PURPOSE: This study aimed to explore patient and nurse satisfaction, compliance with best practice, technical feasibility and safety of home infusion of the bisphosphonate zoledronic acid (ZOL). METHODS: This was a prospective 1-year survey of home ZOL therapy (4 mg Zometa, 15-min i.v., every 3-4 weeks) in patients with bone metastases secondary to a solid malignancy. A physician questionnaire, nurse satisfaction/feasibility questionnaire and patient satisfaction questionnaire were administered at several time-points. RESULTS: Physician participation rate was 56.5% (87/154). Physicians enrolled 818 patients visited by 381 predominantly community nurses. Of the 788 case report forms received, 763 met inclusion criteria. Patient characteristics were as follows: median age, 68 years (30-95); M/F, 40/60; ECOG-PS 0 or 1, 78.6%; and primary tumour site, breast (55.2%), prostate (28.4%), lung (7.2%) or other (9.4%). Nurse satisfaction rates were high: organisation of home ZOL therapy, 90.9%; ease of infusion, 96.7%; patient-nurse relationship, 97.5%; and relationship with hospital staff, 73%. Patient satisfaction was also very high (95.3%). The main reasons were quality of the nurse-patient relationship (57.6%), less travel/waiting (68.8%), home environment (52.9%) and less disruption to daily routine (36.6%). ZOL therapy was well tolerated, the discontinuation rate due to adverse events (including deaths whether related to diseases progression or not) was 33.6%. The incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw was 0.6% and of fractures, 0.2%. Practitioner compliance with best practice was 76.7-83.7% for recommended and/or tolerated dosage, 73% for dental hygiene checks at inclusion and 48-56% thereafter, 66% for pre-infusion hydration, and often undocumented for calcium/vitamin D supplementation. CONCLUSIONS: Home ZOL therapy was well tolerated. Both patient and nurse satisfaction were very high. However, better compliance with best practice should be encouraged.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to explore patient and nurse satisfaction, compliance with best practice, technical feasibility and safety of home infusion of the bisphosphonatezoledronic acid (ZOL). METHODS: This was a prospective 1-year survey of home ZOL therapy (4 mg Zometa, 15-min i.v., every 3-4 weeks) in patients with bone metastases secondary to a solid malignancy. A physician questionnaire, nurse satisfaction/feasibility questionnaire and patient satisfaction questionnaire were administered at several time-points. RESULTS: Physician participation rate was 56.5% (87/154). Physicians enrolled 818 patients visited by 381 predominantly community nurses. Of the 788 case report forms received, 763 met inclusion criteria. Patient characteristics were as follows: median age, 68 years (30-95); M/F, 40/60; ECOG-PS 0 or 1, 78.6%; and primary tumour site, breast (55.2%), prostate (28.4%), lung (7.2%) or other (9.4%). Nurse satisfaction rates were high: organisation of home ZOL therapy, 90.9%; ease of infusion, 96.7%; patient-nurse relationship, 97.5%; and relationship with hospital staff, 73%. Patient satisfaction was also very high (95.3%). The main reasons were quality of the nurse-patient relationship (57.6%), less travel/waiting (68.8%), home environment (52.9%) and less disruption to daily routine (36.6%). ZOL therapy was well tolerated, the discontinuation rate due to adverse events (including deaths whether related to diseases progression or not) was 33.6%. The incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw was 0.6% and of fractures, 0.2%. Practitioner compliance with best practice was 76.7-83.7% for recommended and/or tolerated dosage, 73% for dental hygiene checks at inclusion and 48-56% thereafter, 66% for pre-infusion hydration, and often undocumented for calcium/vitamin D supplementation. CONCLUSIONS: Home ZOL therapy was well tolerated. Both patient and nurse satisfaction were very high. However, better compliance with best practice should be encouraged.
Authors: Aliya A Khan; Lorena P Rios; George K B Sándor; Nazir Khan; Edmund Peters; Mohammed O Rahman; Cameron M L Clokie; Edward Dore; Sacha Dubois Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2011-04-15 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Robert Coleman; Roger Burkinshaw; Matthew Winter; Helen Neville-Webbe; Jim Lester; Emma Woodward; Janet Brown Journal: Expert Opin Drug Saf Date: 2010-11-29 Impact factor: 4.250
Authors: H K Marr; C R Stiles; M A Boyar; T C Braun; N A Hagen; C Janzen; L M Whitten; J L Pereira Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: B Chern; D Joseph; D Joshua; K Pittman; G Richardson; M Schou; S Lowe; M Copeman; R De Abreu Lourenco; K Lynch Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2004-04-16 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Peter Barrett-Lee; Danny Bloomfield; Lisa Dougherty; Martyn Harries; Robert Laing; Hetal Patel; Mel Walker Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: A Wardley; N Davidson; P Barrett-Lee; A Hong; J Mansi; D Dodwell; R Murphy; T Mason; D Cameron Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2005-05-23 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: T Van den Wyngaert; M Delforge; C Doyen; L Duck; K Wouters; I Delabaye; C Wouters; H Wildiers Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-08-18 Impact factor: 3.603