Effect of alternative dosing strategies of pembrolizumab and nivolumab on health-care emissions in the Netherlands:a carbon footprint analysis

Background: Hospitals contribute substantially to greenhouse gas emissions and face a moral obligation to prioritise emission reduction. Drugs constitute an important component of the greenhouse gas emissions of hospitals. Alternative dosing strategies (ADS) have been implemented to improve the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab and nivolumab. However, the impact of these ADS on greenhouse gas emissions remains unknown. Therefore, we aimed to analyse the effect of ADS implementation on the carbon emissions of treatment with pembrolizumab and nivolumab. Methods: We used a process-based lifecycle assessment to quantify the environmental impact of pembrolizumab and nivolumab, focused on equivalent carbon dioxide emissions (CO2e). Lifecycle inventory and impact data from Erasmus University Medical Center (Rotterdam, Netherlands) were used to calculate the CO2e for pembrolizumab and nivolumab, their dosing intervals, and the impact of ADS on CO2e. The functional unit of the study was the administration of a single dose of pembrolizumab or nivolumab. Findings: In 2022, the annual carbon emissions related to pembrolizumab and nivolumab treatment in the Erasmus University Medical Center were 445 tons of CO2e, averaging 94 kg of CO2e per dose. Pharmaceutical production was the main driver of treatment-related carbon emissions (mean 92·9% of total emissions). Applying ADS resulted in 21–26% and 9–11% CO2e reductions for pembrolizumab and nivolumab, respectively. Interpretation: This study shows the environmental impact of pembrolizumab and nivolumab treatment and calls for further implementation of ADS for pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and other anti-PD-(L)1 monoclonal antibodies, and more sustainable pharmaceutical production processes. Our findings create environmental awareness and contribute to the promotion and understanding of health-care practices with lower carbon emissions. </p

The administration of immune checkpoint inhibitors via an elastomeric pump versus conventional intravenous infusion:an economic perspective

Background: Recent studies have underscored the potential of innovative administration methods to mitigate the capacity burden on healthcare systems, without compromising the quality of care. This study assessed and compared the resource utilization and associated costs of two distinct administration modes of immune checkpoint inhibitors: the innovative elastomeric pump and conventional intravenous infusion. This comparison can inform sustainable healthcare practices and healthcare decision-making to optimize treatment efficiency in an era of escalating healthcare demands. Methods: In this micro-costing study, data on resource use and time allocation for drug preparation and administration were collected using an observational, non-interventional study design. Data were registered at the oncology daycare unit and hospital pharmacy. Cost categories included drug acquisition, disposable materials, healthcare professional time for drug administration, drug preparation, and patient time spent at the oncology day care unit. Results: Drug administration through the elastomeric pump resulted in substantially lower healthcare costs when compared to conventional infusion, particularly due to reduced labor and chair time. The elastomeric pump reduced the total chair time by 78% and nurse time by 55%. Total average costs (excluding drug costs) were €103,47 and €77.99 for conventional infusion and the elastomeric pump, respectively, showcasing potential savings of €25.48 (P &lt; 0.001) per administration. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that the elastomeric pump not only offers substantial cost savings but also enhances the treatment capacity of the oncology day care unit. These findings support the adoption of the elastomeric pump in clinical settings as a cost-saving and efficient alternative to conventional infusion. Trial registration: This study has been registered in the National Trial Register (NTR), with the reference number NTR NL9473. Registration date: 05-05-2021.</p

Capacity and cost benefits of subcutaneous versus intravenous pertuzumab/trastuzumab:The EASE-SC study

Objectives: Subcutaneous administration of pertuzumab and trastuzumab offers a faster alternative to intravenous infusion for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. However, real-world data on its impact on costs and capacity remain limited. Therefore, this study aimed to compare healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of pertuzumab and trastuzumab from a societal perspective. Methods: This study was conducted at two Dutch hospitals. Observational data were collected on drug preparation, administration times, and resource use for both formulations. Patient questionnaires assessed societal costs, including travel expenses and productivity losses. Costs were calculated for patient chair time, healthcare professional time, disposables, societal expenses, and drug costs. A nationwide impact analysis estimated potential capacity and productivity gains from switching from intravenous to subcutaneous administration across the Netherlands. Results: Subcutaneous administration reduced patient chair time compared to intravenous administration, by an average of 106 min (85.5%) for maintenance doses (from 124.3 to 18.1 min) and 287 min (96.0%) for loading doses (from 299.0 to 12.0 min). Active healthcare professional time decreased by 17 min (54.1%) for maintenance doses and 25 min (66.7%) for loading doses. Drug administration costs (excluding drug costs) were lower subcutaneous administration saved approximately €172 per maintenance dose and €403 per loading dose. Nationwide adoption could create capacity for around 22,000 additional treatments annually and save 4.0 full-time equivalent healthcare professionals. Conclusion: Switching from intravenous to subcutaneous pertuzumab/trastuzumab administration substantially reduces healthcare resource use and may offer cost savings, supporting more efficient delivery of HER2-targeted therapies.</p

Cost-Effective and Sustainable Drug Use in Hospitals:A Systematic and Practice-Based Approach

Background and Objective: Rising healthcare costs challenge the financial sustainability of healthcare systems. Interventional pharmacoeconomics has emerged as a vital discipline to improve the cost-effective and sustainable use of drugs in clinical practice. However, current efforts are often fragmented, highlighting the need for an integrated hospital-wide approach. This study aimed to develop a scalable framework to systematically identify and implement cost-effective and sustainable drug use practices in hospitals. Methods: This study was conducted at the Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam between December 2022 and July 2023. A novel ‘8-Step Efficiency Model’ was designed to systematically identify and evaluate strategies for cost-effective and sustainable drug use. The process involved identifying high-expenditure drugs, systematically assessing these drugs using the Efficiency Model, and conducting a multi-disciplinary evaluation of the proposed cost-effectiveness strategies. Results: The study assessed 39 high-cost drugs, representing 57% of the Dutch national expensive drug expenditure in 2021. Initiatives for enhancing cost-effectiveness and sustainability were identified or developed for 27 out of the 39 assessed drugs (51% of the national drug expenditure in 2021). Case examples of infliximab (e.g., wastage prevention) and intravenous immunoglobulins (e.g., lean body weight dosing) illustrate practical applications of the framework, resulting in substantial cost savings and improved sustainability. Conclusions: This study presents a systematic scalable model for enhancing the cost-effectiveness of high-expenditure drugs in hospital settings. This approach not only addresses financial sustainability but also promotes the quality of patient care and sustainable drug use. This model could serve as a generic blueprint for other institutions to identify and implement cost-effective and sustainable drug use strategies.</p

Why We Should, and How We Can, Reduce the Climate Toxicity of Cancer Care

Climate change is like cancer, delayed action leads to more suffering for patients.</p

Interchangeability of immune checkpoint inhibitors:an urgent need for action

Prevailing uncertainties regarding the therapeutic interchangeability of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors affect both clinical decision making and health-care budgeting. This Personal View presents a comprehensive assessment of the fragmented regulatory landscape of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors, highlighting the complex dynamics of market competition, pricing, and the effect on health-care budgets. Our paper explores the current state of clinical trials, uninformative trial designs, and the challenges they pose in evaluating the therapeutic interchangeability of these drugs. To address these challenges, research that will inform us of the extent of interchangeability of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors is needed. We recommend head-to-head randomised controlled trials, standardised study designs for indirect comparisons, trials with monotherapy groups, post-approval trials funded from private or public sources, and adoption of a near-equivalence framework in both conducting and evaluating trials.</p

Administration can be more patient-friendly, time-saving and cost-effective:Folfirinox treatment regimen for pancreas tumors can be more efficient

Door een kritische blik te werpen op het kuurschema van FOLFIRINOX is de Werkgroep Duurzaamheid en Doelmatigheid van de Nederlandse Vereniging Voor Medische Oncologie (NVMO) erin geslaagd dit schema patiëntvriendelijker, tijdbesparend en kosteneffectiever te maken. De aanbevelingen kunnen worden geëxtrapoleerd naar andere 5FU-bevattende chemokuren waaronder modified-FOLFIRINOX, FLOT, FOLFIRI, FOLFOX en FOLFOXIRI