BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous (s.c.) administration of bortezomib is the most widely used route of administration for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma. No study has as yet prospectively evaluated home versus hospital administration of s.c. bortezomib with respect to patient preference and cost. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective trial, myeloma patients received the first administration of s.c. bortezomib of each cycle in the outpatient unit of the Department of Hematology. When possible, all subsequent doses of bortezomib within each cycle were provided at home. A cost analysis was carried out to compare the average cost of an injection of bortezomib in the outpatient unit and at home. In order to compare hospital and home administration of bortezomib for preference and satisfaction, patients had to complete 2 simple questionnaires analyzing 16 criteria, such as quality of life, well-being, social life, satisfaction, safety, quality of care, the reduction in personal transportation time, and personal anxiety. Each item was analyzed using a Likert scale. RESULTS: Fifty patients were studied. Overall, a total of 1043 s.c. injections of bortezomib were carried out, 655 (62.8%) at home, and 388 (35.2%) in the outpatient unit. The cost analysis showed that the total cost of one s.c. injection of bortezomib in the outpatient unit was €1510.09 versus €1224.57 for the home administration, which represents a reduction of €285.52, i.e. 20% of the cost of the hospital administration. The evaluation of patient preference and satisfaction showed that home administration improved the quality of life in 84% of the patients, increased well-being in 78%, and improved the activities of daily living in 72% of the cases. Overall, 98% of the patients noted their preference for home administration over the hospital administration of bortezomib. CONCLUSION: Home administration of s.c. bortezomib is cost-effective and is preferred by myeloma patients compared with hospital administration.
BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous (s.c.) administration of bortezomib is the most widely used route of administration for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma. No study has as yet prospectively evaluated home versus hospital administration of s.c. bortezomib with respect to patient preference and cost. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective trial, myelomapatients received the first administration of s.c. bortezomib of each cycle in the outpatient unit of the Department of Hematology. When possible, all subsequent doses of bortezomib within each cycle were provided at home. A cost analysis was carried out to compare the average cost of an injection of bortezomib in the outpatient unit and at home. In order to compare hospital and home administration of bortezomib for preference and satisfaction, patients had to complete 2 simple questionnaires analyzing 16 criteria, such as quality of life, well-being, social life, satisfaction, safety, quality of care, the reduction in personal transportation time, and personal anxiety. Each item was analyzed using a Likert scale. RESULTS: Fifty patients were studied. Overall, a total of 1043 s.c. injections of bortezomib were carried out, 655 (62.8%) at home, and 388 (35.2%) in the outpatient unit. The cost analysis showed that the total cost of one s.c. injection of bortezomib in the outpatient unit was €1510.09 versus €1224.57 for the home administration, which represents a reduction of €285.52, i.e. 20% of the cost of the hospital administration. The evaluation of patient preference and satisfaction showed that home administration improved the quality of life in 84% of the patients, increased well-being in 78%, and improved the activities of daily living in 72% of the cases. Overall, 98% of the patients noted their preference for home administration over the hospital administration of bortezomib. CONCLUSION: Home administration of s.c. bortezomib is cost-effective and is preferred by myelomapatients compared with hospital administration.
Authors: Bénédicte Mittaine-Marzac; Emmanuel Bagaragaza; Joël Ankri; Philippe Aegerter; Matthieu De Stampa Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Margreet Franken; Tim Kanters; Jules Coenen; Paul de Jong; Agnes Jager; Carin Uyl-de Groot Journal: Breast Date: 2020-05-16 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Evangelos Terpos; Joseph Mikhael; Roman Hajek; Ajai Chari; Sonja Zweegman; Hans C Lee; María-Victoria Mateos; Alessandra Larocca; Karthik Ramasamy; Martin Kaiser; Gordon Cook; Katja C Weisel; Caitlin L Costello; Jennifer Elliott; Antonio Palumbo; Saad Z Usmani Journal: Blood Cancer J Date: 2021-02-18 Impact factor: 11.037
Authors: Isabella Capodanno; Mirta Rocchi; Rossella Prandi; Cristina Pedroni; Enrica Tamagnini; Pierluigi Alfieri; Francesco Merli; Luca Ghirotto Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-06-05 Impact factor: 3.390