RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy regimens historically have required admission of the patient to the hospital for extended infusions running over multiple days to complete each cycle of therapy. With the evolution of monitoring strategies readily available, a renaissance in patient care and healthcare cost utilization is necessary as transitioning the administration of these agents to the outpatient setting is seemingly achievable and is potentially more cost-effective. PURPOSE: This evaluation sought to primarily measure cost-savings for an institution by transitioning inpatient chemotherapy regimens to the outpatient setting. Secondary outcomes evaluated the effect of this transition on overall patient length of stay, prevalence of adverse effects, and overall chemotherapy schedule adherence as a result of implementing transitions in sites of care. Barriers to receiving care in the outpatient setting were assessed by evaluating the acuity of performance status as well as distance from the hospital. METHODS: This single-center retrospective, quantitative chart and expense analysis evaluated patients receiving rituximab, etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin (R-EPOCH) or rituximab, ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide (R-ICE) chemotherapy regimens based on treatment setting at a single institution. Included patients were treated at the University of Chicago Medical Center. Those receiving inpatient-only management as compared with patients who received therapy in outpatient settings were compared in a matched cohort analysis. The control group was matched from the period before transition of therapy was instituted between November 2014 and November 2015, with those patients transitioned to outpatient therapy (December 2015 to November 2016), using demographic, diagnostic, treatment, and clinical status data to assure group similarity. Mean cost of therapy was compared between inpatient and outpatient regimens. Descriptive and demographic categorical data were compared using the Fisher's exact test. Continuous data were evaluated using the Student's t test. A significance level of alpha <0.05 was used for all analysis. RESULTS: The cost of R-EPOCH therapy represented a significant difference across groups. R-ICE therapy similarly saw significant cost differences between inpatient and outpatient groups. If this was made standard of care for qualifying patients a retrospective annualized estimation of $466,507.85 with R-EPOCH therapy and $205,977.60 for R-ICE therapy could have been saved if this was utilized for patients who previously received their therapy as an inpatient. CONCLUSION: The population of patients cared for at the University of Chicago Medicine during this time-period qualified for outpatient treatment for those treated with R-EPOCH and R-ICE regimens with no significantly identifiable prohibitive barriers between groups. As no significant complications manifested, it is reasonable to continue transitioning patients receiving these regimens to the outpatient setting where appropriate. R-EPOCH and R-ICE therapies were shown to be reasonable outpatient therapy while providing significant cost-savings for the institution.
