitidine- or venetoclax-based regimens. Haematologica. 2022;108(4):1006-1014. 3. Zeidan AM, Salimi T, Epstein RS. Real-world use and outcomes of hypomethylating agent therapy in higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes: why are we not achieving the promise of clinical trials? Future Oncol. 2021;17(36):5163-5175. 4. Zeidan AM, Jayade S, Schmier J, et al. Injectable hypomethylating agents for management of myelodysplastic syndromes: patients’ perspectives on treatment. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2022;22(3):e185-e198. 5. Petzer V. Oral therapies for unfit patients with acute myeloid leukemia. memo. 2025;18:341-344. 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. 7. Zeidan AM, Wang R, Wang X, et al. Clinical outcomes of older patients with AML receiving hypomethylating agents: a large population-based study in the United States. Blood Adv. 2020;4(10):2192-2201. 8. 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. 9. Zeidan AM, Tsai J-H, Karimi M, 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.