BackgroundRituximab is a standard treatment for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The SABRINA trial (NCT01200758) showed that a subcutaneous (SC) rituximab formulation did not compromise efficacy or safety compared with intravenous (IV) infusion. We aimed to quantify active healthcare professional (HCP) time and patient chair time for rituximab SC and IV, including potential time savings.MethodsThis non-interventional time and motion study was run in eight countries and 30 day oncology units. Rituximab SC data were collected alongside the MabCute trial (NCT01461928); IV data were collected per routine real-world practice. Trained observers recorded active HCP time for pre-specified tasks (stopwatch) and chair time (time of day). A random intercept model was used to analyze active HCP time (by task and for all tasks combined) in the treatment room and drug preparation area, drug administration duration, chair time and patient treatment room time by country and/or across countries. Active HCP and chair time were extrapolated to a patient’s first year of treatment (11 rituximab sessions).ResultsMean active HCP time was 35.0 and 23.7 minutes for IV and SC process, respectively (-32%, p <0.0001). By country, relative reduction in time was 27–58%. Absolute reduction in extrapolated active HCP time (first year of treatment) was 1.1–5.2 hours. Mean chair time was 262.1 minutes for IV, including 180.9 minutes infusion duration, vs. 67.3 minutes for SC, including 8.3 minutes SC injection administration (-74%, p <0.0001). By country, relative reduction was 53–91%. Absolute reduction in extrapolated chair time for the first year of treatment was 3.1–5.5 eight-hour days.ConclusionsCompared with rituximab IV, rituximab SC was associated with reduced chair time and active HCP time. The latter could be invested in other activities, whereas the former may lead to more available appointments, reducing waiting lists and increasing the efficiency of day oncology units.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01200758

Within PrefHer (NCT01401166), patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) preferred subcutaneous (SC) over intravenous (IV) trastuzumab. We undertook a prospective, observational time and motion study to quantify patients’ time in infusion chairs and active HCP time in PrefHer. Patients with HER2‐positive early breast cancer received four adjuvant cycles of SC trastuzumab (600 mg fixed dose via SC single‐use injection device [SID, Cohort 1] or SC handheld syringe [HHS, Cohort 2]) then four cycles of standard IV trastuzumab or the reverse sequence. Generic case report forms for IV and SC management, both in the treatment room and the drug preparation area, were tailored to reflect center practices. Patient chair time and active HCP time were recorded. We compared pooled Cohort 1 + 2 IV with Cohort 1 SC SID and Cohort 2 SC HHS mean times across eight countries and individually within them utilizing a random intercept generalized linear mixed‐effects model. Per session, the SC SID saved a mean of 57 min of patient chair time versus IV (range across countries: 47–86; P < 0.0001); the SC HHS saved 55 min (40–81; P < 0.0001). Active HCP time was reduced by a mean of 13 min per session with the SC SID (range across countries: 4–16; P < 0.0001) and 17 min with the SC HHS (5–28; P < 0.0001) versus IV. SC trastuzumab, delivered via SID or HHS, saved patient chair and active HCP times versus IV infusion, supporting a transition to either SC method.

The model estimated a higher clinical cure (+8.7%) and survival (+13.2%) for linezolid compared with vancomycin at an incremental cost of 420 per treatment episode. The cost-benefit profile suggests that linezolid could be considered a cost-effective alternative to vancomycin in the treatment of patients with NP caused by suspected MRSA in Germany.

No abstract

No abstract