Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36365082›Full record

ArticlePharmaceutics2022

Real-World Comparative Effectiveness of Nivolumab versus Pembrolizumab in Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Hsin-Yu Kuo, Meng-Zhi Han, Chih-Hsiang Liao, Yih-Jyh Lin, Chung-Teng Wang, Shang-Hung Chen, Ting-Tsung Chang, Po-Jun Chen, Sheng-Hsiang Lin, Chiung-Yu Chen and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmaceutics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Hsin-Yu KuoDepartment of Internal Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-6413-7669
Meng-Zhi HanDepartment of Internal Medicine, An Nan Hospital, China Medical University, Tainan 70965, Taiwan.
Chih-Hsiang LiaoDepartment of Environmental Resources Management, Chia Nan University of Pharmacy and Science, Tainan 71710, Taiwan.
Yih-Jyh LinDepartment of Surgery, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan.
Chung-Teng WangDepartment of Internal Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan.
Shang-Hung ChenDepartment of Oncology, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70456, Taiwan.
Ting-Tsung ChangDepartment of Internal Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-5073-2678
Po-Jun ChenDepartment of Internal Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan.
Sheng-Hsiang LinInstitute of Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-2925-5352
Chiung-Yu ChenDepartment of Internal Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan.
Chiao-Hsiung ChuangDepartment of Internal Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan.
I-Chin WuDepartment of Internal Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0001-8280-5133
Juei-Seng WuDepartment of Internal Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-3523-9973
Tzu-Chun HongDepartment of Internal Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan.
Ming-Tsung HsiehDepartment of Internal Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan.
Yang-Cheng LeeDepartment of Internal Medicine, Tainan Municipal Hospital, Tainan 70103, Taiwan.
Hung-Tsung WuDepartment of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-0611-8427
Hong-Ming TsaiDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan.
National Cheng Kung University Hospital · TWChia Nan University of Pharmacy and Science · TWChina Medical University · TWNational Cheng Kung University · TWNational Health Research Institutes · TWTainan Municipal Hospital · TW

Funding

Hung-Tsung Wu 110-2314-B-906-002- and 110-2314-B-006-116-MY3
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeImmune checkpoint inhibitors are effective therapies for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); however, comparisons of the clinical efficacy and safety profile for these drugs are still scarce. Thus, the aims of this study were to investigate the differences in efficacy and safety between nivolumab and pembrolizumab in unresectable HCC patients in a real-world setting. PATIENTS AND

methodsA total of 115 patients who received treatment with nivolumab (n = 73) or pembrolizumab (n = 42) in combination with or without tyrosine kinase inhibitors was enrolled. Therapeutic response, survival outcomes, and safety profiles were compared among these groups. Multivariate analysis of survival response was performed using Cox proportional hazards regression.

resultsPatients treated with pembrolizumab demonstrated a significantly higher objective response rate than those with nivolumab (38.1% vs. 15.1%; odds ratio 4.18,

conclusionBoth pembrolizumab and nivolumab had significant effects for HCC therapy, and pembrolizumab had a significant survival benefit as compared with nivolumab.

Indexed as

hepatocellular carcinomaimmune checkpoint inhibitorsimmunotherapynivolumabpembrolizumabprogrammed cell death protein-1

Identifiers

PMID36365082
PMCPMC9697961
OpenAlexW4307261665

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.