The psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on multiple myeloma patients
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Content: As multiple myeloma (MM) therapies advance, understanding patients', caregivers' and physicians' perspectives on, and satisfaction with, available treatment options, and the impact of these options on quality of life (QoL), is important. EASEMENT is a real-world, observational, cross-sectional study conducted in the UK, Canada and Italy using retrospective chart reviews and surveys. The primary objectives were to describe patient and caregiver QoL (EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level questionnaire [EQ-5D-5L]), patient preference for oral or injectable therapies (single discrete-choice question) and patient satisfaction (Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication-9 items [TSQM-9];convenience, effectiveness and global satisfaction subscales;score range 0 100, indicating lower-to-higher satisfaction) by newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) or relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) status and by investigator-classified treatment injectable-containing ( injectables') versus fully oral ( orals'). A secondary objective was to compare direct healthcare resource utilisation (HRU) between injectable and oral treatments. Descriptive/unadjusted data are presented. 399 patients were enrolled, including 192 NDMM and 206 RRMM patients (status missing for 1 patient). Median age was 71 years (interquartile range 64 76), 61% were male, 74% were retired, 24% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology group performance status ?2 and 51%/41% were/were not living with their caregiver (8% missing). At the time of study visit, among NDMM patients, 77% were receiving injectables and 23% orals (treatment regimens are summarised in the Table). 9% of NDMM patients preferred injectables and 34% orals (52% no preference, 5% missing). Among RRMM patients, 42% were receiving injectables and 58% orals (treatment regimens are summarised in the Table). 3% of RRMM patients preferred injectables and 55% orals (34% no preference, 7% missing). There were no differences in treatment satisfaction between NDMM and RRMM patients. Results from the TSQM domains are reported for injectables versus orals, respectively;mean convenience score was significantly lower (74.7 vs 78.3;P = 0.0414);mean TSQM perception of effectiveness (72.4 vs 74.7;P = 0.3857) and global satisfaction (72.1 vs 74.2;P = 0.1948) scores did not differ. QoL dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression) were not significantly different between NDMM and RRMM patients or between patients receiving injectables or orals. When patients were asked to rate their health on a visual analogue scale (range 0, worst imaginable health, to 100, best imaginable health, as perceived by patients), mean score was significantly higher in NDMM versus RRMM patients (68.0 vs 63.1, P = 0.0313), but similar between patients receiving injectables versus orals (65.0 vs 66.2, P = 0.9069). Preliminary HRU data suggest that the rate of outpatient visits related to MM and its complications was numerically higher among patients receiving injectables versus orals (2.6 vs 2.3 outpatient visits per patient during the last 6 months or since RR disease). EASEMENT data indicate patients' perceived greater convenience with orals versus injectables and that more patients prefer orals versus injectables. Patients receiving orals versus injectables required a numerically lower rate of outpatient visits. Orals are useful options for patients who cannot, or prefer not to, travel to clinics, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».