ArticlePharmacoEconomics2025
Eco Friendly and Budget Smart: An Economic and Environmental Evaluation of Alternative PD-1 and PD-L1 Inhibitor Dosing Regimens.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Extent and Mitigation of Financial Toxicity of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for the Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are clinically beneficial but associated with high costs that represent a growing challenge for healthcare budgets and may affect affordability, especially in resource-limited settings. Moreover, the healthcare sector is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions, and medication-related waste-such as that from vial-based therapies-has been identified as a contributing factor. Alternative dosing strategies could reduce the environmental and financial impact of ICI therapy while maintaining clinical safety and efficacy.
methodsPopulation pharmacokinetic simulations were performed using virtual cohorts representative of the original cancer populations treated with ICIs. The analysis was conducted from a Western European hospital perspective, using Dutch public data to estimate costs (based on volume-dependent pricing) and carbon emissions from drug production, travel, and medical waste.
resultsUnder the US Food and Drug Administration exposure-matching criteria, optimized dosing regimens reduced drug costs by up to €23,311 (- 28%) and carbon emissions by up to 255 kgCO₂e (- 30%) per patient, depending on the drug and dosing strategy. Using a broader therapeutic window approach, cost savings reached up to €40,135 (- 69%) and carbon reductions up to 501 kgCO₂e (- 63%) per patient. Incorporating vial sharing further increased potential cost savings to €5,721 per patient (- 31%). All estimates reflect European pricing and emissions factors, modeled over an 8-month treatment period.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that optimizing dosing strategies can yield meaningful economic and environmental benefits in ICI therapy while maintaining drug exposure within levels defined by US Food and Drug Administration criteria or broader therapeutic windows. A user-friendly application developed in this study allows users to generate virtual populations and evaluate tailored dosing strategies, facilitating practical implementation in diverse healthcare settings.
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.