Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2021 Jun 1;4(6):e2110268.
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.10268.

Comparison of Adverse Events Among Home- vs Facility-Administered Biologic Infusions, 2007-2017

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of Adverse Events Among Home- vs Facility-Administered Biologic Infusions, 2007-2017

Matthew C Baker et al. JAMA Netw Open. .

Abstract

Importance: Infusion reactions occur in 7% to 20% of patients receiving biologics. Home infusions are convenient and incur lower costs but may be associated with more adverse events; the safety of receiving biologic infusions for immune-mediated diseases at home remains unclear.

Objective: To assess whether patients receiving home biologic infusions have increased adverse events requiring emergency department (ED) or hospital admission compared with patients receiving facility infusions.

Design, setting, and participants: This retrospective cohort study used administrative claims data from a large national insurer for adult patients who received biologic infusions for immune-mediated disease between January 2007 and December 2017. Patients with hematologic malignant neoplasms or bone marrow transplantation were excluded. Data were analyzed from August 2019 to October 2020.

Main outcomes and measures: ED or hospital admission on the same or next day after administration of a biologic infusion at home vs at a facility; secondary outcomes included discontinuation of the biologic after an ED or hospital admission and postinfusion mortality.

Results: Of a total of 57 220 patients (mean [SD] age, 50.1 [14.8] years; 512 314 [68.1%] women) who received 752 150 biologic infusions (34 078 home infusions [4.5%] to 3954 patients and 718 072 facility infusions [95.5%] to 54 770 patients), patients who received home infusions were younger (mean [SD] age, 43.2 [13.2] vs 51.3 [14.8] years), more likely to be men (14 031 [41.2%] vs 225 668 [31.4%]), and had a lower Charlson comorbidity score compared with patients who received facility infusions (mean [SD] score, 0.5 [1.0] vs 1.1 [1.3]). Home infusions were associated with 25% increased odds of ED or hospital admission on the same or next day after the infusion (odds ratio [OR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.44; P = .002) and 28% increased odds of discontinuation of the biologic after the ED or hospital admission (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.51; P = .005). There was no difference in postinfusion mortality between home or facility infusions. The rates of adverse events were highest with home infusions of tocilizumab (48 of 481 infusions [10.0%]), vedolizumab (150 of 2681 infusions [5.6%]), and infliximab (1085 of 20 653 infusions [5.3%]), although the number of tocilizumab and vedolizumab infusions was low.

Conclusions and relevance: In this study, biologic infusions administered at home, compared with those administered at a facility, were associated with increased adverse events requiring escalation of care. Because the number of home infusions has increased and is expected to continue to rise, the safety implications of administering biologic infusions at home needs to be further assessed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Annual Percentage of Infusions Delivered at Home, 2007 to 2017
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Association of Home vs Facility Biologic Infusion and ED or Hospital Admission on the Same or Next Day
ED or hospital admissions included occurred the same day as or the day after a biologic infusion. aOR indicates adjusted odds ratio; ED, emergency department.

Comment in

Similar articles

References

    1. Cooper GS, Stroehla BC. The epidemiology of autoimmune diseases. Autoimmun Rev. 2003;2(3):119-125. doi:10.1016/S1568-9972(03)00006-5 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schmier J, Ogden K, Nickman N, et al. . Costs of providing infusion therapy for rheumatoid arthritis in a hospital-based infusion center setting. Clin Ther. 2017;39(8):1600-1617. doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.06.007 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mulcahy AW, Hlavka JP, Case SR. Biosimilar cost savings in the United States: initial experience and future potential. Rand Health Q. 2018;7(4):3. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Burmester GR, Bijlsma JWJ, Cutolo M, McInnes IB. Managing rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases—past, present and future. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2017;13(7):443-448. doi:10.1038/nrrheum.2017.95 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Santos RB, Galvão VR. Monoclonal antibodies hypersensitivity: prevalence and management. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2017;37(4):695-711. doi:10.1016/j.iac.2017.07.003 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances