Saad D. Alnofaie
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Saad D. Alnofaie has a total of 7 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Abdullah M. Aldekhail
Department of Clinical Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
1 shared publication - Abdulrahman A. Bs Pharm Alghamdi
Pharmaceutical Services Department, Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh 11159, Saudi Arabia
1 shared publication - Abdulrahman Alwhaibi
Department of Clinical Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
1 shared publication - Miteb A. Alenazi
Corporate Department of Pharmacy, King Saud University Medical City, Riyadh 12372, Saudi Arabia
1 shared publication - Rakan Jamal Alanazi
Pharmacy Practice Department, College of Pharmacy, Alfaisal University, Riyadh 11533, Saudi Arabia
1 shared publication - Saleh Ayed Alanazi
Pharmaceutical Care Services, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 20 August 2024
- Published by MDPI AG in Journal of Clinical Medicine
- Vol. 13 (16) , 4918
Real-World Comparison of Health-Related Quality of Life Associated with Use of Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitors in Oncology Patients
Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) offer a new treatment approach for cancer, with an improvement in patient survival. However, it remains unclear whether their use impacts the quality of life of treated patients. This study aims to compare the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients treated with different anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 drugs, including several single or combination therapies. Methods: This is a prospective observational study conducted with adult cancer patients who received at least one dose of anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1. The HRQoL of all adult patients was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 module (QLQ-C30), version 3, Arabic version. Results: A total of 199 patients were found to be eligible for this study. Of these, 93 patients (82 on a single medication and 11 on multiple ICIs) completed the questionnaire, with a response rate of 46.7%. The majority of patients were treated with pembrolizumab (39.8%), followed by a smaller number treated with nivolumab (35.5%). Most of the patients were diagnosed with solid and advanced malignancies—88.2% (p = 0.023) and 87.1% (p = 0.021), respectively—with a significant difference between treatment groups. The median functioning score was 84.7%, with no significant difference between treatment groups (p = 0.752). Fatigue and pain were noted in >50% of patients, influencing the overall cohort’s score related to these symptoms, with scores of 88.8% and 83.3%, respectively. Although a non-significant variation was found in the scores of all combined symptoms among all groups, ranging from 82.1% to 90.4% (p = 0.931), patients receiving anti-PD-1 + anti-PD-L1 tended to more frequently complain about fatigue, pain, dyspnea, and constipation and hence, exhibited the worst, yet non-significant, scores compared to those of the other groups, with p = 0.234, p = 0.79, p = 0.704, and p = 0.86, respectively. All combined groups scored 83.3% on the global health scale. Nevertheless, the nivolumab-treated patients scored 75%, which was the worst global health score compared with those of the other groups, but this score was not statistically significant (p = 0.809). Conclusions: Our findings revealed no significant difference in the impact of different ICIs on the HRQoL of cancer patients. However, a larger number of cases would be necessary to provide a robust analysis and to yield conclusive results.
- 20 August 2024
- Published by MDPI AG in Journal of Clinical Medicine
- Vol. 13 (16) , 4918
Open AccessReal-World Comparison of Health-Related Quality of Life Associated with Use of Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitors in Oncology Patients
Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) offer a new treatment approach for cancer, with an improvement in patient survival. However, it remains unclear whether their use impacts the quality of life of treated patients. This study aims to compare the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients treated with different anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 drugs, including several single or combination therapies. Methods: This is a prospective observational study conducted with adult cancer patients who received at least one dose of anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1. The HRQoL of all adult patients was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 module (QLQ-C30), version 3, Arabic version. Results: A total of 199 patients were found to be eligible for this study. Of these, 93 patients (82 on a single medication and 11 on multiple ICIs) completed the questionnaire, with a response rate of 46.7%. The majority of patients were treated with pembrolizumab (39.8%), followed by a smaller number treated with nivolumab (35.5%). Most of the patients were diagnosed with solid and advanced malignancies—88.2% (p = 0.023) and 87.1% (p = 0.021), respectively—with a significant difference between treatment groups. The median functioning score was 84.7%, with no significant difference between treatment groups (p = 0.752). Fatigue and pain were noted in >50% of patients, influencing the overall cohort’s score related to these symptoms, with scores of 88.8% and 83.3%, respectively. Although a non-significant variation was found in the scores of all combined symptoms among all groups, ranging from 82.1% to 90.4% (p = 0.931), patients receiving anti-PD-1 + anti-PD-L1 tended to more frequently complain about fatigue, pain, dyspnea, and constipation and hence, exhibited the worst, yet non-significant, scores compared to those of the other groups, with p = 0.234, p = 0.79, p = 0.704, and p = 0.86, respectively. All combined groups scored 83.3% on the global health scale. Nevertheless, the nivolumab-treated patients scored 75%, which was the worst global health score compared with those of the other groups, but this score was not statistically significant (p = 0.809). Conclusions: Our findings revealed no significant difference in the impact of different ICIs on the HRQoL of cancer patients. However, a larger number of cases would be necessary to provide a robust analysis and to yield conclusive results.