Yes — home infusion is a safe and practical option for MS care when delivered under established clinical protocols. A real-world analysis of 520 home infusion visits managed by Accredo Specialty Pharmacy found no severe adverse events, with infusion-related reactions occurring in only 9% of visits and reducing patient travel time by an average of 1.7 hours per visit compared to other care settings.
Introduction
As treatment for multiple sclerosis (MS) continues to evolve, high efficacy therapies such as anti‑CD20 monoclonal antibodies are now widely used in clinical practice and increasingly considered earlier in the treatment journey. These infused therapies target specific immune cells called B cells that contribute to MS disease activity, requiring reliable, repeat administration over time.
As a result, questions about where infusion care is delivered and how it affects safety, workflow, and patient experience have become more relevant for neurology practices and care teams. Findings presented at the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC) in May 2026 provide insight into how home infusion can serve as part of MS care delivery.
Study overview
To better understand how home infusion functions in real-world MS care, the researchers reviewed home infusion visits among patients receiving anti‑CD20 monoclonal antibody therapies, including ocrelizumab (Ocrevus) and ublituximab (Briumvi).
The review included 223 patients across 520 home infusion visits over a period spanning more than two years. The evaluation focused on safety outcomes, patient experience, and the practical considerations of delivering infusion care in the home setting. This research was conducted utilizing real-world data from the Accredo Specialty Pharmacy home infusion program.
Is home infusion safe for patients with multiple sclerosis?
Safety remains a central consideration when evaluating alternative settings for infusion care.
Key Safety Data at a Glance
- Adverse events observed: 22% of visits
- Infusion-related or allergic reactions: 9% of visits
- Severe adverse events: 0% — none occurred
- Visits requiring escalation of care: 0% — none required
- All adverse reactions were mild to moderate and managed within the standard home infusion visit
Across the home infusion visits reviewed, adverse events were observed in 22% of visits, with infusion related or allergic reactions reported in 9%. No severe adverse events occurred.
All adverse reactions were mild to moderate and were managed within the standard home infusion visit by prescriber-authorized care protocols. Care teams followed consistent protocols to monitor and address reactions in real time, allowing treatment to continue without disruption. While visits with a reaction lasted about 30 minutes longer on average, average infusion time itself was not different from visits without an adverse reaction.
Observed infusion-related reaction rates were consistent with expected experience for maintenance dosing of anti‑CD20 therapies, supporting the clinical appropriateness of home infusion when delivered under established protocols.
Operational impact and care delivery
Beyond safety, infusion setting can influence workflow, staffing, and continuity of care.
Home infusion visits followed a consistent and predictable care model. Adverse events did not disrupt infusion delivery or require escalation of care, and all visits were completed as planned.
The limited impact on visit duration reflects the role of standardized protocols, trained field nursing support, and appropriate patient selection in enabling infusion care outside traditional sites. From an operational standpoint, the findings suggest that home infusion can be integrated into MS care delivery without introducing added complexity or variability for clinical teams.
Patient experience and convenience
For many patients with multiple sclerosis, treatment burden extends beyond the infusion itself.
Home infusion reduced travel requirements by an average of 1.7 hours per visit compared to receiving care at other sites. For patients managing work, family responsibilities, or mobility limitations, this reduction in travel can meaningfully affect how treatment fits into daily life.
The ability to triage appropriate patients to home infusion can provide a safe, convenient alternative for infusion centers and offices with limited infusion appointment availability, avoiding late doses when a patient has scheduling conflicts or transportation difficulties.
A broader perspective on site of care
While this study focused on safety and patient experience, the findings also contribute to a broader conversation about how infusion care for multiple sclerosis is delivered.
Home infusion demonstrated a combination of clinical comparability, operational predictability, and meaningful convenience benefits for patients. Prior research has also shown that infused MS therapies may be delivered at lower total cost in the home setting compared to hospital outpatient departments, due in part to differences in site-of-care pricing.
Despite these considerations, home infusion continues to represent a relatively small share of total infusion volume, suggesting it remains an underutilized option within MS care delivery.
Conclusion
Real‑world evidence continues to inform how multiple sclerosis care is delivered across settings.
This study adds to a growing body of data showing that, when supported by appropriate clinical infrastructure, home infusion can provide a safe and practical option for administering infused MS therapies. The findings demonstrate that care can be delivered predictably while meaningfully improving convenience for patients, with no severe adverse events across 520 home infusion visits.
For neurology practices and care teams, these insights help clarify how home infusion may fit within established treatment workflows and support patient-centered care delivery as MS treatment continues to evolve.
View the full research poster presented at CMSC here.
