ArticleCrohn's & colitis 3602021
Home Infusions for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Are Safe: US Experience and Patient Perspectives.
Article in Crohn's & colitis 360, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-World Persistency for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Biologics Using Patient Registry Data.Crohn's & colitis 360 · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHome infusions (HIs) for biologic medications are an option for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients in the United States. We aimed to describe the population receiving HIs and report patient experience with HIs.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study in the Quintiles-IMSLegacy PharMetrics Adjudicated Claims Database from 2010 to 2016 to describe the population receiving infliximab (IFX) and vedolizumab (VDZ) HIs and determine predictors for an urgent/emergent visit post-HIs. We then administered a cross-sectional survey to IBD Partners Internet-based cohort participants to assess knowledge and experience with infusions.
resultsWe identified claims for 11 892 conventional IFX patients, 1573 home IFX patients, 438 conventional VDZ patients, and 138 home VDZ patients. There were no differences in demographics or median charges with IFX home and conventional infusions. Home VDZ infusions had a greater median charge than conventional VDZ infusion. Less than 4% of patients had an urgent/emergent visit post-HIs. Charlson comorbidity index > 0 (odds ratio [OR]: 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-3.77) and Medicaid (OR: 3.01; 95% CI, 1.53-5.94) conferred significantly higher odds of urgent/emergent visit post-HIs. In IBD Partners, 644 IBD patients responded; 56 received HIs. The majority chose HIs to save time and preferred HIs to conventional infusions. Only 2 patients reported an urgent/emergent visit for HI-related problems.
conclusionsHI appears to be safe in IBD patients receiving IFX and VDZ. However, patients with fewer resources and more comorbidities are at increased risk for an urgent/emergent visit post-HIs. The overall patient experience with HI is positive. Expansion of HIs may result in decreased therapy-related logistic burden for carefully selected patients.
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.