MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3214062012 · doi:10.1182/blood-2021-146862

Is Symptom Burden Associated with Health Care Utilization: A Longitudinal Population-Based Cohort Study of Transplant Ineligible Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma

2021· article· en· W3214062012 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hira Mian, Rinku Sutradhar, Gregory R. Pond, Branavan Sivapathasundaram, Anita D’Souza, Tanya M. Wildes, Hsien Seow

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityJuravinski Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePopulationEmergency departmentNauseaDepression (economics)Health careEmergency medicineFamily medicinePsychiatryInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Transplant ineligible patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (TI NDMM) have high rates of health care utilization [emergency department visits and/or unplanned hospitalization (ED/hosp)] due to a combination of co-morbidities/frailty, disease manifestations and toxicities of anti-MM treatment. Understanding and optimizing unplanned health care utilization represents an important step in delivering person-centred care in MM. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) may represent one opportunity for predicting health care utilization. Databases within Ontario, Canada represent a unique opportunity to evaluate this association due to the implementation of a standardized population-wide PRO tool (the Edmonton Symptoms Assessment System [ESAS]). ESAS scores have been completed by patients during all outpatient cancer clinic visits since 2007. The ESAS is a validated and reliable tool that assesses the severity of nine common symptoms: well-being, pain, tiredness, anxiety, depression, drowsiness, lack of appetite, nausea and shortness of breath. Patients score these on a rating scale from 0 (no symptom) to 10 (worse possible symptom). The objective of our study was to evaluate the association between PROs (ESAS score) and the subsequent 14-day risk of ED/hosp among TI NDMM patients in the first year following diagnosis. Methods We conducted a retrospective population-based study using administrative data from ICES (previously known as the Institute of Clinical Evaluative Sciences), which maintains databases of health records for all patients in the publicly funded health care system in Ontario, Canada. All patients with NDMM identified using the ICD-O-3 code 9732 (MM), who received treatment without transplant in the first year between Jan 2007-Dec 2018 were included. Patients with no documented ESAS score within one year following diagnosis were excluded. The main outcome of interest was the occurrence of at least one ED/hosp within 14 days of an ESAS assessment in the first year following diagnosis. The main exposure variable was ESAS score (individual score for each of the nine symptoms and total score of all the nine symptoms [t-ESAS]) at each index date. A logistic regression model was used to assess the association of ESAS score and subsequent 14-day ED/hosp. A generalized estimating equations approach was used to account for patient level clustering, arising from multiple ESAS assessments taken on the same patient (over the first year after diagnosis). Results There were 2876 TI NDMM patients identified completing a total of 17,353 ESAS assessments. Baseline characteristics of the cohort are shown in Table 1. Tiredness, poor well-being and pain were the three most common severe symptoms present in 19.6%, 12.4% and 12.2% of the assessments, respectively. With regards to health care utilization, there were a total of 1755 ED/hosp visits in 1172/2876 (40.8%) TI NDMM patients within one year following diagnosis in our cohort. The proportion of patients with ED/hosp within 14 days of the ESAS assessment are outlined in Figure 1. There was an incremental increase in ED/hosp with increasing ESAS scores (higher score indicative of worse symptoms) for each individual symptom. A similar trend was noted for those with increasing t-ESAS scores with a 14-day ED/hosp event rate of 31.3% for those with a maximum score of 90 compared with 5.5% for those with a score of 0. Univariable and multivariate odds for ED/hosp are presented in Table 2. All nine symptom scores and t-ESAS were associated with an increased risk of ED/hosp visits. After controlling for confounders, individual symptoms (pain, tiredness, lack of appetite, shortness of breath and impaired well-being) and t-ESAS remained positively associated with ED/hosp. Conversely, self-reported depression was associated with decreased risk of ED/hosp (odds ratio 0.96 per unit increase, 95% Cl 0.93-0.99, p=0.01). Conclusion Our findings represent the largest study to date demonstrating that a PRO measure of symptom burden is associated with health care utilization in TI NDMM. Even after controlling for baseline factors, ED/hosp remained positively associated with higher ESAS symptom scores. The results of this study may help clinicians identify patients at high risk for ED/hosp. Further studies are required to understand whether targeted intervention aimed at reducing this symptom burden may help decrease ED/hosp usage. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Mian: BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Pond: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra-Zeneca, Merck, Profound Medical: Consultancy; Roche Canada: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. D'Souza: Sanofi, Takeda, Teneobio, CAELUM, Prothena: Research Funding; Janssen, Prothena: Consultancy; Imbrium, Pfizer, BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wildes: Carevive: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→