Limits of the Glasgow Coma Scale When Assessing for Sepsis in Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplant Recipients.

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.

Clinician and administrator perspectives on outpatient administration of ciltacabtagene autoleucel in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Introduction: Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy (CAR T therapy) is a treatment option for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma that has led to unprecedented treatment outcomes. Among CAR T therapies available, ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) is a good candidate for outpatient administration due to its generally predictable safety profile. There are multiple advantages of outpatient administration of cilta-cel, including reduced healthcare burden, expanded access, and patient autonomy. This mixed methods qualitative study aimed to identify key factors for outpatient administration of CAR T and best practice recommendations by combining a targeted literature review with expert interviews and panels. Methods: The targeted review (Phase 1) aimed to identify factors for outpatient CAR T administration in the US and determine key topics for the exploratory interviews (Phase 2) and expert panels (Phase 3), which aimed to inform on best practices and challenges of outpatient CAR T administration (focusing on cilta-cel). Participants in clinical and administrative positions based in treatment centers that had experience with real-world outpatient administration of cilta-cel were recruited. Results: Seventeen studies were identified in Phase 1. Key factors for outpatient administration included the development of protocols for CAR T complications, education for caregivers, outpatient specialists, hospital staff, and emergency services staff for identification and referral after possible adverse events, the creation of multidisciplinary teams for effective communication and management, straightforward patient intake processes encompassing financial eligibility review and provision of patient education materials, and close patient monitoring throughout the treatment journey. In Phase 2, 5 participants from 2 centers were interviewed. In Phase 3, 14 participants across 6 treatment centers were interviewed. Two 90-minute virtual panel discussions took place. All participants agreed that cilta-cel can be safely and effectively administered in an outpatient setting. Key recommendations included the creation of educational resources for patients and caregivers, the development of standard operating procedures, dedicated outpatient infrastructure and establishment of interdisciplinary teams, outpatient monitoring for toxicity management, and monitoring of the reimbursement landscape. Discussion: This study offers a comprehensive understanding of the feasibility of outpatient cilta-cel administration in participating CAR T centers and provides actionable recommendations while acknowledging existing challenges.

The Impact of Outpatient versus Inpatient Administration of CAR-T Therapies on Clinical, Economic, and Humanistic Outcomes in Patients with Hematological Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review.

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.