About this episode
Immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD-1 and PD-L1 have transformed the treatment landscape across a wide variety of cancers, becoming foundational therapies in oncology. Dr. Stacey Sobocinski and Dr. Michele Rice join host Dr. Kerry Schwarz to discuss what the new subcutaneous PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors could mean for oncology practice. They cover the three agents that have become available in subcutaneous formulations, their advantages and disadvantages, other important operational, financial, clinical, and safety issues for health systems to consider.
Guest speaker:
Stacey Sobocinski, Pharm.D., BCPS
Associate Director, Pharmacy Medication Management & Informatics
MD Anderson Cancer Center
Michele Rice, Pharm.D., BCOP
Senior Consulting Solutions Director
Vizient Pharmacy Enterprise Solutions
Host:
Kerry Schwarz, Pharm.D., MPH
Senior Clinical Manager, Evidence-Based Medicine and Outcomes
Vizient Center for Pharmacy Practice Excellence
Show Notes:
00:05 — Introduction
Announcer welcomes listeners to VerifiedRx, produced by the Vizient Center for Pharmacy Practice Excellence.
00:14 — Episode Overview
Host Kerry introduces the topic: new subcutaneous formulations of PD-1 and PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors.
These therapies have traditionally been administered intravenously (IV) in infusion centers.
Recently approved subcutaneous versions include:
Pembrolizumab (Keytruda Qlex)
Nivolumab (Opdivo Qvantig)
Atezolizumab (Tecentriq Hybreza)
Potential benefits include shorter administration times and relief for infusion centers operating at capacity.
Guests:
Stacy Sobacinski, Associate Director of Pharmacy Medication Management and Informatics, MD Anderson Cancer Center
Michelle Rice, Senior Pharmacy Enterprise Solutions Director, Vizient
01:39 — Clinical Data: Efficacy, Safety & Pharmacokinetics
Subcutaneous formulations were approved in combination with hyaluronidase, allowing full-dose subcutaneous administration.
Clinical studies demonstrated:
Comparable pharmacokinetics
Similar efficacy
Similar safety profiles compared to IV formulations
The main difference observed was local injection site reactions, expected with subcutaneous administration.
02:32 — Confidence in Clinical Comparisons
Although direct head-to-head trials are limited, extensive experience with IV formulations supports confidence in safety and efficacy.
Differences largely relate to administration method, not drug activity.
03:11 — Operational Impact: Changes to Workflow
Subcutaneous administration introduces new operational considerations.
Shorter inj
