Search

Objective: Myeloma is primarily a disease of the elderly, but older patients experience poorer outcomes. Effective treatments may not be offered to older patients over fears about toxicity, particularly for those with comorbidities. We aimed to characterise the trend in survival disparity between older and younger patients and assess to what extent comorbidity might explain these disparities. Methods: We examined records for 56 010 patients diagnosed with myeloma in England between 1998‐2014. The Hospital Episode Statistics database provided information on comorbidity. Net survival was estimated for each diagnosis period. Adjusted excess hazard ratios for the effect of age were estimated using flexible parametric models. Results: Net survival increased for all age groups over the study period. However, older patients experienced a higher risk of death from their disease consistent between 1998 and 2014. Adjusting for comorbidity made little difference to the estimates. Conclusion: Factors other than comorbidity must explain the poorer survival experience of elderly patients. Treatment data were not examined and should be employed by future population studies. Inconsistent treatment of elderly patients with myeloma may be prevented by further use of pragmatic clinical trials which are inclusive of older adults, and also wider utilisation of frailty scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Myeloma causes profound immunodeficiency and recurrent serious infections. There are approximately 5500 new UK cases of myeloma per annum, and one-quarter of patients will have a serious infection within 3 months of diagnosis. Newly diagnosed patients may benefit from antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infection. However, the use of prophylaxis has not been established in myeloma and may be associated with health-care-associated infections (HCAIs), such as Clostridium difficile . There is a need to assess the benefits and cost-effectiveness of the use of antibacterial prophylaxis against any risks in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial., Objectives: To assess the risks, benefits and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic levofloxacin in newly diagnosed symptomatic myeloma patients., Design: Multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. A central telephone randomisation service used a minimisation computer algorithm to allocate treatments in a 1 : 1 ratio., Setting: A total of 93 NHS hospitals throughout England, Northern Ireland and Wales., Participants: A total of 977 patients with newly diagnosed symptomatic myeloma., Intervention: Patients were randomised to receive levofloxacin or placebo tablets for 12 weeks at the start of antimyeloma treatment. Treatment allocation was blinded and balanced by centre, estimated glomerular filtration rate and intention to give high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation. Follow-up was at 4-week intervals up to 16 weeks, with a further follow-up at 1 year., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was to assess the number of febrile episodes (or deaths) in the first 12 weeks from randomisation. Secondary outcomes included number of deaths and infection-related deaths, days in hospital, carriage and invasive infections, response to antimyeloma treatment and its relation to infection, quality of life and overall survival within the first 12 weeks and beyond., Results: In total, 977 patients were randomised (levofloxacin, n  = 489; placebo, n  = 488). A total of 134 (27%) events (febrile episodes, n  = 119; deaths, n  = 15) occurred in the placebo arm and 95 (19%) events (febrile episodes, n  = 91; deaths, n  = 4) occurred in the levofloxacin arm; the hazard ratio for time to first event (febrile episode or death) within the first 12 weeks was 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.51 to 0.86; p  = 0.002). Levofloxacin also reduced other infections (144 infections from 116 patients) compared with placebo (179 infections from 133 patients; p -trend of 0.06). There was no difference in new acquisitions of C. difficile , methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase Gram-negative organisms when assessed up to 16 weeks. Levofloxacin produced slightly higher quality-adjusted life-year gains over 16 weeks, but had associated higher costs for health resource use. With a median follow-up of 52 weeks, there was no significant difference in overall survival ( p  = 0.94)., Limitations: Short duration of prophylactic antibiotics and cost-effectiveness., Conclusions: During the 12 weeks from new diagnosis, the addition of prophylactic levofloxacin to active myeloma treatment significantly reduced febrile episodes and deaths without increasing HCAIs or carriage. Future work should aim to establish the optimal duration of antibiotic prophylaxis and should involve the laboratory investigation of immunity, inflammation and disease activity on stored samples funded by the TEAMM (Tackling Early Morbidity and Mortality in Myeloma) National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation grant (reference number 14/24/04)., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN51731976., Funding Details: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 23, No. 62. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information., Competing Interests: Mark T Drayson reports personal fees from Abingdon Health (Abingdon Health, York, UK) outside the submitted work. Stella Bowcock reports personal fees from Amgen (Amgen, CA, USA) and Celgene (Celgene, NJ, USA) outside the submitted work, non-financial support to attend educational meetings and has a patent issued for a device broadly related to the work. Tim Planche reports personal fees from Pfizer (Pfizer, CT, USA), Actellion (Actellion, Allschnil, Switzerland) and Astellas (Astellas Pharma, Tokyo, Japan) outside the submitted work. Kwee Yong reports grants from Janssen (Janssen Pharmaceutica, Beerse, Belgium), Celgene and Chugai (Chugai Pharmaceutical Co Tokyo, Japan) outside the submitted work. David Meads is a member of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) Methods Group and the NIHR HTA EESC Panel. Claire T Hulme is a member of the NIHR HTA Commissioning Board. Janet A Dunn is a member of the NIHR Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation board.