Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34081140›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

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

Matthew C Baker, Yingjie Weng, Robert Fairchild, Neera Ahuja, Nidhi Rohatgi

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Matthew C BakerDivision of Immunology and Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Yingjie WengQuantitative Sciences Unit, Division of Biomedical Informatics Research, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Robert FairchildDivision of Immunology and Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Neera AhujaDivision of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Nidhi RohatgiDivision of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Stanford University · USStanford Medicine · US

Funding

Stanford TRANSFORM I2T ProgramR25AI147369 · NIAID · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI CHERTOW, GLENN MATTHEW, SINGH, UPINDER · 2019 to 2023
$1.8M
NIAID NIH HHS R25 AI147369
6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

AdultBiological ProductsEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHome Care ServicesHumansImmune System DiseasesInfusions, IntravenousMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicRetrospective StudiesBiological Products

Identifiers

PMID34081140
PMCPMC8176330
OpenAlexW3165248907

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.