28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Outcomes of Reduced-Intensity Conditioning Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Performed in the Inpatient versus Outpatient Setting

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <p class="first" id="d3321155e214">Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) with reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) is commonly performed as an inpatient procedure. The feasibility and outcomes of RIC allo-HCT in the outpatient setting is not known. We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study of patients aged ≥ 18years with hematologic malignancies who underwent RIC allo-HCT either in the inpatient or outpatient setting. Donor types included HLA-matched sibling and well-matched unrelated donors. The objectives were to compare the survival, complications, charges, and incidences of relapse, nonrelapse mortality (NRM), and acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) between the 2 groups. Between 2014 and 2017, 151 eligible patients were included, with 116 undergoing RIC allo-HCT in the inpatient setting and 35 patients undergoing RIC allo-HCT in the outpatient setting. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the 2 groups except for a higher proportion of patients with myeloma in the outpatient cohort (inpatient 15.5% versus outpatient 37.1%). The cumulative incidence of grades II to IV acute GVHD (inpatient 25.2% versus outpatient 25.7%), grades III to IV acute GVHD (inpatient 10.4% versus outpatient 8.5%), chronic GVHD (inpatient 38.3% versus outpatient 51.6%), NRM at 1 year (inpatient 10.8% versus outpatient 3.2%), and relapse (inpatient 24.8% versus outpatient 33.2%) did not significantly differ between the 2 cohorts. One-year progression-free survival (inpatient 64.4% versus outpatient 63.6%, P = .39) and overall survival (inpatient 73.8% versus outpatient 82.8%, P = .93) were also not significantly different between the 2 groups. The proportion of patients who developed neutropenic fever (inpatient 25.8% versus outpatient 8.5%, P = .03) and mucositis (inpatient 50.8% versus outpatient 8.5%, P &lt; .001) and who required total parenteral nutrition (inpatient 20.6% versus outpatient 5.7%, P = .04) were more frequent in the inpatient cohort. About 51.5% of the outpatient cohort never required hospital admission in the first 100days. Outpatient HCT resulted in significantly lower charges than inpatient HCT in the first 100days (median charges: inpatient $339,621 versus outpatient $247,334; P &lt; .001). On multivariate analysis the site of the HCT (outpatient versus inpatient) was not a significant predictor of either overall or progression-free survival. Outpatient RIC allo-HCT is feasible and safe with daily outpatient evaluation and aggressive supportive care resulting in outcomes comparable with those who received the transplant in the inpatient setting. </p>

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation
          Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation
          Elsevier BV
          10838791
          December 2018
          December 2018
          Article
          10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.12.069
          30572109
          77ab6c67-c960-42c6-99ca-78707b85d6cf
          © 2018

          https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article

          scite_
          28
          3
          29
          0
          Smart Citations
          28
          3
          29
          0
          Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
          View Citations

          See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

          scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

          Similar content1,485

          Cited by11