12. Social Determinants of Health Impact on Participant Perception with Home Infusion of Intravenous Immunoglobulin Therapy

Background: Home infusion involves the administration of a medication through a needle or catheter in a setting other than a hospital or other medical facility. These therapies are supported by pharmacists, nurses, and other professionals with special training. Infusing medications at home or outside of an institutional setting reduces the time spent away from normal activities, such as work and school and is a safe and effective alternative to inpatient care for a variety of therapies and disease states. The number of treatments offered at home continue to grow as quality-of-life benefits and improved clinical outcomes are demonstrated for individuals who receive home infusion.

Purpose: Home infusion therapy is an alternative for participants requiring long-term treatment, potentially improving their quality of life by reducing hospital or infusion center visits. This study aims to analyze participant demographics, accessibility, safety perceptions, financial benefits, cultural understanding, and overall satisfaction with home infusion therapy across various diseases and geographies.

Methods: Data was collected from a survey of 207 participants receiving home infusion therapy for conditions including Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP), Myasthenia Gravis (MG), and various antibody deficiencies and conditions. The survey assessed accessibility, awareness, safety, financial impact, cultural understanding, mood improvement, and overall impression of intravenous immunoglobulin therapy. Responses were collected through patient surveys consisting of “yes or no” or scaled (1-10) questions. Statistical analysis was conducted to summarize key findings and differences by disease.

Results: The study included 128 women (61.8%) and 79 men (38.2%) with a mean age of 60 (23-92), receiving immunoglobulin therapy for the treatment of conditions such as CIDP (27%), MG (18.4%), and other antibody deficiencies. Regarding accessibility and awareness, over two-thirds of respondents (68%) reported having reliable transportation to an infusion center however only 47% were aware of the location of the nearest infusion center. Comparisons of perceived safety and cleanliness between home infusion and hospital infusions showed a mean response of 9/10 versus 5/10 respectively, 1 being not sure of safety and cleanliness, 10 being very sure. When assessing financial impact, 86% of respondents agreed that they believe home infusion saved them time and money, and 75.3% found it helped balance their work schedule. Cultural understanding was rated “very important” (10/10) by 42% of participants, with 58.9% responding that they felt home infusion improved other’s understanding of their cultural identity. A majority of participants (82%) agreed that in home treatment helped with mood improvement as opposed to traveling to an infusion center or hospital. Finally, 63.0% of respondents reported a positive change in their impression of home infusion therapy, with an average rank change of 7.8 out of 10.

Discussion: Based on the survey of patients, perception of home infusion therapy is that it offers great benefits. Including benefits in safety, cost savings, work-life balance, and mental health across various participant groups. These findings support the continued use and growth of home infusion services aimed to improve participant experience. Future research may benefit from evaluation within individual disease states and larger sample size.

Conclusions: Participant perception of home infusion therapy is that it offers substantial benefits in safety, cost savings, work-life balance, and mental health across various participant groups. These findings support the continued use and expansion of home infusion services to improve participant perception and satisfaction.