In Sweden, musculoskeletal disorders, in particular low back disorders (LBD) and neck-shoulder disorders (NSD) constitute by far the most common disorders, causing sick leave and early retirement. Studies that compare sickness absence in individuals with LBD and individuals with NSD are lacking. Moreover, it is likely that having concurrent complaints from the low back region and the neck-shoulder region could influence sickness absence. The purpose of the present study was to explore potential differences in sickness absence and in long-term sickness absence during a 5-year period, 1995-2001, among individuals with (1) solely LBD, (2) solely NSD, and (3) concurrent LBD and NSD. The present study was based on 817 subjects from the MUSIC-Norrtä lje study, whom were working at baseline and whom at both baseline and follow-up reported LBD and/or NSD. Three groups were identified based on pain and pain-related disability at both baseline and follow-up: (1) solely LBD, (2) solely NSD, and (3) concurrent LBD and NSD. Subjects who did not give consistent answers at both the baseline and follow-up occasionswere assigned a fourth group: (4) migrating LBD/NSD. Two outcomes were analysed: (1) prevalence of sickness absence, and (2) long-term sickness absence among those with sickness absence days. Logistic regression analysis was used to calculate odds ratios (OR) for sickness absence in the different disorder groups, taking into account confounding factors such as gender, age and other non-musculoskeletalrelated disorders. In the group concurrent LBD and NSD, 59% had been sickness absent between baseline and follow up, compared to 42% in the group solely LBD, 41% in the group solely NSD, and 46% in the group migrating LBD/NSD. No difference in sickness absence was found between the group solely LBD compared to the group solely NSD [OR 0.65 (0.36-1.17)]. The adjusted OR for sickness absence in the group concurrent LBD and NSD compared to subjects with solely LBD or solely NSD was [OR 1.69 (1.14-2.51)]. The adjusted OR for having long-term sickness absence was 2.48 (95% CI = 1.32-4.66) for the group concurrent LBD and NSD. In the present study, having concurrent LBD and NSD were associated with a higher risk for sickness absence and also long-term sickness absence. This suggests that, when research on sickness absence and return to work after a period of LBD or NSD is performed, it is important to take into consideration any concurrent pain from the other spinal region. The study also implies that spinal co-morbidity is an important factor to be considered by clinicians and occupational health providers in planning treatment, or in prevention of these disorders.

The outcome for multiple myeloma patients has improved since the introduction of bortezomib, thalidomide and lenalidomide. However, studies comparing new and conventional treatment include selected patient groups. We investigated consecutive patients (n = 1638) diagnosed in a defined period and compared survival with a gender-and age-matched cohort Swedish population (n = 9 340 682). Median overall survival for non-high-dose treated patients was 2Á8 years. The use of bortezomib, thalidomide or lenalidomide in first line therapy predicted a significantly longer overall survival (median 4Á9 years) compared to conventional treatment (2Á3 years). Among non-high-dose treated patients receiving at least 2 lines with bortezomib, thalidomide or lenalidomide, 69% and 63% have survived at 3 and 5 years as compared to 48% and 22% with conventional drugs and 88% and 79% in the matched cohort populations, respectively. The median overall survival in high-dose treated patients was 6Á9 years. Of these patients, 84% survived at 3 years and 70% at 5 years as compared to 98% and 95% in the matched cohort population. Overall survival in the best non-high-dose treated outcome group is closing the gap with the matched cohort. Upfront use of new drugs is clearly better than waiting until later lines of treatment.

BTZ and LEN/DEX are projected to prolong survival relative to DEX. From a Swedish perspective, BTZ is cost-effective compared to DEX and LEN/DEX.

BackgroundRenal impairment is a common feature in multiple myeloma and is considered a poor prognostic factor.AimTo determine the impact of novel drugs (i.e. bortezomib, lenalidomide and thalidomide) in the treatment of myeloma patients with renal impairment. The primary endpoint was overall survival and secondary endpoints were time to next treatment and response.MethodsThe study population included all patients diagnosed with treatment-demanding multiple myeloma January 2000 to June 2011 at 15 Swedish hospitals. Renal impairment was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate under 60 mL/min/1.73 m2.ResultThe study population consisted of 1538 patients, of which 680 had renal impairment at diagnosis. The median overall survival in patients with renal impairment was 33 months, which was significantly shorter than 52 months in patients with normal renal function (P<0.001). Novel agents in first line improved overall survival (median 60 months) in non-high-dose treated patients with renal impairment (n = 143) as compared to those treated with conventional cytotoxic drugs (n = 411) (median 27 months) (P<0.001). In the multivariate analysis up front treatment with bortezomib was an independent factor for better overall survival in non-high-dose treated renally impaired patients. High-dose treated renally impaired patients had significantly better median overall survival than non-high-dose ones (74 versus 26 months) and novel drugs did not significantly improve survival further in these patients. Patients with renal impairment had both a shorter median time to next treatment and a lower response rate than those with normal renal function. However, novel drugs and high dose treatment lead to a significantly longer time to next treatment and the use of novel agents significantly improved the response rate of these patients.ConclusionHigh dose treatment and novel drugs, especially bortezomib, can effectively overcome the negative impact of renal impairment in patients with multiple myeloma.

Background: This study investigated prostate cancer (PC)-specific survival and overall survival (OS) in a population-based castration-resistant PC (CRPC) cohort. Methods: Data from Stockholm Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) and Biopsy Register patients with increasing PSA despite gonadotropin-releasing hormone treatment or surgical castration (n ¼ 1,712) included PSA values and biopsies from 2003 to 2015 and were linked to the National Prostate Cancer Register and Prescribed Drug Register. Kaplan-Meier method estimated PC-specific survival and OS, stratified by metastasis at PC diagnosis, and Cox regression estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for Gleason score and T-stage at PC diagnosis and for age and calendar period at CRPC onset by metastasis status at diagnosis. Results: Median OS after CRPC onset was 23.2 months (95% CI ¼ 21.0-25.9) among patients without metastases (M0) at primary diagnosis, and 13.2 months (11.3-14.5) among patients with metastases (M1). Median PC-specific survival from CRPC onset was 30.3 (27.5-34.1) months and 13.3 (12.1-15.8) months for M0 and M1 patients, respectively. Biopsy Gleason score 8 was associated with higher all-cause mortality than 6 (HR ¼ 2.07 [95% CI ¼ 1.43-3.01]) and PC-specific mortality (2.07 [1.27-3.40]) after CRPC among patients with M0 disease. Patients developing CRPC from 2012 onward had lower all-cause mortality (HR ¼ 0.71 [95%