The delivery of chemotherapy at home: an evidence synthesis

A national Danish proof of concept on feasibility and safety of home -based intensive chemotherapy in patients with acute myeloid leukemia

Technological advances have made it possible to offer home-based chemotherapy to patients without health care professionals being present. Prior studies on effects of home-based treatment lack inclusion of patients with hematologic malignancies. We present data from a multicenter single-arm feasibility and safety study of home-based intensive chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia and their quality of life and psychological wellbeing. This national study included patients from six sites in Denmark who received intensive chemotherapy on programmed CADD Solis infusion pumps through a central venous catheter and were also managed as outpatients during treatment-induced pancytopenia. Data are presented from 104 patients, receiving 272 treatments with 1.096 (mean 4.57, SD 3.0) home infusion days out of 1.644 treatment days (67 %). Sixty-two of 168 (36.9 %) reinduction and consolidation treatment cycles ensuing pancytopenia phases were solely handled in the outpatient clinic. Patients reported high satisfaction with home-based treatment, which had a positive influence on their ability to be involved in their treatment and be socially and physically active. No unexpected events occurred during the intervention. Overall, patients improved in all quality of life outcomes over time. Home-based intensive chemotherapy treatment was feasible and safe in this population. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04904211.

Impacts on health outcomes and on resources utilization for anticancer drugs injection at home, a complex intervention: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

As hospital-based home care is a complex intervention, we critically appraised the key elements that could ensure the completeness of assessment and explain the heterogeneity of the literature results about the comparison between home and hospital setting for the anticancer drugs injection within the same standards of clinical care.

METHODS

Systematic review was conducted. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Sciences, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (Cinahl) searched to February 1, 2019, and combined with grey literature. Methodological quality has been rated using the "Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies" developed by the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHHP) in addition to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement for economic studies and the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) checklist for qualitative studies.

RESULTS

Of 400 records identified, we identified 13 relevant studies (nine quantitative and four mixed-method studies). The quality of studies was hardly strong. The home-based anticancer injection involved highly heterogeneous home care interventions that generally kept a strong link with the hospital setting. The study schemes limited the comparison of clinical outcomes (OS, PFS, toxicity). Unlike the quality of life remaining similar, patients preferred to be treated at home. Cost savings were in favor of Hospital at Home, but the charge categories used to compare or the home intervention were heterogeneous and rarely integrating relatives' duties and hospital staff's time. Qualitative studies highlighted about benefits and barriers of home.

CONCLUSION

The current state of evidence shows as it still remains difficult to appraise the anticancer injection at home when considering the details of this complex intervention, the role of each stakeholder, and the missing data.

Publication and related bias in quantitative health services and delivery research: a multimethod study

Background

Bias in the publication and reporting of research findings (referred to as publication and related bias here) poses a major threat in evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision-making. Although this bias has been well documented in clinical research, little is known about its occurrence and magnitude in health services and delivery research.

Objectives

To obtain empirical evidence on publication and related bias in quantitative health services and delivery research; to examine current practice in detecting/mitigating this bias in health services and delivery research systematic reviews; and to explore stakeholders’ perception and experiences concerning such bias.

Methods

The project included five distinct but interrelated work packages. Work package 1 was a systematic review of empirical and methodological studies. Work package 2 involved a survey (meta-epidemiological study) of randomly selected systematic reviews of health services and delivery research topics (n = 200) to evaluate current practice in the assessment of publication and outcome reporting bias during evidence synthesis. Work package 3 included four case studies to explore the applicability of statistical methods for detecting such bias in health services and delivery research. In work package 4 we followed up four cohorts of health services and delivery research studies (total n = 300) to ascertain their publication status, and examined whether publication status was associated with statistical significance or perceived ‘positivity’ of study findings. Work package 5 involved key informant interviews with diverse health services and delivery research stakeholders (n = 24), and a focus group discussion with patient and service user representatives (n = 8).

Results

We identified only four studies that set out to investigate publication and related bias in health services and delivery research in work package 1. Three of these studies focused on health informatics research and one concerned health economics. All four studies reported evidence of the existence of this bias, but had methodological weaknesses. We also identified three health services and delivery research systematic reviews in which findings were compared between published and grey/unpublished literature. These reviews found that the quality and volume of evidence and effect estimates sometimes differed significantly between published and unpublished literature. Work package 2 showed low prevalence of considering/assessing publication (43%) and outcome reporting (17%) bias in health services and delivery research systematic reviews. The prevalence was lower among reviews of associations than among reviews of interventions. The case studies in work package 3 highlighted limitations in current methods for detecting these biases due to heterogeneity and potential confounders. Follow-up of health services and delivery research cohorts in work package 4 showed positive association between publication status and having statistically significant or positive findings. Diverse views concerning publication and related bias and insights into how features of health services and delivery research might influence its occurrence were uncovered through the interviews with health services and delivery research stakeholders and focus group discussion conducted in work package 5.

Conclusions

This study provided prima facie evidence on publication and related bias in quantitative health services and delivery research. This bias does appear to exist, but its prevalence and impact may vary depending on study characteristics, such as study design, and motivation for conducting the evaluation. Emphasis on methodological novelty and focus beyond summative assessments may mitigate/lessen the risk of such bias in health services and delivery research. Methodological and epistemological diversity in health services and delivery research and changing landscape in research publication need to be considered when interpreting the evidence. Collection of further empirical evidence and exploration of optimal health services and delivery research practice are required.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016052333 and CRD42016052366.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 33. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Randomised trials comparing different healthcare settings: an exploratory review of the impact of pre-trial preferences on participation, and discussion of other methodological challenges

BACKGROUND

We recently published a systematic review of different healthcare settings (such as outpatient, community or home) for administering intravenous chemotherapy, and concluded that performing conventionally designed randomised trials was difficult. The main problems were achieving adequate trial accrual rates and recruiting a study population which adequately represented the target population of interest. These issues stemmed from the fact that potential participants may have had pre-trial perceptions about the trial settings they may be allocated; such preferences will sometimes be strong enough for patients to decline an invitation to participate in a trial. A patient preference trial design (in which patients can choose, or be randomised to, an intervention) may have obviated these recruitment issues, although none of the trials used such a design.

METHODS

In order to gain a better understanding of the broader prevalence and extent of these preference issues (and any other methodological challenges), we undertook an exploratory review of settings trials in any area of healthcare treatment research. We searched The Cochrane Library and Google Scholar and used snowballing methods to identify trials comparing different healthcare settings.

RESULTS

Trial accrual was affected by patient preferences for a setting in 15 of the 16 identified studies; birth setting trials were the most markedly affected, with between 68 % and 85 % of eligible women declining to participate specifically because of preference for a particular healthcare setting. Recruitment into substance abuse and chemotherapy setting studies was also notably affected by preferences. Only four trials used a preference design: the proportion of eligible patients choosing to participate via a preference group ranged from between 33 % and 67 %.

CONCLUSIONS

In trials of healthcare settings, accrual may be seriously affected by patient preferences. The use of trial designs which incorporate a preference component should therefore strongly be considered. When designing such trials, investigators should consider settings to be complex interventions, which are likely to have linked components which may be difficult to control for. Careful thought is also needed regarding the choice of comparator settings and the most appropriate outcome measures to be used.