Prophylactic levofloxacin to prevent infections in newly diagnosed symptomatic myeloma: the TEAMM RCT.
Anti-Bacterial Agents
/ therapeutic use
Antibiotic Prophylaxis
Clostridioides difficile
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Cross Infection
/ prevention & control
England
Female
Humans
Levofloxacin
/ therapeutic use
Male
Middle Aged
Multiple Myeloma
/ drug therapy
Northern Ireland
Technology Assessment, Biomedical
Wales
ANTIBIOTIC PROPHYLAXIS
HEALTH-CARE-ASSOCIATED INFECTIONS
INFECTION
MYELOMA
SURVIVAL
Journal
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)
ISSN: 2046-4924
Titre abrégé: Health Technol Assess
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9706284
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2019
11 2019
Historique:
entrez:
7
11
2019
pubmed:
7
11
2019
medline:
10
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Myeloma causes profound immunodeficiency and recurrent serious infections. There are approximately 5500 new UK cases of myeloma per annum, and one-quarter of patients will have a serious infection within 3 months of diagnosis. Newly diagnosed patients may benefit from antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infection. However, the use of prophylaxis has not been established in myeloma and may be associated with health-care-associated infections (HCAIs), such as To assess the risks, benefits and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic levofloxacin in newly diagnosed symptomatic myeloma patients. Multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. A central telephone randomisation service used a minimisation computer algorithm to allocate treatments in a 1 : 1 ratio. A total of 93 NHS hospitals throughout England, Northern Ireland and Wales. A total of 977 patients with newly diagnosed symptomatic myeloma. Patients were randomised to receive levofloxacin or placebo tablets for 12 weeks at the start of antimyeloma treatment. Treatment allocation was blinded and balanced by centre, estimated glomerular filtration rate and intention to give high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation. Follow-up was at 4-week intervals up to 16 weeks, with a further follow-up at 1 year. The primary outcome was to assess the number of febrile episodes (or deaths) in the first 12 weeks from randomisation. Secondary outcomes included number of deaths and infection-related deaths, days in hospital, carriage and invasive infections, response to antimyeloma treatment and its relation to infection, quality of life and overall survival within the first 12 weeks and beyond. In total, 977 patients were randomised (levofloxacin, Short duration of prophylactic antibiotics and cost-effectiveness. During the 12 weeks from new diagnosis, the addition of prophylactic levofloxacin to active myeloma treatment significantly reduced febrile episodes and deaths without increasing HCAIs or carriage. Future work should aim to establish the optimal duration of antibiotic prophylaxis and should involve the laboratory investigation of immunity, inflammation and disease activity on stored samples funded by the TEAMM (Tackling Early Morbidity and Mortality in Myeloma) National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation grant (reference number 14/24/04). Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN51731976. This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Myeloma is a type of cancer that develops from cells in the bone marrow, called plasma cells, which are part of the immune system. Because myeloma affects the immune system, people who have it are at greater risk of picking up infections. This risk is higher at the start of antimyeloma therapy when the myeloma is active. The trial looked to see if the risk of getting an infection can be reduced, rather than waiting to see if an infection developed and then treating it. An antibiotic already used all over the world, called levofloxacin was tested. Half of the patients ( During the 12 weeks from new diagnosis of myeloma, the addition of prophylactic levofloxacin to active myeloma treatment significantly reduced the number of febrile episodes and deaths [134 (febrile episodes alone,
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Myeloma causes profound immunodeficiency and recurrent serious infections. There are approximately 5500 new UK cases of myeloma per annum, and one-quarter of patients will have a serious infection within 3 months of diagnosis. Newly diagnosed patients may benefit from antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infection. However, the use of prophylaxis has not been established in myeloma and may be associated with health-care-associated infections (HCAIs), such as
OBJECTIVES
To assess the risks, benefits and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic levofloxacin in newly diagnosed symptomatic myeloma patients.
DESIGN
Multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. A central telephone randomisation service used a minimisation computer algorithm to allocate treatments in a 1 : 1 ratio.
SETTING
A total of 93 NHS hospitals throughout England, Northern Ireland and Wales.
PARTICIPANTS
A total of 977 patients with newly diagnosed symptomatic myeloma.
INTERVENTION
Patients were randomised to receive levofloxacin or placebo tablets for 12 weeks at the start of antimyeloma treatment. Treatment allocation was blinded and balanced by centre, estimated glomerular filtration rate and intention to give high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation. Follow-up was at 4-week intervals up to 16 weeks, with a further follow-up at 1 year.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
The primary outcome was to assess the number of febrile episodes (or deaths) in the first 12 weeks from randomisation. Secondary outcomes included number of deaths and infection-related deaths, days in hospital, carriage and invasive infections, response to antimyeloma treatment and its relation to infection, quality of life and overall survival within the first 12 weeks and beyond.
RESULTS
In total, 977 patients were randomised (levofloxacin,
LIMITATIONS
Short duration of prophylactic antibiotics and cost-effectiveness.
CONCLUSIONS
During the 12 weeks from new diagnosis, the addition of prophylactic levofloxacin to active myeloma treatment significantly reduced febrile episodes and deaths without increasing HCAIs or carriage. Future work should aim to establish the optimal duration of antibiotic prophylaxis and should involve the laboratory investigation of immunity, inflammation and disease activity on stored samples funded by the TEAMM (Tackling Early Morbidity and Mortality in Myeloma) National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation grant (reference number 14/24/04).
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN51731976.
FUNDING DETAILS
This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?
Myeloma is a type of cancer that develops from cells in the bone marrow, called plasma cells, which are part of the immune system. Because myeloma affects the immune system, people who have it are at greater risk of picking up infections. This risk is higher at the start of antimyeloma therapy when the myeloma is active.
WHAT DID THE STUDY DO?
The trial looked to see if the risk of getting an infection can be reduced, rather than waiting to see if an infection developed and then treating it. An antibiotic already used all over the world, called levofloxacin was tested. Half of the patients (
WHAT DID THE STUDY FIND?
During the 12 weeks from new diagnosis of myeloma, the addition of prophylactic levofloxacin to active myeloma treatment significantly reduced the number of febrile episodes and deaths [134 (febrile episodes alone,
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
Myeloma is a type of cancer that develops from cells in the bone marrow, called plasma cells, which are part of the immune system. Because myeloma affects the immune system, people who have it are at greater risk of picking up infections. This risk is higher at the start of antimyeloma therapy when the myeloma is active.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31690402
doi: 10.3310/hta23620
pmc: PMC6859427
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Bacterial Agents
0
Levofloxacin
6GNT3Y5LMF
Banques de données
ISRCTN
['ISRCTN51731976']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1-94Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 08/116/69
Pays : United Kingdom
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Mark T Drayson reports personal fees from Abingdon Health (Abingdon Health, York, UK) outside the submitted work. Stella Bowcock reports personal fees from Amgen (Amgen, CA, USA) and Celgene (Celgene, NJ, USA) outside the submitted work, non-financial support to attend educational meetings and has a patent issued for a device broadly related to the work. Tim Planche reports personal fees from Pfizer (Pfizer, CT, USA), Actellion (Actellion, Allschnil, Switzerland) and Astellas (Astellas Pharma, Tokyo, Japan) outside the submitted work. Kwee Yong reports grants from Janssen (Janssen Pharmaceutica, Beerse, Belgium), Celgene and Chugai (Chugai Pharmaceutical Co Tokyo, Japan) outside the submitted work. David Meads is a member of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) Methods Group and the NIHR HTA EESC Panel. Claire T Hulme is a member of the NIHR HTA Commissioning Board. Janet A Dunn is a member of the NIHR Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation board.
Références
Cancer Research UK. Myeloma Incidence Statistics. London: Cancer Research UK; 2014. URL: www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/myeloma (accessed 30 November 2017).
Kumar SK, Rajkumar SV, Dispenzieri A, Lacy MQ, Hayman SR, Buadi FK, et al. Improved survival in multiple myeloma and the impact of novel therapies. Blood 2008;111:2516–20. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2007-10-116129
doi: https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2007-10-116129
Bird J, Behrens J, Westin J, Turesson I, Drayson M, Beetham R, et al. UK Myeloma Forum (UKMF) and Nordic Myeloma Study Group (NMSG): guidelines for the investigation of newly detected M-proteins and the management of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS). Br J Haematol 2009;147:22–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2141.2009.07807.x
doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2141.2009.07807.x
Landgren O, Kyle RA, Pfeiffer RM, Katzmann JA, Caporaso NE, Hayes RB, et al. Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) consistently precedes multiple myeloma: a prospective study. Blood 2009;113:5412–17. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2008-12-194241
doi: https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2008-12-194241
Augustson BM, Begum G, Dunn JA, Barth NJ, Davies F, Morgan G, et al. Early mortality after diagnosis of multiple myeloma: analysis of patients entered onto the United kingdom Medical Research Council trials between 1980 and 2002 – Medical Research Council Adult Leukaemia Working Party. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:9219–26. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.03.2086
doi: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.03.2086
Perri RT, Hebbel RP, Oken MM. Influence of treatment and response status on infection risk in multiple myeloma. Am J Med 1981;71:935–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9343(81)90303-X
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9343(81)90303-X
Lenhoff S, Hjorth M, Holmberg E, Turesson I, Westin J, Nielsen JL, et al. Impact on survival of high-dose therapy with autologous stem cell support in patients younger than 60 years with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a population-based study. Nordic Myeloma Study Group. Blood 2000;95:7–11.
Blade J, San Miguel JF, Fontanillas M, Esteve J, Maldonado J, Alcala A, et al. Increased conventional chemotherapy does not improve survival in multiple myeloma: long-term results of two PETHEMA trials including 914 patients. Hematol J 2001;2:272–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.thj.6200115
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.thj.6200115
Morgan GJ, Davies FE, Gregory WM, Bell SE, Szubert AJ, Navarro Coy N, et al. Cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, and dexamethasone as induction therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients destined for autologous stem-cell transplantation: MRC Myeloma IX randomized trial results. Haematologica 2012;97:442–50. https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2011.043372
doi: https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2011.043372
Cohen HJ, Rundles RW. Managing the complications of plasma cell myeloma. Arch Intern Med 1975;135:177–84. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1975.00330010179023
doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1975.00330010179023
Savage DG, Lindenbaum J, Garrett TJ. Biphasic pattern of bacterial infection in multiple myeloma. Ann Intern Med 1982;96:47–50. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-96-1-47
doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-96-1-47
Espersen F, Birgens HS, Hertz JB, Drivsholm A. Current patterns of bacterial infection in myelomatosis. Scand J Infect Dis 1984;16:169–73. https://doi.org/10.3109/00365548409087137
doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/00365548409087137
Jacobson DR, Zolla-Pazner S. Immunosuppression and infection in multiple myeloma. Semin Oncol 1986;13:282–90.
Doughney KB, Williams DM, Penn RL. Multiple myeloma: infectious complications. South Med J 1988;81:855–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007611-198807000-00012
doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/00007611-198807000-00012
Rayner HC, Haynes AP, Thompson JR, Russell N, Fletcher J. Perspectives in multiple myeloma: survival, prognostic factors and disease complications in a single centre between 1975 and 1988. Q J Med 1991;79:517–25.
Heaney JLJ, Campbell JP, Iqbal G, Caims D, Richter A, Child JA, et al. Characterisation of immunoparesis in newly diagnosed myeloma and its impact on progression-free and overall survival in both old and recent myeloma trials [published online ahead of print 20 June 2018]. Leukemia 2018.
Pratt G, Goodyear O, Moss P. Immunodeficiency and immunotherapy in multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 2007;138:563–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2141.2007.06705.x
doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2141.2007.06705.x
Oken MM, Pomeroy C, Weisdorf D, Bennett JM. Prophylactic antibiotics for the prevention of early infection in multiple myeloma. Am J Med 1996;100:624–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9343(95)00043-7
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9343(95)00043-7
Vesole DH, Oken MM, Heckler C, Greipp PR, Katz MS, Jacobus S, et al. Oral antibiotic prophylaxis of early infection in multiple myeloma: a URCC/ECOG randomized phase III study. Leukemia 2012;26:2517–20. https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2012.124
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2012.124
Offidani M, Corvatta L, Polloni C, Gentili S, Mele A, Rizzi R, et al. Thalidomide, dexamethasone, Doxil and Velcade (ThaDD-V) followed by consolidation/maintenance therapy in patients with relapsed-refractory multiple myeloma. Ann Hematol 2011;90:1449–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-011-1217-0
doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-011-1217-0
Vidal L, Gafter-Gvili A, Leibovici L, Dreyling M, Ghielmini M, Hsu Schmitz SF, et al. Rituximab maintenance for the treatment of patients with follicular lymphoma: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:248–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djn478
doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djn478
Bucaneve G, Micozzi A, Menichetti F, Martino P, Dionisi MS, Martinelli G, et al. Levofloxacin to prevent bacterial infection in patients with cancer and neutropenia. N Engl J Med 2005;353:977–87. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa044097
doi: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa044097
Cullen M, Steven N, Billingham L, Gaunt C, Hastings M, Simmonds P, et al. Antibacterial prophylaxis after chemotherapy for solid tumors and lymphomas. N Engl J Med 2005;353:988–98. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa050078
doi: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa050078
Gafter-Gvili A, Fraser A, Paul M, Vidal L, Lawrie TA, van de Wetering MD, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis for bacterial infections in afebrile neutropenic patients following chemotherapy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;1:CD004386. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004386.pub3
doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004386.pub3
Leibovici L, Paul M, Cullen M, Bucaneve G, Gafter-Gvili A, Fraser A, Kern WV. Antibiotic prophylaxis in neutropenic patients: new evidence, practical decisions. Cancer 2006;107:1743–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22205
doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22205
Meunier F, Lukan C. The first European conference on infections in leukaemia – ECIL1: a current perspective. Eur J Cancer 2008;44:2112–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.07.008
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.07.008
Baum HV, Franz U, Geiss HK. Prevalence of ciprofloxacin-resistant Escherichia coli in hematologic-oncologic patients. Infection 2000;28:278–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s150100070019
doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s150100070019
Razonable RR, Litzow MR, Khaliq Y, Piper KE, Rouse MS, Patel R. Bacteremia due to viridans group streptococci with diminished susceptibility to levofloxacin among neutropenic patients receiving levofloxacin prophylaxis. Clin Infect Dis 2002;34:1469–74. https://doi.org/10.1086/340352
doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/340352
Kyle RA, Rajkumar SV. Criteria for diagnosis, staging, risk stratification and response assessment of multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2009;23:3–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2008.291
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2008.291
Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, Blade J, Merlini G, Mateos MV, et al. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:e538–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70442-5
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70442-5
EuroQol Group. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9
Rowen D, Brazier J, Young T, Gaugris S, Craig BM, King MT, Velikova G. Deriving a preference-based measure for cancer using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Value Health 2011;14:721–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.01.004
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.01.004
Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983;67:361–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x
doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x
Kaplan MM P. Non parametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 1958;53:457–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1958.10501452
doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1958.10501452
Peto R, Pike MC, Armitage P, Breslow NE, Cox DR, Howard SV, et al. Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. II. analysis and examples. Br J Cancer 1977;35:1–39. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1977.1
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1977.1
Cox R. Regression models and life-tables. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol 1972;34:187–220.
Royston P, Parmar MK. Restricted mean survival time: an alternative to the hazard ratio for the design and analysis of randomized trials with a time-to-event outcome. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013;13:152. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-152
doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-152
Félix J, Aragão F, Almeida JM, Calado FJ, Ferreira D, Parreira AB, et al. Time-dependent endpoints as predictors of overall survival in multiple myeloma. BMC Cancer 2013;13:122. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-13-122
doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-13-122
National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. London: NICE; 2013.
Glick HA, Doshi JA, Sonnad SS, Polsky D. Economic Evaluation in Clinical Trials. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199685028.001.0001
doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199685028.001.0001
Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997;35:1095–108. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002
doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002
Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary (online) London BMJ Group and Pharmaceutic Press. URL: www.medicinescomplete.com/mc/bnf/current/ (accessed 30 November 2017).
Curtis LB. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2015. Canterbury: PSSRU, University of Kent; 2015.
Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). NHS Reference Costs 2014 to 2015. London: DHSC; 2015. URL: www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-reference-costs-2014-to-2015 (accessed 30 November 2017).
Curtis LB. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2016. Canterbury: PSSRU, University of Kent; 2016.
Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). NHS Reference Costs 2015 to 2016. London: DHSC; 2016. URL: www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-reference-costs-2015-to-2016 (accessed 30 November 2017).
Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ 2005;14:487–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.944
doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.944
Hunter RM, Baio G, Butt T, Morris S, Round J, Freemantle N. An educational review of the statistical issues in analysing utility data for cost-utility analysis. PharmacoEconomics 2015;33:355–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0247-6
doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0247-6
Faria R, Gomes M, Epstein D, White IR. A guide to handling missing data in cost-effectiveness analysis conducted within randomised controlled trials. PharmacoEconomics 2014;32:1157–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0193-3
doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0193-3
Ramsey SD, Willke RJ, Glick H, Reed SD, Augustovski F, Jonsson B, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II-An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health 2015;18:161–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.02.001
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.02.001
White IR, Thompson SG. Adjusting for partially missing baseline measurements in randomized trials. Stat Med 2005;24:993–1007. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1981
doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1981
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
O’Brien BJ, Briggs AH. Analysis of uncertainty in health care cost-effectiveness studies: an introduction to statistical issues and methods. Stat Methods Med Res 2002;11:455–68. https://doi.org/10.1191/0962280202sm304ra
doi: https://doi.org/10.1191/0962280202sm304ra
Briggs AH, O’Brien BJ, Blackhouse G. Thinking outside the box: recent advances in the analysis and presentation of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness studies. Annu Rev Public Health 2002;23:377–401. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140534
doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140534
Edlin R, McCabe C, Hulme C, Hall P, Wright J. Cost Effectiveness Modelling for Health Technology Assessment. Cham: Adis Springer Nature; 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15744-3
doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15744-3
Phillips CV. The economics of ‘more research is needed’. Int J Epidemiol 2001;30:771–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/30.4.771
doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/30.4.771
National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service. Routes to Diagnosis 2006–2010 Workbook. URL: www.ncin.org.uk/publications/routes_to_diagnosis (accessed 2 August 2018).
Gafter-Gvili A, Fraser A, Paul M, Leibovici L. Meta-analysis: antibiotic prophylaxis reduces mortality in neutropenic patients. Ann Intern Med 2005;142:979–95. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-142-12_Part_1-200506210-00008
doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-142-12_Part_1-200506210-00008