150 research outputs found

    Hospitalization at the end of life in patients with multiple myeloma

    Get PDF
    A grant from the One-University Open Access Fund at the University of Kansas was used to defray the author's publication fees in this Open Access journal. The Open Access Fund, administered by librarians from the KU, KU Law, and KUMC libraries, is made possible by contributions from the offices of KU Provost, KU Vice Chancellor for Research & Graduate Studies, and KUMC Vice Chancellor for Research. For more information about the Open Access Fund, please see http://library.kumc.edu/authors-fund.xml.Background Despite advances in treatment, multiple myeloma (MM) remains incurable and results in significant morbidity and mortality. Further research investigating where MM patients die and characterization of end-of-life hospitalizations is needed. Methods We utilized the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) to explore the hospitalization burden of MM patients at the end of their lives. Results The percent of patients dying in the hospital as a percent of overall MM deaths ranged from 54% in 2002 to 41.4% in 2017 (p < 0.01). Blood transfusions were received in 32.7% of these hospitalizations and infections were present in 47.8% of patients. Palliative care and/or hospice consultations ranged from 5.3% in 2002 to 31.4% in 2017 (p < 0.01). Conclusion Our study demonstrates that patients with MM dying in the hospital have a significant requirement for blood transfusions and have a high infection burden. We also show that palliative care and hospice involvement at the end of life has increased over time but remains low, and that ultimately, inpatient mortality has decreased over time, but MM patients die in the hospital at a higher rate than the general population

    Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment:Oral cryotherapy

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Oral mucositis is a side effect of chemotherapy, head and neck radiotherapy, and targeted therapy, affecting over 75% of high risk patients. Ulceration can lead to severe pain and difficulty eating and drinking, which may necessitate opioid analgesics, hospitalisation and nasogastric or intravenous nutrition. These complications may lead to interruptions or alterations to cancer therapy, which may reduce survival. There is also a risk of death from sepsis if pathogens enter the ulcers of immunocompromised patients. Ulcerative oral mucositis can be costly to healthcare systems, yet there are few preventive interventions proven to be beneficial. Oral cryotherapy is a low‐cost, simple intervention which is unlikely to cause side‐effects. It has shown promise in clinical trials and warrants an up‐to‐date Cochrane review to assess and summarise the international evidence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of oral cryotherapy for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer who are receiving treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 17 June 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 5), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 17 June 2015), EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 17 June 2015), CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 17 June 2015) and CINAHL via EBSCO (1937 to 17 June 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry, and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel‐design randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of oral cryotherapy in patients with cancer receiving treatment. We used outcomes from a published core outcome set registered on the COMET website. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the results of electronic searches, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors for information where feasible. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). For continuous outcomes, we reported mean differences (MD) and 95% CIs. We pooled similar studies in random‐effects meta‐analyses. We reported adverse effects in a narrative format. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 RCTs analysing 1280 participants. The vast majority of participants did not receive radiotherapy to the head and neck, so this review primarily assesses prevention of chemotherapy‐induced oral mucositis. All studies were at high risk of bias. The following results are for the main comparison: oral cryotherapy versus control (standard care or no treatment). Adults receiving fluorouracil‐based (5FU) chemotherapy for solid cancers Oral cryotherapy probably reduces oral mucositis of any severity (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.72, 5 studies, 444 analysed, moderate quality evidence). In a population where 728 per 1000 would develop oral mucositis, oral cryotherapy would reduce this to 444 (95% CI 379 to 524). The number needed to treat to benefit one additional person (NNTB), i.e. to prevent them from developing oral mucositis, is 4 people (95% CI 3 to 5). The results were similar for moderate to severe oral mucositis (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.65, 5 studies, 444 analysed, moderate quality evidence). NNTB 4 (95% CI 4 to 6). Severe oral mucositis is probably reduced (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.61, 5 studies, 444 analysed, moderate quality evidence). Where 300 per 1000 would develop severe oral mucositis, oral cryotherapy would reduce this to 120 (95% CI 81 to 183), NNTB 6 (95% CI 5 to 9). Adults receiving high‐dose melphalan‐based chemotherapy before haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) Oral cryotherapy may reduce oral mucositis of any severity (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.01, 5 studies, 270 analysed, low quality evidence). Where 824 per 1000 would develop oral mucositis, oral cryotherapy would reduce this to 486 (95% CI reduced to 289 to increased to 833). The NNTB is 3, although the uncertainty surrounding the effect estimate means that the 95% CI ranges from 2 NNTB, to 111 NNTH (number needed to treat in order to harm one additional person, i.e. for one additional person to develop oral mucositis). The results were similar for moderate to severe oral mucositis (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.09, 5 studies, 270 analysed, low quality evidence). NNTB 3 (95% CI 2 NNTB to 17 NNTH). Severe oral mucositis is probably reduced (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.72, 5 studies, 270 analysed, moderate quality evidence). Where 427 per 1000 would develop severe oral mucositis, oral cryotherapy would reduce this to 162 (95% CI 85 to 308), NNTB 4 (95% CI 3 to 9). Oral cryotherapy was shown to be safe, with very low rates of minor adverse effects, such as headaches, chills, numbness/taste disturbance, and tooth pain. This appears to contribute to the high rates of compliance seen in the included studies. There was limited or no evidence on the secondary outcomes of this review, or on patients undergoing other chemotherapies, radiotherapy, targeted therapy, or on comparisons of oral cryotherapy with other interventions or different oral cryotherapy regimens. Therefore no further robust conclusions can be made. There was also no evidence on the effects of oral cryotherapy in children undergoing cancer treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are confident that oral cryotherapy leads to large reductions in oral mucositis of all severities in adults receiving 5FU for solid cancers. We are less confident in the ability of oral cryotherapy to reduce oral mucositis in adults receiving high‐dose melphalan before HSCT. Evidence suggests that it does reduce oral mucositis in these adults, but we are less certain about the size of the reduction, which could be large or small. However, we are confident that there is an appreciable reduction in severe oral mucositis in these adults. This Cochrane review includes some very recent and currently unpublished data, and strengthens international guideline statements for adults receiving the above cancer treatments

    Augmenting Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation to Improve Outcomes in Myeloma

    Get PDF
    Consolidation with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard of care for transplantation-eligible patients with multiple myeloma, based on randomized trials showing improved progression-free survival with autologous transplantation after combination chemotherapy induction. These trials were performed before novel agents were introduced; subsequently, combinations of immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors as induction therapy have significantly improved rates and depth of response. Ongoing randomized trials are testing whether conventional autologous transplantation continues to improve responses after novel agent induction. Although these results are awaited, it is important to review strategies for improving outcomes after ASCT. Conditioning before ASCT with higher doses of melphalan and combinations of melphalan with other agents, including radiopharmaceuticals, has been explored. Tandem ASCT, consolidation, and maintenance therapy after ASCT have been investigated in phase III trials. Experimental cellular therapies using ex vivo–primed dendritic cells, ex vivo–expanded autologous lymphocytes, Killer Immunoglobulin Receptor (KIR)-mismatched allogeneic natural killer cells, and genetically modified T cells to augment ASCT are also in phase I trials. This review summarizes these strategies and highlights the importance of exploring strategies to augment ASCT, even in the era of novel agent induction

    Distinct germline genetic susceptibility profiles identified for common non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtypes

    Get PDF
    Lymphoma risk is elevated for relatives with common non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) subtypes, suggesting shared genetic susceptibility across subtypes. To evaluate the extent of mutual heritability among NHL subtypes and discover novel loci shared among subtypes, we analyzed data from eight genome-wide association studies within the InterLymph Consortium, including 10,629 cases and 9505 controls. We utilized Association analysis based on SubSETs (ASSET) to discover loci for subsets of NHL subtypes and evaluated shared heritability across the genome using Genome-wide Complex Trait Analysis (GCTA) and polygenic risk scores. We discovered 17 genome-wide significant loci (P &lt; 5 × 10−8) for subsets of NHL subtypes, including a novel locus at 10q23.33 (HHEX) (P = 3.27 × 10−9). Most subset associations were driven primarily by only one subtype. Genome-wide genetic correlations between pairs of subtypes varied broadly from 0.20 to 0.86, suggesting substantial heterogeneity in the extent of shared heritability among subtypes. Polygenic risk score analyses of established loci for different lymphoid malignancies identified strong associations with some NHL subtypes (P &lt; 5 × 10−8), but weak or null associations with others. Although our analyses suggest partially shared heritability and biological pathways, they reveal substantial heterogeneity among NHL subtypes with each having its own distinct germline genetic architecture

    Svi e di e ni i a o vni e shnei torgovli e po evropei skoi granit s i e i otchet o tamozhennykh sborakh za ... g.

    No full text
    Description based on: 1884.Mode of access: Internet.Issued by: Departament tamozhennykh sborov
    corecore