ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2021
Model-based simulation to support the extended dosing regimens of atezolizumab.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacokinetic insights into atezolizumab SC: viability of extended dosing intervals beyond the standard regimen.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Review
- Eco Friendly and Budget Smart: An Economic and Environmental Evaluation of Alternative PD-1 and PD-L1 Inhibitor Dosing Regimens.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
- An Evidence-Based Rationale for Dose De-escalation of Subcutaneous Atezolizumab.Targeted oncology · 2024Article
- Interventional pharmacoeconomics for immune checkpoint inhibitors through alternative dosing strategies.British journal of cancer · 2023Review
- In Silico Re-Optimization of Atezolizumab Dosing Using Population Pharmacokinetic Simulation and Exposure-Response Simulation.Journal of clinical pharmacology · 2023Article
- Immune checkpoint-targeted antibodies: a room for dose and schedule optimization?Journal of hematology & oncology · 2022Review
- Dosing Regimens of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: Attempts at Lower Dose, Less Frequency, Shorter Course.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe currently recommended dosages of atezolizumab for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and urothelial carcinoma (UC) is 840 mg every 2 weeks, 1200 mg every 3 weeks (q3w), and 1680 mg every 4 weeks (q4w). However, it has been argued that these dosages may not be optimal. This study aimed to explore the feasibility of extended dosing regimens by population pharmacokinetics (PK) simulations and exposure-response (E-R) relationships.
methodsAll simulations were conducted based on the established population PK and E-R model for safety (i.e., adverse events of special interest, AESI) and efficacy (i.e., objective response rate, ORR) for patients with NSCLC or UC. The PK, AESI, and ORR profiles of the following dosing regimens were simulated: (i) 840 mg q4w, (ii) 1200 mg every 6 weeks (q6w), and (iii) 1680 mg q8w. These regimens were compared with those of the 1200 mg q3w standard regimen.
resultsThe simulation revealed that the ranking of efficacy for different extended dosing regimens were 1680 mg q8w ≅ 1200 mg q3w ≅ 1200 mg q6w > 840 mg q4w based on the predicted probability of ORR in patients with NSCLC and UC, and this ranking order was similar to that of the safety outcome of the AESI. The minimum serum concentration at steady-state (C
conclusionThe findings from this simulation suggest that extended dosing regimens are unlikely to significantly impair clinical outcomes and may provide more therapeutic benefits to patients in terms of safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.