ArticleEJHaem2024
The UK consensus supporting effective introduction of novel treatments for multiple myeloma in the National Health Service.
Article in EJHaem, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a relapsing, debilitating blood cancer which remains incurable despite advances in treatments. Patients typically receive multiple lines of treatment, to which they become refractory, thereby limiting treatment options. B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) represent a novel modality of treatment that has significant efficacy for relapsed or refractory patients.The objective was to develop consensus statements for the effective implementation of BCMA BsAbs for relapsed or refractory MM patients within the National Health Service (NHS). Methods: The process employed a modified Delphi methodology. In March 2023, a literature review on the topic of novel treatments for MM was performed using the PubMed database.The process employed a modified Delphi methodology. Following a literature review, a steering group of eight expert clinicians identified and agreed on five main topics of focus and 44 statements. These were then developed into an online survey which was distributed to healthcare professionals working in Levels 1, 2 and 3 haematology centres in the United Kingdom. Results were then shared with the expert panel to determine conclusions. The threshold for consensus agreement was set at 75%. Results: A total of 60 responses were received from all three centre levels. There was representation from all targeted centres. Consensus was achieved in 42 statements (95%) across three broad areas: the patient profile, initiation and step-up dosing, monitoring and ongoing care, the role of multidisciplinary team and service designs for optimal management, consensus was not achieved for two statements. Given the level of agreement and that the stopping criteria were met, it was decided not to undertake further Delphi rounds. Conclusion: This consensus provides a framework to support the effective introduction of novel treatments for MM in the NHS. The results were used to inform a checklist for use within haematology services when considering the provision of MM care specific to BCMA BsAbs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.