Trial reportAnnals of clinical and translational neurology2021
Home infusions of natalizumab for people with multiple sclerosis: a pilot randomised crossover trial.
Trial report in Annals of clinical and translational neurology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and patient experience with at-home infusion of ocrelizumab for multiple sclerosis.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2023Trial
- Patient and Physician Perspectives of Treatment Burden in Multiple Sclerosis.Neurology and therapy · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe delivery of healthcare at home has expanded to intravenous infusions of monoclonal antibodies. A recently developed model of care for home infusions of natalizumab for people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis was evaluated. This pilot study of home infusions of natalizumab and usual care (attendance in a hospital out-patients' clinic) compared safety, feasibility, patient satisfaction, effectiveness and costs.
methodsIn this randomised AB/BA crossover trial, 37 adults were randomised to usual care (n = 19) or home infusions (n = 18). After three infusions, patients crossed over to the alternate treatment for another three infusions. Patient safety outcomes and adherence, satisfaction, quality of life, disability and costs were compared.
resultsNo adverse events were recorded from 207 infusions from 35 patients across both home and clinic infusions. There was no difference in adherence (p = 0.71) and infection rates (p = 0.84) between home and clinic settings. Satisfaction with "convenience" of home infusions was significantly greater (p = 0.008) but there were no differences in quality of life measures. Excluding pharmacy, costs were A$74 lower per infusion at home, including A$16 of patients" out-of-pocket costs.
interpretationThere were no differences in safety and effectiveness between clinic and home infusions of natalizumab. The home infusions were shown to be feasible, more convenient and less expensive than usual care. Larger scale studies are required to verify these preliminary findings, particularly around safety and management of hypersensitivity adverse events in the home setting and for equivalence of clinical outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.