Project description:BackgroundRituximab is a standard treatment for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The SABRINA trial (NCT01200758) showed that a subcutaneous (SC) rituximab formulation did not compromise efficacy or safety compared with intravenous (IV) infusion. We aimed to quantify active healthcare professional (HCP) time and patient chair time for rituximab SC and IV, including potential time savings.MethodsThis non-interventional time and motion study was run in eight countries and 30 day oncology units. Rituximab SC data were collected alongside the MabCute trial (NCT01461928); IV data were collected per routine real-world practice. Trained observers recorded active HCP time for pre-specified tasks (stopwatch) and chair time (time of day). A random intercept model was used to analyze active HCP time (by task and for all tasks combined) in the treatment room and drug preparation area, drug administration duration, chair time and patient treatment room time by country and/or across countries. Active HCP and chair time were extrapolated to a patient's first year of treatment (11 rituximab sessions).ResultsMean active HCP time was 35.0 and 23.7 minutes for IV and SC process, respectively (-32%, p <0.0001). By country, relative reduction in time was 27-58%. Absolute reduction in extrapolated active HCP time (first year of treatment) was 1.1-5.2 hours. Mean chair time was 262.1 minutes for IV, including 180.9 minutes infusion duration, vs. 67.3 minutes for SC, including 8.3 minutes SC injection administration (-74%, p <0.0001). By country, relative reduction was 53-91%. Absolute reduction in extrapolated chair time for the first year of treatment was 3.1-5.5 eight-hour days.ConclusionsCompared with rituximab IV, rituximab SC was associated with reduced chair time and active HCP time. The latter could be invested in other activities, whereas the former may lead to more available appointments, reducing waiting lists and increasing the efficiency of day oncology units.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01200758.

Project description:Introduction/objectivesMultiple modes of administration are available for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) treatments. This study examined patient and physician characteristics associated with the choice of weekly subcutaneous (SC) injection or monthly intravenous (IV) infusion for an unspecified SLE treatment.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional, US web-based survey using a direct elicitation, stated-preference methodology (HO-16-16706). Two hundred patients and 200 physicians were asked to choose between IV or SC administration in a hypothetical scenario. Pairwise and multivariate analyses estimated the odds ratio (OR) for the likelihood of choosing SC over IV for respondent characteristics.ResultsAmong patients, taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs increased the likelihood of choosing SC injection (OR 3.884), whilst having SLE-related skin problems, a fear of needles or self-injection, and never needing help around the house decreased the likelihood (OR 0.28, 0.13, 0.12, respectively; all p ≤ 0.05). Among physicians, > 95% recommended SC injection for patients who live or work far from an infusion center, prefer SC administration, and never or rarely miss medication doses. Physician characteristics including age and treatment practice also influenced choice.ConclusionsPatient and physician characteristics influence choice of SC versus IV therapy for SLE. These findings might inform shared decision-making, which could lead to improved patient outcomes. Key Points • Data regarding patient and physician preference for different modes of administration of SLE therapy are sparse. • This cross-sectional, US web-based study showed that patient and physician characteristics influence choice of SC versus IV therapy for SLE. • A degree of disconnect exists between how factors influence patients' choice and how those characteristics influence physicians' choice of SLE treatment mode of administration. • The findings from this study might inform shared decision-making, which could improve alignment between treatment choice and patient preferences, treatment satisfaction, adherence, and improved patient outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundGranisetron extended-release subcutaneous (SC) injection is a novel formulation of granisetron for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Palonosetron is administered intravenously and is indicated for CINV prevention in acute and delayed phases after the use of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) and in the acute phase after highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). No data are available regarding the impact of SC granisetron on the cost of unscheduled hydration compared with other antiemetic drugs, specifically the older-generation palonosetron.ObjectiveTo compare the costs of unscheduled hydration associated with breakthrough CINV after SC granisetron versus palonosetron administration in patients receiving MEC or HEC.MethodsThis retrospective analysis was based on electronic medical records data from a single multicenter, community-based practice involving patients receiving MEC or HEC with a 3-drug antiemetic regimen, including a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and either SC granisetron or palonosetron. A cost-of-care analysis for SC granisetron and palonosetron was based on the maximum per-unit Medicare reimbursement amounts for the use of unscheduled hydration, administration of rescue antiemetic drugs, laboratory tests, and patient office evaluations.ResultsA total of 182 patient records were evaluated, 91 for patients receiving SC granisetron and 91 receiving palonosetron. The mean per-patient cost of care related to unscheduled hydration in patients receiving HEC or MEC was significantly lower with SC granisetron ($296) than palonosetron ($837; P <.0001), including subset analysis of patients requiring additional care (SC granisetron [$691], N = 39; palonosetron [$1058], N = 72; P = .0260). The mean hydration costs per patient receiving HEC or MEC were lower with SC granisetron ($62) than with palonosetron ($253; P <.0001). The hydration costs per patient receiving only HEC were lower with SC granisetron ($66) than palonosetron ($280; P <.0001). The per-patient costs were lower when SC granisetron was administered than when palonosetron was administered as part of the antiemetic regimen, except for the cost of rescue antiemetic drug in patients receiving MEC. Fewer median unscheduled hydration therapies per patient were used with SC granisetron versus palonosetron (HEC, 3 vs 5; MEC, 2 vs 3).ConclusionThe use of SC granisetron reduced the total per-patient costs of care associated with unscheduled hydration compared with palonosetron in patients receiving HEC or MEC for breakthrough CINV events.

Dataset Information

An observational time and motion study of denosumab subcutaneous injection and zoledronic acid intravenous infusion in patients with metastatic bone disease: results from three European countries.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

An observational time and motion study of denosumab subcutaneous injection and zoledronic acid intravenous infusion in patients with metastatic bone disease: results from three European countries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets