[Immunotherapy of cancer with checkpoint inhibitors : Not only in malignant melanoma]

Real-world assessment of attenuated dosing anti-PD1 therapy as an alternative dosing strategy in a high-income country (as defined by World Bank)

The rising cost of oncological drugs poses a global challenge to patients, insurers, and policy makers, with the leading drugs worldwide by revenue from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Despite its cost, ICI is marked as a paradigm shift, offering the potential of a long-term cure. To reduce cost, an attenuated dose of ICI based on pharmacological principles can be used while maintaining efficacy. This real-world study aims to examine the prescribing patterns, the effect of financial constraints, and the outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). All patients receiving palliative intent ICI treatment for advanced NSCLC between January 2014 and April 2021 in National University Hospital, Singapore were recruited. Demographics, prescription trends, factors affecting the prescription of attenuated dose ICI (AD ICI) versus standard dose ICI (SD ICI), and the effect of dose on survival outcomes, toxicities, and costs were examined. Two hundred seventy-four received ICI. The majority of them were treated in first-line setting. One hundred sixty-two (59%) of patients received AD ICI, whereas 112 (41%) received SD ICI. Patients who did not have a supplemental private as-charged health insurance plan were more likely to have received AD ICI (OR: 4.53 [2.69–7.61] p < 0.001). There was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)—adjusted HR 1.07 CI [0.76, 1.50] p = 0.697 and HR 0.95 CI [0.67, 1.34] p = 0.773, respectively, between patients who received AD versus SD ICI. A cost minimization analysis evaluating the degree of cost savings related to drug costs estimated a within study cost saving of USD 7,939,059 over 7 years. Our study provides evidence for AD-ICI as a promising strategy to maximize the number of patients who can be treated with ICI. This has the potential to make significant economic impact and allow more patients to benefit from novel therapies.

Is the pharmaceutical industry's preoccupation with the monotherapy drug model stifling the development of effective new drug therapies?

Drug discovery and development is heavily biased towards the development of monotherapies. Screening, testing, and evaluation of mono-entity drugs are generally much simpler than drug combinations, and are generally easier to get approval from the regulatory authorities for their clinical use. However, monotherapy drugs may not have optimal activity, may have associated toxicities, or may lose activity over time as their target develops resistance. Drug combinations, often developed from existing monotherapies, may have improved efficacy and/or be less toxic. Furthermore, the existing drugs which have lost efficacy due to the development of resistance can often be re-activated by combining them with other chemical entities. Thus, whilst the current climate for drug approval, registration, and clinical use drives the majority of drug development research towards the development of monotherapies, combinations are often a substantial improvement on the original drug. This commentary examines monotherapy and combinational therapy models and discusses the benefits and limitations of each model.