Evidence Hub

Infection risks in multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials from 2015 to 2019

Balmaceda N, Aziz M, Chandrasekar VT, McClune B, Kambhampati S, Shune L, Abdallah AO, Anwer F et al.

BMC cancer, 2021

56 citations

Abstract

Background: Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) remain at an increased risk of infection due to the disease process, as well as the ensuing treatments.

Methods: We performed a systematic review to evaluate the monthly risk of grade III/IV infection, pneumonia, and neutropenia in patients with myeloma enrolled in randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

Results: The risk of grade III or higher infection, pneumonia, and neutropenia persists among all phases of treatment. There was no statistical difference in grade III or higher infection, pneumonia, and neutropenia between frontline and relapsed/refractory setting. In the maintenance setting, the complications of infection, pneumonia, and neutropenia were low, but not negligible. Three-drug regimens were no more likely than two-drug regimens to have an increased risk of Grade III or higher infection.

Conclusions: This is the first study to quantify the monthly risk of grade III or higher infection, pneumonia, and neutropenia across different treatment regimens in the frontline, maintenance, and relapsed/refractory settings. The results of our systematic review demonstrate a significant risk for severe infection, pneumonia, and neutropenia in patients with MM. Further studies are needed to determine the value of antibiotic prophylaxis in a broader myeloma patient population, as well as other approaches that will further mitigate the morbidity and mortality related to infection in this vulnerable patient population.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free