Geriatric-assessment-guided interventions for older adults with multiple myeloma: A feasibility study

12065 Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is disproportionately a disease of older adults, and aging-related impairments are common in this population. Geriatric assessment (GA) guided supportive care programs have been linked to improved treatment outcomes among older adults with solid-organ cancers. We sought to evaluate the feasibility of a GA-guided supportive care program among older adults treated for MM. Methods: We leveraged an existing registry of adults with plasma cell disorders at the University of North Carolina. Registry participants meeting inclusion criteria were offered referrals to supportive care resources by their MM provider during routine visits in 2021-2022. Inclusion criteria were diagnosis of MM, age ≥60, and presence of ≥1 selected problem areas (physical function, polypharmacy, mental health) on the GA. Function deficits were defined as self-report of requiring assistance with ≥1 instrumental activities of daily living or recent fall(s), polypharmacy as ≥10 daily medications, and anxiety/depression on the Mental Health Index 13. Individuals with physical function deficits were offered referral to physical therapy (PT). Those with polypharmacy were offered referral to an oncology Clinical Pharmacist Practitioner (CPP) for comprehensive medication reconciliation and evaluation for de-prescribing. Patients with mental health symptoms were offered referral to our center’s Comprehensive Cancer Support Program (CCSP). Results: 59 individuals were identified as having at least one deficit on the GA (Table). Of these, 14 were already utilizing all relevant resources, leaving 45 individuals eligible for a new resource. Among these, 16 accepted a referral to at least one resource. An additional 16 were approached and declined all offered referrals. For the remaining 13 screened individuals, providers were prompted regarding a referral recommendation prior to the patient’s visit, but a referral was not offered during the visit. Physical therapy was the most commonly identified relevant resource (n = 46), followed by CPP visits (n = 33). Referral acceptance rates were highest among those recommended for a pharmacy visit (55% of those approached) and lowest for CCSP (0%). Conclusions: Given the prevalence of polypharmacy or physical function deficits and acceptance rates for related interventions, future interventions focusing on collaboration with CPPs or physical therapists appear feasible in this setting. Methods to direct patients to supportive care resources that do not rely on provider recommendations during the limited window of clinic visits may also be beneficial. Clinical trial information: NCT04999085 . [Table: see text]