The <scp>EASEMENT</scp> study: <scp>A</scp> multicentre, observational, cross‐sectional study to evaluate patient preferences, treatment satisfaction, quality of life, and healthcare resource use in patients with multiple myeloma receiving injectable‐containing or fully oral therapies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: As multiple myeloma (MM) therapies advance, understanding patients', caregivers', and physicians' perspectives on, and satisfaction with, available treatment options and their impact on quality of life (QoL), is important. METHODS: EASEMENT is a real-world, observational, cross-sectional study conducted in 19 sites within the UK, Canada, and Italy using retrospective chart reviews and surveys. Enrolled patients had clinical history available since diagnosis and had received ≥1 cycle of their current line of therapy. Primary objectives were to describe patient/caregiver QoL (EQ-5D-5L questionnaire), patient preference for oral/injectable therapies (single discrete-choice question), and patient satisfaction (TSQM-9 questionnaire). RESULTS: Between October 2018 and March 2020, 399 patients were enrolled (n = 192 newly diagnosed multiple myeloma [NDMM], n = 206 relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma [RRMM], n = 1 missing). Among NDMM and RRMM patients, 78%/22% and 42%/58% were receiving injectables/orals, respectively. Both NDMM and RRMM patients significantly preferred orals versus injectables (p < .0001). No significant differences were reported in treatment satisfaction or QoL, but treatment convenience favoured orals over injectables with near significance (p = .053). CONCLUSION: MM patients perceived greater convenience and preference for orals versus injectables. Oral treatments are useful for patients who cannot or prefer not to travel to clinics, or cannot perform self-injection within the community.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".