Citations

TPS1657 Background: Cancer treatments are traditionally administered in clinical settings, which can isolate patients from their familiar environments and exacerbate physical, psychosocial, and financial burdens. Travel requirements further amplify these challenges, particularly for underserved populations. Studies indicate that patients prefer receiving care at home, and international models have demonstrated the safety of home-delivered chemotherapy since the 1990s; however, no U.S. clinical trial data exists. In response, Mayo Clinic has developed the Cancer CARE (Connected Access and Remote Expertise) Beyond Walls (CCBW) program, a distributed cancer care delivery model that expands access to quality cancer care by bringing it to the home environment, providing in-home cancer treatment, lab testing, telemedicine, and community paramedic support. This trial evaluates the safety, acceptability, and impact of home-based subcutaneous (SC) nivolumab (Nivo) administration compared to in-clinic treatment within the CCBW initiative. Methods: This open-label, single-arm trial evaluates the impact of SC Nivo administration location—home versus infusion center—on patient reported cancer care experience, patient-preferred treatment location, acceptability, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Eligible adult patients (ECOG 0-1) receiving IV Nivo for an FDA-approved indication and residing within 75 miles of Mayo Clinic Florida will transition to SC Nivo, receiving two initial in-clinic cycles. If tolerated without injection reactions, four cycles will be administered at home before resuming in-clinic treatment. Exclusion criteria include concurrent investigational/standard treatments or contraindications to immunotherapy. Fifty patients will be enrolled, with an estimated 75% (n=38) providing cancer care ratings after 8 weeks in-clinic and 8 weeks at-home, offering 85% power to detect a mean difference in ratings of 0.50 standard deviations. The primary endpoint is within-patient change in cancer care rating (0–10 scale, CAHPS Cancer Care Survey) comparing 8 weeks of in-clinic vs. at-home care. Secondary endpoints include patient-preferred treatment location, comfort with home injections, safety (grade 3+ adverse events), function (EORTC QLQ-F17), symptoms (PRO-CTCAE), side effect impact (GP5), and healthcare utilization (ER visits, hospitalizations). Cost will be assessed as a tertiary endpoint. The trial has FDA approval (IND #170079), Mayo Clinic IRB approval (#23009663), and ClinicalTrials.gov registration (NCT06265285). Enrollment began in April 2024, with an expected accrual period of 24 months. To date, 10 patients have been enrolled, and final analysis is expected 2.5 years after trial activation. Clinical trial information: NCT06265285 .

Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is the second most common hematologic malignancy, with 34,470 estimated new cases in 2022. High-dose therapy followed by autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT) remains a standard treatment for MM even in the era of novel therapies. This is usually performed in hospital-based settings, either in the inpatient or outpatient units. Advanced Care at Home (ACH) represents a virtual hybrid hospital-at-home program that combines a virtual provider-staffed command center with a vendor-mediated supply chain capable of delivering high-acuity care in the comfort of the patients’ own homes. In our program, we used the existing ACH platform to deliver post-HCT care for recipients of auto-HCT. Patients and methods: Four patients (female = 2, 50%) with MM, with a median age of 60 (range, 40–74) years, were admitted to the inpatient Blood and Marrow Transplant (BMT) unit. The conditioning regimen consisted of melphalan 200 mg/m 2 , administered on day –2. All patients received stem cell infusion (day 0) in the inpatient setting, with a median dose of 3.64 (range, 2.92–8.22) × 10 6 /kg CD34 cells. Results: Patients were discharged to their homes after completing the infusion on day 0 or day +1 at the latest. Postinfusion care was provided by the ACH team in coordination with the BMT team. The median time intervals to absolute neutrophil count and platelet engraftment were 12 (range, 11–13) and 11 (range, 9–16) days, respectively. All patients were successfully discharged from the ACH program at a median of day +14 (range, day +14 to day +15). Conclusions: Our results highlight the feasibility of delivering post-HCT care for auto-HCT recipients in the home setting and confirm the generalizability of this approach.

Abstract Background Over the past decade, the use of technology‐enhanced simulation in emergency medicine (EM) education has grown, yet we still lack a clear understanding of its effectiveness. This systematic review aims to identify and synthesize studies evaluating the comparative effectiveness of technology‐enhanced simulation in EM. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify EM simulation research that compares technology‐enhanced simulation with other instructional modalities. Two reviewers screened articles for inclusion and abstracted information on learners, clinical topics, instructional design features, outcomes, cost, and study quality. Standardized mean difference (SMD) effect sizes were pooled using random effects. Results We identified 60 studies, enrolling at least 5279 learners. Of these, 23 compared technology‐enhanced simulation with another instructional modality (e.g., living humans, lecture, small group), and 37 compared two forms of technology‐enhanced simulation. Compared to lecture or small groups, we found simulation to have nonsignificant differences for time skills (SMD 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.23 to 0.89, n = 3), but a large, significant effect for non–time skills (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.46, n = 8). Comparison of alternative types of technology‐enhanced simulation found favorable associations with skills acquisition, of moderate magnitude, for computer‐assisted guidance (compared to no computer‐assisted guidance), for time skills (SMD 0.50, 95% CI −1.66 to 2.65, n = 2) and non–time skills (SMD 0.57, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.80, n = 6), and for more task repetitions (time skills SMD 1.01, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.86, n = 2) and active participation (compared to observation) for time skills (SMD 0.85, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.45, n = 2) and non–time skills (SMD 0.33 95% CI 0.08 to 0.58, n = 3). Conclusions Technology‐enhanced simulation is effective for EM learners for skills acquisition. Features such as computer‐assisted guidance, repetition, and active learning are associated with greater effectiveness.