Transitioning patients with inflammatory bowel disease from hospital-based to rapid home-based infliximab: A stepwise, safety and patient-orientated process towards sustainability

BACKGROUND: Infliximab and other intravenous biologic infusions are increasingly used for chronic disorders like inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Rapid infliximab and home-based infusions are attractive solutions to address resource and capacity issues for infusion centres, yet infliximab infusion reactions reportedly occur in up to 25% of patients with IBD, even at the manufacturers’ recommended infusion duration of 2 h. AIM: To evaluate the safety, cost and patient satisfaction of transitioning from hospital-based, standard 2 h to rapid home-based, 30-min infliximab infusions. METHODS: All patients receiving rapid infliximab infusions for IBD between 2014 to 2017 (39 mo) were compared with those who received standard two-hour IFX infusions between 2005-2013 (96 mo) at a single IBD centre. Data (per-infusion and per-individual) including adverse drug reactions (ADR), duration (based on needle-departure time) and other clinical data were extracted from electronic medical records. Multivariable logistical regression analysis assessed factors potentially associated with increased risk of ADRs to rapid infusions. The primary outcome was the safety [as per relative risk (RR) of ADR] of (1) rapid 30 m infusions (both hospital- and home-based) vs standard 2 h infliximab infusions. Also, relative cost per infusion and patient satisfaction and productivity were evaluated in rapid infusion recipients who transitioned to home-based infusions. RESULTS: Of 129 patients who received 1461 rapid IFX infusions (2014-2017) were compared with 169 patients who received 2214 standard IFX infusions (2005-2013). Within the rapid cohort, 55 (42.6%) were males, median age 42 years (range 18, 86), 114 (84%) had Crohn’s disease (CD) with a median disease duration 5 years (0, 36). Median needle to departure time was higher in the standard than the rapid protocol group, 108 (70, 253) vs 50 (33, 90) min, P < 0.001), with a per infusion cost of $AUD 107.50 vs $49.77, respectively (both P < 0.001). There was no difference in median infusion duration or costs between rapid home vs hospital-based infusions (P = 0.21). 8 patients in the rapid infliximab cohort had an ADR compared with 23 standard infliximab recipients (RR 0.55% vs 1.04% respectively), hence a higher likelihood of ADR with standard compared to rapid infusions [RR 3.0, 95%CI (1.2, 7.7), P = 0.02]. No ADRs were observed in 405 rapid home-based infusions. A lower body mass index (< 22 kg/m(2)), presence of one or more extra intestinal manifestations, longer disease duration (> 3 years) and previous exposure to another biologic were each independently associated with a higher likelihood of reaction (s) to rapid infusions. All (100%) survey respondents preferred the rapid vs standard infusions, however within rapid infusion recipients, 61.3% found home based infusions more inconvenient than hospital-based infusions despite a median of 0 h per week missed from paid work and no self-reported loss of work productivity. CONCLUSION: Transitioning to rapid infliximab infusions appears very safe with significant cost benefit, patient satisfaction and avails the provision of safe, efficient, home-based infliximab infusions by IBD centres worldwide.