Video: Every Case Tells a Story| Webinar: ACR/CHEST ILD Guidelines in Practice

An official publication of the ACR and the ARP serving rheumatologists and rheumatology professionals

  • Conditions
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout and Crystalline Arthritis
    • Myositis
    • Osteoarthritis and Bone Disorders
    • Pain Syndromes
    • Pediatric Conditions
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Sjögren’s Disease
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
    • Systemic Sclerosis
    • Vasculitis
    • Other Rheumatic Conditions
  • FocusRheum
    • ANCA-Associated Vasculitis
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
  • Guidance
    • Clinical Criteria/Guidelines
    • Ethics
    • Legal Updates
    • Legislation & Advocacy
    • Meeting Reports
      • ACR Convergence
      • Other ACR meetings
      • EULAR/Other
    • Research Rheum
  • Drug Updates
    • Analgesics
    • Biologics/DMARDs
  • Practice Support
    • Billing/Coding
    • EMRs
    • Facility
    • Insurance
    • QA/QI
    • Technology
    • Workforce
  • Opinion
    • Patient Perspective
    • Profiles
    • Rheuminations
      • Video
    • Speak Out Rheum
  • Career
    • ACR ExamRheum
    • Awards
    • Career Development
  • ACR
    • ACR Home
    • ACR Convergence
    • ACR Guidelines
    • Journals
      • ACR Open Rheumatology
      • Arthritis & Rheumatology
      • Arthritis Care & Research
    • From the College
    • Events/CME
    • President’s Perspective
  • Search

Higher Risk of Adverse Events When Biologic Infusions Are Done at Home

By Lisa Rapaport  |  June 15, 2021

(Reuters Health)—Patients who receive biologic infusions at home may have a higher risk of adverse events than those who receive the infusions at a health care facility, a new study suggests.1

Researchers examined administrative claims data on 57,220 adults who received a total of 752,150 biologic infusions for immune-mediated disease between 2007 and 2017. The analysis included a total of 34,078 (4.5%) home infusions for 3,954 patients, as well as 718,072 (95.5%) facility infusions for 54,770 patients.

ad goes here:advert-1
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

Compared with facility infusions, home infusions were associated with a significantly higher risk of an emergency department visit or hospital admission on the day of infusion or the following day (odds ratio [OR] 1.25).

Home infusions were also associated with a significantly greater chance that patients would discontinue treatment after an emergency department visit or hospital admission (OR 1.28).

ad goes here:advert-2
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

“In an infusion center or office setting, biologic infusions are overseen by trained physicians with experience and resources for managing side effects and complications, which is typically not the case when biologic infusions are administered at home,” says lead study author Matthew Baker, MD, clinical chief for the Division of Immunology and Rheumatology in the Department of Medicine at Stanford University, California.

When issues arise in the home setting, there may be a lower threshold for escalation of care, Dr. Baker says by email.

“Thus, it is not surprising that we found an increased risk of emergency department visit or hospital admission within 24 hours of home infusions compared with facility infusions,” Dr. Baker says.

There were some key differences between patients who had home infusions. For example, they were younger (mean age: 43.2) years than patients who got facility infusions (mean age: 51.3 years). And they were also more likely to be male (41%) than patients who got facility infusions (31.4%).

The proportion of home infusions resulting in emergency department visits and hospital admissions was highest after the first biologic infusion at home (4.9%), then dropped with the second infusion (4.3%) and third infusion (3.9%) of the same medicine.

Researchers didn’t find any difference in post-infusion mortality between home- and facility-administered infusions.

One limitation of the claims data analysis is that there may be a potential for residual or unmeasured confounders to influence the outcomes, the study team notes in JAMA Network Open. Researchers also lacked data on disease-modifying medications, such as methotrexate, as well as other medications that may have influenced the risk of adverse events with infusions.1

Page: 1 2 | Single Page
Share: 

Filed under:Biologics/DMARDsDrug Updates Tagged with:biologic infusionsBiologicshome infusion

Related Articles

    Rheumatology Drugs at a Glance, Part 3: Rheumatoid Arthritis

    August 16, 2019

    Over the past few years, bio­similars and other new drugs have been introduced to treat rheumatic illnesses. Some of the conditions we treat have numerous drug options, others have few or only off-label options. This series, “Rheumatology Drugs at a Glance,” provides streamlined information on the administration of biologic, biosimilar and small molecule inhibitor drugs…

    Ethics Forum: Ethics of Infusions in the Face of A Professional Conflict

    August 1, 2013

    An infusion prescription ordered by a rheumatologist, but changed by a hematologist, raises dilemmas concerning a patient’s continuity of care

    Guideline for Integrative RA Interventions Released

    August 3, 2023

    Discussions between clinicians and their patients about complementary aspects of their care just got easier with the release of the 2022 ACR Guideline for Exercise, Rehabilitation, Diet, and Additional Integrative Interventions for Rheumatoid Arthritis.

    Managing Office Infusions: From Biologics to Bones

    May 1, 2009

    On June 9, Josh Brinks, BSN, MSN, FNP, will address the management of office infusions during the ARHP June audioconference/webcast.

  • About Us
  • Meet the Editors
  • Issue Archives
  • Contribute
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1931-3268 (print). ISSN 1931-3209 (online).
  • DEI Statement
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookie Preferences