This is a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing subcutaneous (s.c.) versus intravenous (i.v.) administration of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in patients with solid tumors. The analysis synthesized data from 1243 patients (746 received s.c. administration, and 497 received i.v. administration).
The authors found no significant difference in overall survival (HR = 0.86; 95% CI 0.68, 1.08; P = 0.19), progression-free survival (HR = 1.06; 95% CI 0.92, 1.23; P = 0.42), or objective response rate (RR = 1.18; 95% CI 0.97, 1.43; P = 0.09) between the two administration routes. Drug concentration data showed no significant difference, though specific effect sizes were not reported.
Regarding safety, arthralgia was more commonly associated with s.c. administration, while injection site reactions had a higher incidence with i.v. administration. The review did not report serious adverse events, discontinuations, or detailed tolerability data.
Limitations include the lack of reported follow-up duration, funding sources, and potential conflicts of interest. The authors note that subcutaneous administration appears to be a viable and complementary alternative to traditional intravenous delivery, but the evidence is observational and does not establish causality.
Practice relevance is restrained; clinicians may consider subcutaneous administration as an option, but the findings are based on pooled data without trial-level detail on specific populations or interventions.
View Original Abstract ↓
ObjectiveThe aim was to evaluate the differences in pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, and safety between subcutaneous (s.c.) and intravenous (i.v.) administration of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in the treatment of solid tumors, and to explore the development history and future prospects of s.c. administration of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies from inception to October 10, 2025. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were used to compare the pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of s.c. and i.v. PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in the treatment of solid tumors. Review Manager 5.4.1 was used to analyze the data. Primary outcomes and endpoints included serum drug concentration、overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AE).ResultsThis systematic review and meta-analysis included three randomized controlled trials with a total of 1243 patients (746 received s.c. administration, and 497 received i.v. administration). Compared to the i.v. administration, there were no significant differences in drug concentration, OS [HR = 0.86; 95% CI (0.68, 1.08); P = 0.19], PFS [HR = 1.06; 95% CI (0.92, 1.23); P = 0.42], or ORR [RR = 1.18; 95% CI (0.97, 1.43); P = 0.09] for the s.c. administration of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. Regarding AE, arthralgia was more commonly associated with s.c. administration, whereas i.v. administration resulted in a higher incidence of injection site reactions.ConclusionThe pharmacokinetics of s.c.PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors for the treatment of solid tumors are similar to those of i.v. administration, and no significant differences were found in efficacy and safety analyses; This finding supports s.c. administration as a viable and complementary alternative to traditional i.v. delivery.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD420251161810.