Search

Objective: To describe determinants of persisting humoral and cellular immune response to the second COVID‐19 vaccination among patients with myeloma. Methods: This is a prospective, observational study utilising the RUDYstudy.org platform. Participants reported their second and third COVID‐19 vaccination dates. Myeloma patients had an Anti‐S antibody level sample taken at least 21 days after their second vaccination and a repeat sample before their third vaccination. Results: 60 patients provided samples at least 3 weeks (median 57.5 days) after their second vaccination and before their third vaccination (median 176.0 days after second vaccine dose). Low Anti‐S antibody levels (<50 IU/mL) doubled during this interval (p =.023) and, in the 47 participants with T‐spot data, there was a 25% increase negative T‐spot tests (p =.008). Low anti–S antibody levels prior to the third vaccination were predicted by lower Anti‐S antibody level and negative T‐spot status after the second vaccine. Independent determinants of a negative T‐spot included increasing age, previous COVID infection, high CD4 count and lower percentage change in Anti‐S antibody levels. Conclusions: Negative T‐spot results predict low Anti‐S antibody levels (<50 IU/mL) following a second COVID‐19 vaccination and a number of biomarkers predict T cell responses in myeloma patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Late presentation of multiple myeloma (MM) heightens the risk of complication risks, including end-organ damage. This study aimed to: 1) detail the diagnostic journey of MM patients, encompassing symptoms, initial diagnoses, and healthcare professionals met; 2) establish the median duration from symptom onset to MM diagnosis; and 3) examine factors linked to timely MM diagnosis within 12 weeks. Methods: A total of 300 adults self-reporting MM were analysed from the Rare and Undiagnosed Diseases cohort Study (RUDY). The RUDY study is a web-based platform, where participants provide dynamic consent and self-report their MM diagnosis and information about their diagnostic journey. This includes the estimated date of initial potential first symptoms, descriptions of these symptoms, the healthcare professionals they consulted, and other diagnoses received before the MM diagnosis. Descriptive statistics, combinatorial analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to describe and examine the diagnostic journey of individuals with MM. Results: Overall, 52% of the participants reported other diagnoses before MM diagnosis, with musculoskeletal disorders (47.8%), such as osteoporosis, costochondritis, or muscle strains, being the most common. The most prevalent initial reported symptom was back pain/vertebral fractures (47%), followed by chest/shoulder pain, including rib pain and fractures (20%), and fatigue/tiredness (19.7%). 40% of participants were diagnosed by direct referral from primary care to haematology without seeing other healthcare professionals whilst 60% consulted additional specialists before diagnosis. The median time from symptom onset to MM diagnosis was 4 months (IQR 2-10 months, range 0-172). Seeing an Allied Healthcare Professional such as a physiotherapist, chiropractor or an osteopath (OR = 0.25, 95% CI [0.12, 0.47], p <0.001), experiencing infection symptoms (OR = 0.32, 95% CI [0.13, 0.76], p = 0.013), and having chest or shoulder pain (OR = 0.45, 95% CI [0.23, 0.86], p = 0.020) were associated with a lower likelihood of being diagnosed with MM within 12 weeks. Older age (OR = 1.04, 95% CI [1.02, 1.07], p = 0.001) was associated with a higher likelihood of diagnosis within 12 weeks. Discussion: Developing resources for allied health professionals may improve early recognition of MM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients with myeloma often face significant diagnostic delay, with up to one-third of UK patients diagnosed after an emergency presentation (EP). Compared with other routes, patients presenting as an emergency have more advanced disease, increased complications, and poorer prognosis. An economic model was developed using a decision-tree framework and lifetime time horizon to estimate costs related to different presentation routes (EP, general practitioner [GP] 2-week wait, GP urgent, GP routine, and consultant to consultant) for UK patients diagnosed as having myeloma. After diagnosis, patients received one of 3 first-line management options (observation, active treatment, or end-of-life care). Inputs were derived from UK health technology assessments and targeted literature reviews, or based on authors' clinical experience where data were unavailable. Active treatment, complication, and end-of-life care costs were included. The average per-patient cost of treating myeloma (across all routes) was estimated at £146 261. The average per-patient cost associated with EP (£152 677) was the highest; differences were minimal compared with GP 2-week wait (£149 631) and consultant to consultant (£147 237). GP urgent (£140 025) and GP routine (£130 212) were associated with marginally lower costs. Complication (£42 252) and end-of-life care (£11 273) costs were numerically higher for EP than other routes (£25 021-£38 170 and £9772-£10 458, respectively). An economic benefit may be associated with earlier diagnosis, gained via reduced complication and end-of-life care costs. Strategies to expedite myeloma diagnosis and minimize EPs have the potential to improve patient outcomes and may result in long-term savings that could offset any upfront costs associated with their implementation. • Patients with multiple myeloma who present as an emergency have a poorer prognosis and additional complications compared with those diagnosed via other routes. • This analysis evaluates the cost associated with various routes of presentation for patients with multiple myeloma and explores the economic impact of diagnosis via emergency presentation, which can be associated with diagnostic delay. • The costs resulting from complications and end-of-life care are higher for patients presenting as an emergency than other routes, suggesting the potential to reduce these costs with earlier diagnosis. Therefore, strategies to expedite myeloma diagnosis and minimize emergency presentations not only have the potential to improve patient outcomes but may also result in long-term cost savings that could offset any upfront costs associated with their implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

All patients who had had a previous infection had a robust antibody response to the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine and 60% of patients had an optimal immune response to the first dose of COVID-19 vaccination. COVID symptoms, testing, shielding impact on patient-reported outcomes and early vaccine responses in individuals with multiple myeloma Keywords: myeloma; COVID-19; vaccination; wellbeing; shielding EN myeloma COVID-19 vaccination wellbeing shielding 95 98 4 12/27/21 20220101 NES 220101 Patients with myeloma have been shielded and self-isolated since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, due to the concern for and subsequent reports of higher risk of severe COVID-19 disease and mortality.1 In addition, guidelines have encouraged attenuation of myeloma therapeutics or a switch to oral therapies, ostensibly to reduce hospital foot-fall, facilitate shielding and potentially to limit further treatment-related immune suppression.2 Myeloma requires ongoing immune-suppressive chemotherapy, frequent medical visits and has previously demonstrated universally poor response to vaccinations.3 The protective titre of antibodies required to prevent re-infection is unclear, as is the ability to protect patients from SARS-CoV-2 virus variants of concern (VoC). [Extracted from the article]

A growing population of long-term survivors of myeloma is now accumulating the 'late effects' not only of myeloma itself, but also of several lines of treatment given throughout the course of the disease. It is thus important to recognise the cumulative burden of the disease and treatment-related toxicity in both the stable and active phases of myeloma, some of which is unlikely to be detected by routine monitoring. We summarise here the evidence for the key late effects in long-term survivors of myeloma, including physical and psychosocial consequences (in Parts 1 and 2 respectively), and recommend the use of late-effects screening protocols in detection and intervention. The early recognition of late effects and effective management strategies should lead to an improvement in the management of myeloma patients, although evidence in this area is currently limited and further research is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor regarding the dose-related side effects of thalidomide in the treatment of myeloma is presented.

The article presents the authors' views on the implications of ultra low dose thalidomide on elderly patients with myeloma. They commented that the improvement in performance status in the responders concurs with emerging data that a response to therapy and diminution in disease bulk improves the quality of life of patients with myeloma. They added that the intake of 25 milligrams of thalidomide may enable patients to continue maintenance treatment longer compared with conventional dose.

Seven cases of thromboembolism were found amongst 23 patients treated with thalidomide for myeloma over a total of 141.5 patient treatment months. Five thromboembolic events were venous (two severe) and two arterial. A historical control of 18 similar patients not given thalidomide had one thromboembolism over 289 months. We found no underlying thrombophilic tendency in the affected patients. We suggest that the thalidomide may predispose to thromboembolism at even lower doses than previously reported (mean dose 150 mg). The two most severe thromboses occurred on 100 mg thalidomide alone, not associated with chemotherapy or glucocorticoids. We raise the possibility that arterial thromboembolism may also occur in association with thalidomide. Some patients continued thalidomide after the event, together with warfarin, with no further thromboembolism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]