Alternative dosing strategies for immune checkpoint inhibitors to improve cost-effectiveness: a special focus on nivolumab and pembrolizumab

Ruben Malmberg, Michiel Zietse, Daphne W. Dumoulin, Jeroen J.M.A. Hendrikx, Joachim G.J.V. Aerts, Astrid A.M. van der Veldt, Birgit C.P. Koch, Stefan Sleijfer, Roelof W.F. van Leeuwen*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionised cancer treatment by offering durable responses to many patients with solid and haematological cancers. The high prices and increasing use of immune checkpoint inhibitors put considerable strain on health-care budgets globally. This financial strain could jeopardise patients’ access to these anti-cancer therapies. However, substantial evidence suggests that immune checkpoint inhibitors are being administered at doses that exceed the minimum dose required for maximum anti-tumour efficacy. Therefore, investigating and implementing the most cost-effective dosing strategies for immune checkpoint inhibitors are urgently necessary. This Personal View provides an overview of existing data on immune checkpoint inhibitor pharmacology and (novel) dosing strategies for anti-PD-1 therapy with nivolumab and pembrolizumab, with a special focus on cost-effectiveness and saving potential. Furthermore, specific recommendations to guide health-care professionals are provided, through the process of prescribing, rounding, preparing, and administering nivolumab and pembrolizumab in the most practical and cost-effective way possible.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)e552-e561
JournalThe Lancet Oncology
Volume23
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2022

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Elsevier Ltd

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Alternative dosing strategies for immune checkpoint inhibitors to improve cost-effectiveness: a special focus on nivolumab and pembrolizumab'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this