Is subcutaneous checkpoint inhibitor therapy as effective and as safe as the intravenous formulations?
Yes, results from studies show that efficacy and safety are comparable between subcutaneous and intravenous therapies.
Are adverse events different with administration of subcutaneous checkpoint inhibitors?
Results from studies show that adverse events are comparable between subcutaneous and intravenous therapies. Injection site reactions have been shown to occur with subcutaneous therapies, but they are not very severe, they can be managed, and they do not cause treatment discontinuation.
How long does administration of subcutaneous checkpoint inhibitors take?
The administration of subcutaneous checkpoint inhibitors takes minutes. This does not account for all aspects of treatment such as undergoing laboratory tests.
What are some of the benefits of subcutaneous checkpoint inhibitors for patients and healthcare providers?
The administration time with subcutaneous therapies is decreased compared with intravenous therapies. In addition, subcutaneous therapies can be administered in treatment centers, clinics, and outside of the hospital setting. Furthermore, with subcutaneous immunotherapy there is no need for vein access. There are potential operational benefits as well, such as decreased
chair time.
Which patients are best suited for subcutaneous checkpoint inhibitors?
Subcutaneous therapies are helpful for patients who do not require a port or whose veins are difficult to access. In addition, subcutaneous therapies are beneficial for patients who are not receiving other intravenous therapies to avoid multiple administration routes. Subcutaneous therapies are also helpful if patients have deteriorating vein quality or if patients have conditions such as movement disorders that make it difficult to sit still when receiving intravenous therapies.
Can you switch patients to subcutaneous checkpoint inhibitors?
You and your patients can work together to decide if switching makes sense. Transitioning appropriate patients to subcutaneous therapies can be beneficial for patients in terms of convenience, especially during long-term therapy, which can improve access to care. There are also operational benefits such as increasing availability of infusion chairs and reducing wait times.
Do results support that patients who receive subcutaneous checkpoint inhibitors prefer them over the intravenous formulations?
Yes, study results show that patients typically prefer subcutaneous administration over intravenous administration. Recent studies show that approximately 65% to 70% of patients prefer subcutaneous checkpoint inhibitors. Greater patient satisfaction has been observed as well.