Home-based subcutaneous immunoglobulin therapy vs hospital-based intravenous immunoglobulin therapy: A prospective economic analysis

Abstract

Background: Home-based subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg) administration used for immunoglobulin replacement therapy for patients with primary immunodeficiency has been demonstrated to have benefits compared with hospital-based intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) therapy.

Objective: To estimate the cost savings associated with treating eligible patients with primary immunodeficiency with home-based SCIg compared with hospital-based IVIg in a prospective study.

Methods: This study was a 12-month prospective observational study that collected information from patient charts, directly from the nurse for time spent with patients and materials used, and directly from the physicians for billing. Data were collected on case report forms at each follow-up. Data were entered in a web-based REDCap database and statistical comparisons were performed.

Results: The average hospital (including hospital personnel such as nurses) and physician costs were significantly lower in the SCIg group ($1,836 and $84, respectively) than in the IVIg group ($4,187 and $744, respectively), which supported the findings in the number of hospital and physician visits in each group. The total cost was reported from the hospital's (only hospital-related costs) and the health system's (hospital- and physician-related costs) perspectives. For the 2 perspectives, the SCIg group reported significantly lower average total costs than the IVIg group.

Conclusion: This is the first prospective analysis of the cost savings associated with home-based SCIG therapy compared with hospital-based IVIG therapy. These findings could help justify provision of home-based therapy training to suitable patients to lower health care costs or improve the capacity of care.