SynthesisAdvances in therapy2024
Differences Between Intravenous and Subcutaneous Modes of Administration in Oncology from the Patient, Healthcare Provider, and Healthcare System Perspectives: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Advances in therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Health utility values associated with pharmaceutical treatment process attributes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2026Pooled it
- Epcoritamab Step-Up Dosing Regimen Selection and Optimization Using Repeated Time-to-Event Modeling for Cytokine Release Syndrome Risk Mitigation.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Trial
- Subcutaneous immunotherapy as a catalyst for decentralized, oncologist-led cancer care: a mixed-methods analysis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Article
- Economic evidence of alternative formulations and routes of administration for identical active pharmaceutical ingredient: a systematic review.Health economics review · 2026Review
- Emerging precision medicine in multiple myeloma: clinical and preclinical landscape of T cell, natural killer cell, and macrophages engaging multi-specific antibodies.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Insights from a Survey of Drug Formulation Experts: Challenges and Preferences in High-Concentration Subcutaneous Biologic Drug Development.The AAPS journal · 2025Article
- On the Horizon: A Global Multidisciplinary Perspective on Delivering Emerging Therapies for Patients with BCG-Naïve High-Risk NMIBC.Oncology and therapy · 2025Article
- Patient Experience and Improvement Opportunities in Self-Administered, Large-Volume Subcutaneous Infusions at Home.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- Evolving treatment strategies for EGFRex20ins-mutated NSCLC: a comprehensive review of Amivantamab's role and future directions.Ecancermedicalscience · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile patients with cancer have traditionally received oncology treatments through intravenous (IV) administration, some therapies are becoming available via alternative modes of administration, such as subcutaneous (SC). This study aimed to evaluate IV versus SC therapy administration from the perspectives of the patient, healthcare provider (HCP), and healthcare system.
methodsA systematic review was conducted, searching MEDLINE and Embase databases from 2000 to 2022. This was supplemented with grey literature searches of additional sources such as conference proceedings. Observational studies and clinical trials were included if they assessed adult patients with any cancer type who were treated with pharmacologic therapies administered via IV or SC and included patient- or HCP-reported outcomes or healthcare system perspectives on the mode of administration. Records identified by the literature search were screened by two independent reviewers. Included studies were data extracted by a single reviewer and validated by a second reviewer and synthesized using a narrative approach.
resultsAfter screening, 33 unique studies were included in the systematic review. Patients and HCPs reported substantially more favorable preference rates for SC over IV treatment. Additionally, from the patient perspective there were reductions in treatment time and economic burden for SC compared with IV therapy. From the HCP's perspective, treatment time was consistently reduced by SC compared with IV treatment administration. Although information on the impact of SC and IV treatments for oncology on healthcare systems was limited, the use of SC formulations showed consistent cost savings (direct costs) and time savings from this perspective considering various uptake scenarios compared with IV administration.
conclusionCompared with IV administration, SC oncology treatment is a preferred option by patients and HCPs, increasing optionality and reducing treatment time while simultaneously increasing capacity and reducing the financial burden on healthcare systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39425890What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.