The Urgent Need for Medicare Reimbursement for Home Infusion Antibiotics Amidst a Pandemic

Evaluation of Opportunities for Oral Antibiotic Therapy in Bone and Joint Infections

BACKGROUND

The OVIVA trial suggests oral antibiotics are an alternative to intravenous antibiotics to treat bone and joint infections (BJI). A shift in practice to treatment with oral antibiotics would eliminate the need for central vascular access, improve patient satisfaction, and reduce overall healthcare costs.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to identify the proportion of patients treated for BJIs with outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) who would have qualified for oral antibiotics based on microbiological data. The secondary objective was to conduct a cost-analysis to estimate potential cost-savings had eligible patients been treated with oral antibiotics.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective study of adult patients in the United States treated with intravenous antibiotics for BJIs from January 2018 to April 2020. Inclusion and exclusion criteria matched the OVIVA trial. Patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, endocarditis, or other high-risk features were excluded.

RESULTS

281 patients met the inclusion criteria. Most had prosthetic joint infections (56%). Infections caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci (25%) were most common, followed by S. aureus (23%) and polymicrobial infections (22%). 69 (25%) patients required a switch during their OPAT course to an alternate antibiotic agent. Thirteen patients (5%) experienced vascular access complications, and 6 patients (2%) developed Clostridiodes difficile infections. Oral therapy could have resulted in an estimated average savings per patient of $3,270.69 USD.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Most patients treated with OPAT for BJIs were candidates for oral antibiotics. A change in practice would result in cost-savings to the U.S. healthcare system.

Comparison of Adverse Events Among Home- vs Facility-Administered Biologic Infusions, 2007-2017

IMPORTANCE

Infusion reactions occur in 7% to 20% of patients receiving biologics. Home infusions are convenient and incur lower costs but may be associated with more adverse events; the safety of receiving biologic infusions for immune-mediated diseases at home remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether patients receiving home biologic infusions have increased adverse events requiring emergency department (ED) or hospital admission compared with patients receiving facility infusions.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study used administrative claims data from a large national insurer for adult patients who received biologic infusions for immune-mediated disease between January 2007 and December 2017. Patients with hematologic malignant neoplasms or bone marrow transplantation were excluded. Data were analyzed from August 2019 to October 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

ED or hospital admission on the same or next day after administration of a biologic infusion at home vs at a facility; secondary outcomes included discontinuation of the biologic after an ED or hospital admission and postinfusion mortality.

RESULTS

Of a total of 57 220 patients (mean [SD] age, 50.1 [14.8] years; 512 314 [68.1%] women) who received 752 150 biologic infusions (34 078 home infusions [4.5%] to 3954 patients and 718 072 facility infusions [95.5%] to 54 770 patients), patients who received home infusions were younger (mean [SD] age, 43.2 [13.2] vs 51.3 [14.8] years), more likely to be men (14 031 [41.2%] vs 225 668 [31.4%]), and had a lower Charlson comorbidity score compared with patients who received facility infusions (mean [SD] score, 0.5 [1.0] vs 1.1 [1.3]). Home infusions were associated with 25% increased odds of ED or hospital admission on the same or next day after the infusion (odds ratio [OR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.44; P = .002) and 28% increased odds of discontinuation of the biologic after the ED or hospital admission (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.51; P = .005). There was no difference in postinfusion mortality between home or facility infusions. The rates of adverse events were highest with home infusions of tocilizumab (48 of 481 infusions [10.0%]), vedolizumab (150 of 2681 infusions [5.6%]), and infliximab (1085 of 20 653 infusions [5.3%]), although the number of tocilizumab and vedolizumab infusions was low.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, biologic infusions administered at home, compared with those administered at a facility, were associated with increased adverse events requiring escalation of care. Because the number of home infusions has increased and is expected to continue to rise, the safety implications of administering biologic infusions at home needs to be further assessed.

Out of Sight but Not Out of Mind: Caring for Patients Receiving OPAT During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic

In an effort to “flatten the curve” of SARS-CoV-2, society is urged to practice social distancing. However, the management of other disease states may require some patients to undergo outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT). Practical considerations for OPAT management during an infectious pandemic are reviewed. These include shortening durations of therapy, utilizing the oral route, avoiding medications requiring therapeutic drug monitoring, selecting antimicrobials with long durations, decreasing frequency of laboratory blood draws, and performing tele-health visits.