39 research outputs found
Hospitalization at the end of life in patients with multiple myeloma
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
Duo Shared Genomic Segment analysis identifies a genome-wide significant risk locus at 18q21.33 in myeloma pedigrees
Aim: High-risk pedigrees (HRPs) are a powerful design to map highly penetrant risk genes. We previously described Shared Genomic Segment (SGS) analysis, a mapping method for single large extended pedigrees that also addresses genetic heterogeneity inherent in complex diseases. SGS identifies shared segregating chromosomal regions that may inherit in only a subset of cases. However, single large pedigrees that are individually powerful (at least 15 meioses between studied cases) are scarce. Here, we expand the SGS strategy to incorporate evidence from two extended HRPs by identifying the same segregating risk locus in both pedigrees and allowing for some relaxation in the size of each HRP.Methods: Duo-SGS is a procedure to combine single-pedigree SGS evidence. It implements statistically rigorous duo-pedigree thresholding to determine genome-wide significance levels that account for optimization across pedigree pairs. Single-pedigree SGS identifies optimal segments shared by case subsets at each locus across the genome, with nominal significance assessed empirically. Duo-SGS combines the statistical evidence for SGS segments at the same genomic location in two pedigrees using Fisher’s method. One pedigree is paired with all others and the best duo-SGS evidence at each locus across the genome is established. Genome-wide significance thresholds are determined through distribution-fitting and the Theory of Large Deviations. We applied the duo-SGS strategy to eleven extended, myeloma HRPs.Results: We identified one genome-wide significant region at 18q21.33 (0.85 Mb, P = 7.3 × 10-9) which contains one gene, CDH20. Thirteen regions were genome-wide suggestive: 1q42.2, 2p16.1, 3p25.2, 5q21.3, 5q31.1, 6q16.1, 6q26, 7q11.23, 12q24.31, 13q13.3, 18p11.22, 18q22.3 and 19p13.12.Conclusion: Our results provide novel risk loci with segregating evidence from multiple HRPs and offer compelling targets and specific segment carriers to focus a future search for functional variants involved in inherited risk formyeloma
The Majority of Myeloma Patients Are Hypogonadal but This Is Not Associated with High Risk Cytogenetics
The Majority of Myeloma Patients Are Vitamin D Deficient, Unrelated to Survival or Cytogenetics
Recommended from our members
Quality of control groups in randomised trials of multiple myeloma enrolling in the USA: a systematic review.
To our knowledge, no study has evaluated the quality of control groups in randomised controlled trials of multiple myeloma. We aimed to do a systematic review of randomised controlled trials of multiple myeloma to ascertain the quality of the control groups used. PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, and CinicalTrials.gov were searched for articles of randomised controlled trials of multiple myeloma based in the USA that initiated participant enrolment between Jan 1, 2010, and June 30, 2020. A control group regimen was considered to be inferior if a previous randomised controlled trial had shown an improved progression-free survival versus the control group before enrolment. Of 49 identified randomised controlled trials, seven (14%) began enrolling patients into inferior control groups after an existing superior regimen to the control had already been published. Nine (18%) of the 49 trials continued enrolment on substandard control groups after data emerged during the study enrolment period. The median time that newer data emerged regarding inferiority of the control group from the time a trial first enrolled a patient was 13 months (IQR 8-29 months). 12 (75%) of these 16 randomised controlled trials are published, and nine (75%) of the 12 published trials had overlapping investigators with trials that had previously shown the inferiority of the control group being used. Greater scrutiny on the quality of control groups in randomised controlled trials of multiple myeloma is needed
Allogeneic stem cell transplant for multiple myeloma & myelofibrosis with split-dose busulfan, fludarabine & cyclophosphamide
Allogeneic stem cell transplant can have high morbidity and mortality in patients with myelofibrosis (MF) and multiple myeloma (MM). This phase 2 study used a novel myeloablative regimen of split-dose busulfan, fludarabine, and then post-transplant cyclophosphamide. Four patients with MF and 2 with MM were enrolled. At 1 year, non-relapse mortality was 33.3%, and overall survival was 50%. Incidence of acute and chronic GVHD was 33.3% and 16.7%, respectively. Those surviving beyond 1 year (MFÂ =Â 1, MMÂ =Â 2) had durable remissions with a median follow-up of 42 months. This small study demonstrates relative safety & favorable key outcomes using this novel approach
Recommended from our members
Intention to treat versus modified intention-to-treat analysis in B-cell maturation antigen and CD19 chimeric antigen receptor trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
IntroductionChimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CART) has revolutionised treatment of haematological malignancies; however, current reporting uses a modified intention-to-treat analysis (mITT) which over-estimates efficacy. We assessed what proportion of CD19 and B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) CART trials report the number of patients not receiving CART after being enrolled by performing meta-analysis of the mITT and intention-to-treat (iTT) overall response rate (ORR).MethodsPubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched. All prospective clinical trials of CD19 and BCMA-targeting CART enrolling two or greater patients from 1st January 2013 to 1st November 2020 were included.ResultsA total of 28 BCMA CART and 74 CD19 CART trials were identified. These included 10 BCMA CART (35.7%) and 52 (70.2%) CD19 CART trials reporting total number of patients enrolled and number of patients treated with CART. For this cohort of trials, the mITT ORR for BCMA CART was 78.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 67.0-89.0%), and the iTT ORR was 70.0% (95% CI = 59.0-80.0%). For CD19 leukaemia CART, the mITT ORR was 87.2% (95% CI = 83.1-91.2), and the iTT ORR was 74.9 (95% CI = 64.8-85.0). For CD19 lymphoma CART, the mITT ORR was 70.7% (95% CI = 63.9-77.5), and the iTT ORR was 58.7% (95% CI = 49.7-67.7).ConclusionAcross BCMA and CD19 CART trials, there is a difference of up to 8-12% in the ORR between modified and iTT analyses and a paucity of information regarding reasons why patients did not receive the intended study treatment
Recommended from our members
Characteristics of clinical trials for haematological malignancies from 2015 to 2020: A systematic review.
BackgroundAs the landscape of haematological malignancies dramatically changes due to diagnostic and therapeutic advances, it is important to evaluate trends in clinical trial designs. The objective of our study was to describe the design of clinical trials for five common haematological malignancies with respect to randomisation and end-points. We also aimed to assess trends over time and examine the relationships of funding source and country of origin to proportions of randomisation and utilisation of clinical end-points.MethodsThis systematic review identified haematological malignancy clinical trials starting in 2015-2020 registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as of 20th February 2021. Trial-related variables including randomisation status, type of primary end-point, and both projected and actual enrolment numbers were captured. Clinical end-points were defined as overall survival and quality of life, while surrogate end-points included all other end-points.ResultsOf 2609 relevant trials included in this analysis, only one-fifth were randomised (538, 21%), with a significant decrease in the proportion of randomised clinical trials from 26% of trials in 2015 to 19% in 2020 (p < 0.00001). Between the years 2015 and 2020, the proportion of randomised trials for all haematological malignancies using primary surrogate end-points remained relatively consistent, ranging from 84% in 2015 to 78% in 2020 (p = 0.352). Overall, only 15% of trials utilised primary end-points of overall survival or quality of life in a randomised design.ConclusionsThis systematic review of haematological malignancy trials found that the majority of trials are non-randomised and that there has been an increase in the ratio of non-randomised to randomised studies over time. The vast majority of randomised haematological malignancy trials use surrogate primary end-points