P-545. Feasibility, Fidelity, and Effectiveness of Administering CABENUVA in Infusion Centers
Authors: Gutner Cassidy , Harrington Conn M , Bontempo Gilda , Pazhamalai Sivakumar , Kumar Abhishek , Rimler Kelly , Davis Karen , Williams Will , Merrill Deanna , Petty Lisa , Garris Cindy , Sarkar Supriya , Downes Katheryne , Daniele Patrick , Gaglio Bridget , May Katie , Czarnogorski Maggie 
Published: January 2025

Abstract

Background
Administering intramuscular CABENUVA at infusion centers (ICs) offers a convenient alternative for patients to receive treatment. Giving Long Acting CABENUVA in Infusion centERs (GLACIER) examined feasibility and fidelity of delivering monthly and every 2-monthly CABENUVA at ICs from the perspective of patient study participants (PSP) over 8 months.

Methods
Study data includes clinical data and questionnaires to examine PSPs experiences receiving CABENUVA in IC routine care. Quantitative questionnaires include the Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM), the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), and implementation questions. Qualitative interviews were completed with a subset of PSPs.

Results
Enrolled participants (n=44) had a mean age of 46.8, 20.5% female at birth, and 51.2% had not previously received CABENUVA. 96.4% (187/194) of injections were within the treatment window. No study withdrawal or treatment discontinuation were due to AEs. There were 16 ISR AEs in 12 participants and 19 treatment related AE in 13 participants; most were mild (Grade 1) or moderate (Grade 2). Injection site discomfort (14%) and pain (14%) were cited most frequently. No SAEs were reported. At Month 8, IC administration was highly feasible (FIM: M=4.41) and acceptable (AIM: M=4.51). Advantages of ICs included ease of parking, convenient location, ease of scheduling/rescheduling, privacy, others not knowing what medication they received, and reduced stigma (Table 1). At Month 8, 94.6% of PSPs reported being very or extremely satisfied with the ICs care. Qualitative interviews highlighted positive views of IC administration, including staff relationships and continuity in care as key acceptability factors.

Conclusion
CABENUVA administration at ICs was safe, effective, and convenient. High levels of adherence to the treatment window, acceptability, and feasibility were reported. Rapport with IC staff, continuity in care, reduction in logistical barriers and the perception of decreased stigma highlight that ICs can be a valuable alternative site of care for CAEBNUVA administration. ICs should be considered to improve convenience of treatment administration and when HCP offices have limited capacity.

Disclosures
Cassidy Gutner, PhD, GSK: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company)|ViiV Healthcare: Employee Conn M. Harrington, BA, GSK: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company)|ViiV Healthcare: Employee Gilda Bontempo, MD, GSK: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company)|ViiV Healthcare: Employee Sivakumar Pazhamalai, BPharm, GSK: Employee Abhishek Kumar, MSc, GSK: Employee|GSK: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company) Kelly Rimler, MS, GSK: Employee Karen Davis, MS, RN, GSK: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company)|ViiV Healthcare: Employee Will Williams, n/a, GSK: Employee|GSK: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company) Deanna Merrill, PharmD, MBA, AAHIVP, GSK: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company)|ViiV Healthcare: Employee Lisa Petty, MT(ASCP), GSK: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company)|ViiV Healthcare: Employee Cindy Garris, MS, GSK: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company)|ViiV Healthcare: Employee Supriya Sarkar, PhD, MPH, GSK: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company)|ViiV Healthcare: Full time employee Patrick Daniele, MS, GSK: Advisor/Consultant|ViiV Healthcare: Advisor/Consultant Bridget Gaglio, PhD, MPH, Thermo Fisher Scientific: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company) Maggie Czarnogorski, MD MPH, GSK: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company)|ViiV Healthcare: Employee