Observational studyAdvances in therapy2025
A Time and Motion Study Comparing Subcutaneous Pembrolizumab Versus Intravenous Pembrolizumab in Combination with Chemotherapy for the Treatment of Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.
Observational study in Advances in therapy, 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.
- Subcutaneous administration of pembrolizumab: a paradigm shift toward patient-centered cancer care.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSubcutaneous (SC) formulations of oncology therapies could provide time-saving benefits for both patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) compared with intravenous (IV) delivery. This prospective observational study, conducted alongside the MK-3475A-D77 phase 3, open-label randomized clinical trial, quantifies HCP and patient time with pembrolizumab SC versus pembrolizumab IV among patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.
methodsSeventeen sites across eight countries in Europe (n = 4), South America (n = 3), and Asia (n = 1) were enrolled. Primary endpoints were active HCP time; patient time in the treatment chair, treatment room, and healthcare facility; and consumables usage. Descriptive statistics included weighted mean (WM), and a linear mixed model (LMM) was employed to explore differences in time measures between pembrolizumab SC and pembrolizumab IV per visit.
resultsOverall, 212 observations were analyzed (153 SC and 59 IV). Total active HCP time was reduced by 45.6% with SC versus IV (WM, 14.0 vs 25.8 min); HCPs spent 44.3% less time on the drug preparation process with SC versus IV (WM, 5.1 vs 9.1 min) and 46.3% less time on the drug administration process with SC versus IV (WM, 8.9 vs 16.7 min). Patient chair time was reduced by 49.6% with SC versus IV (WM, 59.0 vs 117.2 min). Patients receiving SC spent less time in the treatment room than those receiving IV (WM, 66.7 vs 126.9 min; difference - 47.4%). Exploratory LMM showed considerable between-group differences for active HCP time and patient time in the treatment chair and treatment room.
conclusionPembrolizumab SC substantially reduces active HCP time and patient chair time versus pembrolizumab IV. Time liberated for HCPs could be reallocated toward additional patient care activities, while optimized chair utilization could improve overall healthcare efficiency.
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.