ABSTRACT
Although chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapies are typically administered in the inpatient setting, outpatient administration is rapidly expanding. However, there is limited summarized evidence comparing outcomes between outpatient and inpatient administration. This systematic literature review aims to compare the safety, efficacy, quality of life (QoL), costs, and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) outcomes in patients with hematological cancer who are administered CAR-T therapy in an outpatient versus an inpatient setting. Publications (2016 or later) that reported the outcomes of interest in patients treated with a CAR-T therapy in both outpatient and inpatient settings, or only the outpatient setting, were reviewed. In total, 38 publications based on 21 studies were included. Safety findings suggested the comparable frequency of adverse events in the two settings. Eleven studies that reported data in both settings showed comparable response rates (80-82% in outpatient and 72-80% in inpatient). Improvements in the QoL were observed in both settings while costs associated with CAR-T therapy were lower in the outpatient setting. Although unplanned hospitalizations were higher in the outpatient cohort, overall HCRU was lower. Outpatient administration of CAR-T therapy appears to have comparable outcomes in safety, efficacy, and QoL to inpatient administration while reducing the economic burden.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The well-documented association between acute mental status changes and sepsis development and progression makes acute mental status an attractive factor for sepsis screening tools. However, the usefulness of acute mental status within these criteria is limited to the frequency and accuracy of its capture. The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score-the acute mental status indicator in many clinical sepsis criteria-is infrequently captured among allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients with suspected infections, and its ability to serve as an indicator of acute mental status among this high-risk population is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the GCS score as an indicator of acute mental status during the 24 hours after suspected infection onset among allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients. METHODS: Using data from the first 100 days posttransplant for patients transplanted at a single center between September 2010 and July 2017, we evaluated the GCS score as an indicator of documented acute mental status during the 24 hours after suspected infection onset. From all inpatients with suspected infections, we randomly selected a cohort based on previously published estimates of GCS score frequency among hematopoietic cell transplant recipients with suspected infections and performed chart review to ascertain documentation of clinical acute mental status within the 24 hours after suspected infection onset. RESULTS: A total of 773 patients had ≥1 suspected infections and experienced 1,655 suspected infections during follow-up-625 of which had an accompanying GCS score. Among the randomly selected cohort of 100 persons with suspected infection, 28 were accompanied with documented acute mental status, including 18 without a recorded GCS. In relation to documented acute mental status, the GCS had moderate to high sensitivity and high specificity. DISCUSSION: These data indicate that, among allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients with suspected infections, the GCS scores are infrequently collected and have a moderate sensitivity. If sepsis screening tools inclusive of acute mental status changes are to be used, nursing teams need to increase measurement of GCS scores among high sepsis risk patients or identify a standard alternative indicator.
