| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Chatzidionysiou, K., et al.
(författare)
-
Effectiveness of a Second Biologic After Failure of a Non-tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor As First Biologic in Rheumatoid Arthritis
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of Rheumatology. - : The Journal of Rheumatology. - 0315-162X .- 1499-2752. ; 48:10, s. 1512-1518
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective. In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), evidence regarding the effectiveness of a second biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) in patients whose first-ever bDMARD was a non-tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) bDMARD is limited. The objective of this study was therefore to assess the outcome of a second bDMARD (non-TNFi: rituximab [RTX], abatacept [ABA], or tocilizumab [TCZ], separately; and TNFi) after failure of a non-TNFi bDMARD as first bDMARD. Methods. We identified patients with RA from the 5 Nordic biologics registers who started treatment with a non-TNFi as first-ever bDMARD but switched to a second bDMARD. For the second bDMARD, we assessed drug survival (at 6 and 12 months) and primary response (at 6 months). Results. We included 620 patients starting a second bDMARD (ABA 86, RTX 40, TCZ 67, and TNFi 427) following failure of a first non-TNFi bDMARD. At 6 and 12 months after start of their second bDMARD, approximately 70% and 60%, respectively, remained on treatment, and at 6 months, less than one-third of patients were still on their second bDMARD and had reached low disease activity or remission according to the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints. For those patients whose second bMDARD was a TNFi, the corresponding proportion was slightly higher (40%). Conclusion. The drug survival and primary response of a second bDMARD in patients with RA switching due to failure of a non-TNFi bDMARD as first bDMARD is modest. Some patients may benefit from TNFi when used after failure of a non-TNFi as first bDMARD.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- de Boniface, J., et al.
(författare)
-
Omitting axillary dissection in breast cancer with sentinel-node metastases
- 2024
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 390:13, s. 1163-1175
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND Trials evaluating the omission of completion axillary-lymph-node dissection in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer and sentinel-lymph-node metastases have been compromised by limited statistical power, uncertain nodal radiotherapy target volumes, and a scarcity of data on relevant clinical subgroups.METHODS We conducted a noninferiority trial in which patients with clinically node-negative primary T1 to T3 breast cancer (tumor size, T1, ≤20 mm; T2, 21 to 50 mm; and T3, >50 mm in the largest dimension) with one or two sentinel-node macrometastases (metastasis size, >2 mm in the largest dimension) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to completion axillary-lymph-node dissection or its omission (sentinel-node biopsy only). Adjuvant treatment and radiation therapy were used in accordance with national guidelines. The primary end point was overall survival. We report here the per-protocol and modified intention-to-treat analyses of the prespecified secondary end point of recurrence-free survival. To show noninferiority of sentinel-node biopsy only, the upper boundary of the confidence interval for the hazard ratio for recurrence or death had to be below 1.44.RESULTS Between January 2015 and December 2021, a total of 2766 patients were enrolled across five countries. The per-protocol population included 2540 patients, of whom 1335 were assigned to undergo sentinel-node biopsy only and 1205 to undergo completion axillary-lymph-node dissection (dissection group). Radiation therapy including nodal target volumes was administered to 1192 of 1326 patients (89.9%) in the sentinel-node biopsy–only group and to 1058 of 1197 (88.4%) in the dissection group. The median follow-up was 46.8 months (range, 1.5 to 94.5). Overall, 191 patients had recurrence or died. The estimated 5-year recurrence-free survival was 89.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.5 to 91.9) in the sentinel-node biopsy–only group and 88.7% (95% CI, 86.3 to 91.1) in the dissection group, with a country-adjusted hazard ratio for recurrence or death of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.19), which was significantly (P<0.001) below the prespecified noninferiority margin.CONCLUSIONS The omission of completion axillary-lymph-node dissection was noninferior to the more extensive surgery in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer who had sentinel-node macrometastases, most of whom received nodal radiation therapy. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others; SENOMAC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02240472.).
|
|
| 6. |
- de Boniface, J., et al.
(författare)
-
The generalisability of randomised clinical trials: an interim external validity analysis of the ongoing SENOMAC trial in sentinel lymph node-positive breast cancer
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0167-6806 .- 1573-7217. ; 180:1, s. 167-176
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose None of the key randomised trials on the omission of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in sentinel lymph-positive breast cancer have reported external validity, even though results indicate selection bias. Our aim was to assess the external validity of the ongoing randomised SENOMAC trial by comparing characteristics of Swedish SENOMAC trial participants with non-included eligible patients registered in the Swedish National Breast Cancer Register (NKBC). Methods In the ongoing non-inferiority European SENOMAC trial, clinically node-negative cT1-T3 breast cancer patients with up to two sentinel lymph node macrometastases are randomised to undergo completion ALND or not. Both breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy are eligible interventions. Data from NKBC were extracted for the years 2016 and 2017, and patient and tumour characteristics compared with Swedish trial participants from the same years. Results Overall, 306 NKBC cases from non-participating and 847 NKBC cases from participating sites (excluding SENOMAC participants) were compared with 463 SENOMAC trial participants. Patients belonging to the middle age groups (p = 0.015), with smaller tumours (p = 0.013) treated by breast-conserving therapy (50.3 versus 47.1 versus 65.2%, p < 0.001) and less nodal tumour burden (only 1 macrometastasis in 78.8 versus 79.9 versus 87.3%, p = 0.001) were over-represented in the trial population. Time trends indicated, however, that differences may be mitigated over time. Conclusions This interim external validity analysis specifically addresses selection mechanisms during an ongoing trial, potentially increasing generalisability by the time full accrual is reached. Similar validity checks should be an integral part of prospective clinical trials. Trial registration: NCT 02240472, retrospective registration date September 14, 2015 after trial initiation on January 31, 2015
|
|
| 7. |
- Alping, P., et al.
(författare)
-
Effectiveness of initial MS treatments in the COMBAT-MS trial : injectables, dimethyl fumarate, natalizumab and rituximab
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Multiple Sclerosis Journal. - : Sage Publications. - 1352-4585 .- 1477-0970. ; 27:Suppl. 2, s. 21-22
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Introduction: Direct comparisons across multiple disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) are valuable in clinical decision making. COMBAT-MS (NCT03193866) is an observational drug trial capturing data on clinical relapses, lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), and drug survival, at all Swedish university clinics.Objective: Compare the effectiveness of the most common initial MS therapies in Sweden.Methods: All first-ever MS treatments with injectables (INJ, interferon-β/glatiramer acetate), dimethyl fumarate (DMF), natalizumab (NTZ), and rituximab (RTX), started 2011-01-01 to 2020-12-14, were identified with prospectively recorded outcome data in the Swedish MS Register. Follow-up continued even if the therapy ended. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation and potential confounding was adjusted for using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting with baseline variables: age, sex, MS duration, geographical region, EDSS, and relapses. All comparisons are made against RTX.Results: We included 1936 first-ever therapy episodes: 856 INJ, 341 DMF, 270 NTZ, and 469 RTX. Baseline characteristics differed by DMT, with natalizumab having the youngest patients, shortest MS duration, and the most previous relapses.After adjustment, the hazard ratio (HR) for first relapse vs RTX was for INJ 5.9 (95% confidence interval 3.7; 9.5), DMF 2.8 (1.7; 4.8), and NTZ 1.8 (1.0; 3.3). Similarly, the relative three-year lesion rate was for INJ 6.06 (3.75; 9.80), DMF 3.52 (2.01; 6.17), and NTZ 2.03 (1.14; 3.64). EDSS differences at three years were only marginally different: INJ 0.25 (0.06; 0.44), DMF 0.05 (-0.16; 0.26), and NTZ 0.00 (-0.23; 0.24). In contrast, HR for treatment discontinuation was marked: INJ 32.5 (19.0; 55.7), DMF 20.2 (11.5; 35.4), and NTZ 16.2 (8.9; 29.5).Conclusions: In treatment-naïve patients, RTX was associated with the lowest risk of relapses and MRI lesions, and by far the lowest probability of switching to a second therapy. In contrast, EDSS at 3 years was similar for RTX, DMF, and NTZ, and only slightly higher for INJ. The apparent difference in effectiveness between NTZ and RTX could possibly be explained by the vulnerable period after switching from NTZ, mainly due to JC virus positivity. These findings underscore the importance of tracking long-term outcomes from first DMT start, while considering subsequent therapy switches.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
- Arkema, E, et al.
(författare)
-
Comorbidities and rheumatic diseases
- 2014
-
Ingår i: SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY. - 0300-9742. ; 43, s. 39-39
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 12. |
|
|
| 13. |
- Askling, J., et al.
(författare)
-
How comparable are rates of malignancies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis across the world? A comparison of cancer rates, and means to optimise their comparability, in five RA registries
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. - : BMJ. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 75:10, s. 1789-1796
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background The overall incidence of cancer in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is modestly elevated. The extent to which cancer rates in RA vary across clinical cohorts and patient subsets, as defined by disease activity or treatment is less known but critical for understanding the safety of existing and new antirheumatic therapies. We investigated comparability of, and means to harmonise, malignancy rates in five RA registries from four continents. Methods Participating RA registries were Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America (CORRONA) (USA), Swedish Rheumatology Quality of Care Register (SRR) (Sweden), Norfolk Arthritis Register (NOAR) (UK), CORRONA International (several countries) and Institute of Rheumatology, Rheumatoid Arthritis (IORRA) (Japan). Within each registry, we analysed a main cohort of all patients with RA from January 2000 to last available data, and sensitivity analyses of sub-cohorts defined by disease activity, treatment change, prior comorbidities and restricted by calendar time or follow-up, respectively. Malignancy rates with 95% CIs were estimated, and standardised for age and sex, based on the distributions from a typical RA clinical trial programme population (fostamatinib). Results There was a high consistency in rates for overall malignancy excluding non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), for malignant lymphomas, but not for all skin cancers, across registries, in particular following age/sex standardisation. Standardised rates of overall malignancy excluding NMSC varied from 0.56 to 0.87 per 100 person-years. Within each registry, rates were generally consistent across sensitivity analyses, which differed little from the main analysis. Conclusion In real-world RA populations, rates of both overall malignancy and of lymphomas are consistent.
|
|
| 14. |
|
|
| 15. |
|
|
| 16. |
|
|
| 17. |
|
|
| 18. |
- Courvoisier, D, et al.
(författare)
-
POINTS TO CONSIDER WHEN ANALYSING AND REPORTING COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH WITH OBSERVATIONAL DATA IN RHEUMATOLOGY
- 2020
-
Ingår i: ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES. - : BMJ. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 79, s. 124-125
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Comparing drug effectiveness in observational settings is hampered by several major threats, among them confounding and attrition bias bias (patients who stop treatment no longer contribute information, which may overestimate true drug effectiveness).Objectives:To present points to consider (PtC) when analysing and reporting comparative effectiveness with observational data in rheumatology (EULAR-funded taskforce).Methods:The task force comprises 18 experts: epidemiologists, statisticians, rheumatologists, patients, and health professionals.Results:A systematic literature review of methods currently used for comparative effectiveness research in rheumatology and a statistical simulation study were used to inform the PtC (table). Overarching principles focused on defining treatment effectiveness and promoting robust and transparent epidemiological and statistical methods increase the trustworthiness of the results.Points to considerReporting of comparative effectiveness observational studies must follow the STROBE guidelinesAuthors should prepare a statistical analysis plan in advanceTo provide a more complete picture of effectiveness, several outcomes across multiple health domains should be comparedLost to follow-up from the study sample must be reported by the exposure of interestThe proportion of patients who stop and/or change therapy over time, as well as the reasons for treatment discontinuation must be reportedCovariates should be chosen based on subject matter knowledge and model selection should be justifiedThe study baseline should be at treatment initiation and a description of how covariate measurements relate to baseline should be includedThe analysis should be based on all patients starting a treatment and not limited to patients remaining on treatment at a certain time pointWhen treatment discontinuation occurs before the time of outcome assessment, this attrition should be taken into account in the analysis.Sensitivity analyses should be undertaken to explore the influence of assumptions related to missingness, particularly in case of attritionConclusion:The increased use of real-world comparative effectiveness studies makes it imperative to reduce divergent or contradictory results due to biases. Having clear recommendations for the analysis and reporting of these studies should promote agreement of observational studies, and improve studies’ trustworthiness, which may also facilitate meta-analysis of observational data.Disclosure of Interests:Delphine Courvoisier: None declared, Kim Lauper: None declared, Sytske Anne Bergstra: None declared, Maarten de Wit Grant/research support from: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Consultant of: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Speakers bureau: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Bruno Fautrel Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Medac MSD France, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, SOBI and UCB, Thomas Frisell: None declared, Kimme Hyrich Grant/research support from: Pfizer, UCB, BMS, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Florenzo Iannone Consultant of: Speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, MSD, Speakers bureau: Speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, MSD, Joanna KEDRA: None declared, Pedro M Machado Consultant of: PMM: Abbvie, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Speakers bureau: PMM: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Lykke Midtbøll Ørnbjerg Grant/research support from: Novartis, Ziga Rotar Consultant of: Speaker and consulting fees from Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Medis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi., Speakers bureau: Speaker and consulting fees from Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Medis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi., Maria Jose Santos Speakers bureau: Novartis and Pfizer, Tanja Stamm Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Sanofi Genzyme, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Roche, Sanofi, Simon Stones Consultant of: I have been a paid consultant for Envision Pharma Group and Parexel. This does not relate to this abstract., Speakers bureau: I have been a paid speaker for Actelion and Janssen. These do not relate to this abstract., Anja Strangfeld Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Robert B.M. Landewé Consultant of: AbbVie; AstraZeneca; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly & Co.; Galapagos NV; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB Pharma, Axel Finckh Grant/research support from: Pfizer: Unrestricted research grant, Eli-Lilly: Unrestricted research grant, Consultant of: Sanofi, AB2BIO, Abbvie, Pfizer, MSD, Speakers bureau: Sanofi, Pfizer, Roche, Thermo Fisher Scientific
|
|
| 19. |
|
|
| 20. |
|
|
| 21. |
|
|
| 22. |
- Frisell, T, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparative analysis of first-year fingolimod and natalizumab drug discontinuation among Swedish patients with multiple sclerosis
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England). - : SAGE Publications. - 1477-0970 .- 1352-4585. ; 22:1, s. 85-93
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Natalizumab (NTZ) and fingolimod (FGL) are mainly used second line in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (MS), although pivotal trials included mainly treatment-naïve patients. Objective: This study aims to provide real-world data on safety and discontinuation rates. Methods: Using IMSE, a drug monitoring registry for all newer MS drugs in Sweden, we analysed differences in baseline characteristics and 1-year drug survival for patients registered 2011–2013, initiating treatment with NTZ ( n=640) or FGL ( n=876). Among FGL initiators, n=383 (44%) had previously used NTZ (FGLafterNTZ). Results: Compared with NTZ, the FGL cohort was older and more often male (36/38 years, 24%/33% males). Baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale was similar across groups, but MS Severity Score was higher in NTZ patients, and Symbol Digit Modalities Test and MS Impact Scale (MSIS-29) was higher in FGLafterNTZ versus FGLNTZ-naïve patients. Proportion on drug after 1 year was high, NTZ=87%, FGLNTZ-naïve=83% and FGLafterNTZ=76%. Adverse events was the most frequent reason for discontinuing FGL (FGLNTZ-naïve=9%, FGLafterNTZ=12%), and was significantly higher than on NTZ (3%). In contrast, the proportion of patients stopping treatment due to lack of effect was more similar: NTZ=4%, FGLNTZ-naïve=3%, FGLafterNTZ=8%. Conclusion: FGL and NTZ were both well tolerated, but FGL less so than NTZ, especially in patients switching to FGL from NTZ. Group differences were not explained by differences in recorded baseline characteristics.
|
|
| 23. |
|
|
| 24. |
|
|
| 25. |
- Lauper, K, et al.
(författare)
-
A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW TO INFORM THE EULAR POINTS TO CONSIDER WHEN ANALYSING AND REPORTING COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH WITH OBSERVATIONAL DATA IN RHEUMATOLOGY
- 2020
-
Ingår i: ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES. - : BMJ. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 79, s. 123-124
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Comparative effectiveness studies using observational data are increasingly used. Despite their high potential for bias, there are no detailed recommendations on how these studies should best be analysed and reported in rheumatology.Objectives:To conduct a systematic literature review of comparative effectiveness research in rheumatology to inform the EULAR task force developing points to consider when analysing and reporting comparative effectiveness research with observational data.Methods:All original articles comparing drug effectiveness in longitudinal observational studies of ≥100 patients published in key rheumatology journals (Scientific Citation Index > 2) between 1.01.2008 and 25.03.2019 available in Ovid MEDLINE® were included. Titles and abstracts were screened by two reviewers for the first 1000 abstracts and independently checked to ensure sufficient agreement has been reached. The main information extracted included the types of outcomes used to assess effectiveness, and the types of analyses performed, focusing particularly on confounding and attrition.Results:9969 abstracts were screened, with 218 articles proceeding to full-text extraction (Figure 1), representing a number of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Agreement between the two reviewers for the first 1000 abstracts was 92.7% with a kappa of 0.6. The majority of the studies used several outcomes to evaluate effectiveness (Figure 2A). Most of the studies did not explain how they addressed missing data on the covariates (70%) (Figure 2B). When addressed (30%), 44% used complete case analysis and 10% last observation carried forward (LOCF). 25% of studies did not adjust for confounding factors and there was no clear correlation between the number of factors used to adjust and the number of participants in the studies. An important number of studies selected covariates using bivariate screening and/or stepwise selection. 86% of the studies did not acknowledge attrition (Figure 2C). When trying to correct for attrition (14%), 38% used non-responder (NR) imputation, 24% used LUNDEX1, a form of NR imputation, and 21% LOCF.Conclusion:Most of studies used multiple outcomes. However, the vast majority did not acknowledge missing data and attrition, and a quarter did not adjust for any confounding factors. Moreover, when attempting to account for attrition, several studies used methods which potentially increase bias (LOCF, complete case analysis, bivariate screening…). This systematic review confirms the need for the development of recommendations for the assessment and reporting of comparative drug effectiveness in observational data in rheumatology.References:[1]Kristensen et al. A&R. 2006 Feb;54(2):600-6.Acknowledgments:Support of the Standing Committee on Epidemiology and Health Services ResearchDisclosure of Interests:Kim Lauper: None declared, Joanna KEDRA: None declared, Maarten de Wit Grant/research support from: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Consultant of: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Speakers bureau: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Bruno Fautrel Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Medac MSD France, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, SOBI and UCB, Thomas Frisell: None declared, Kimme Hyrich Grant/research support from: Pfizer, UCB, BMS, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Florenzo Iannone Consultant of: Speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, MSD, Speakers bureau: Speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, MSD, Pedro M Machado Consultant of: PMM: Abbvie, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Speakers bureau: PMM: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Lykke Midtbøll Ørnbjerg Grant/research support from: Novartis, Ziga Rotar Consultant of: Speaker and consulting fees from Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Medis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi., Speakers bureau: Speaker and consulting fees from Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Medis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi., Maria Jose Santos Speakers bureau: Novartis and Pfizer, Tanja Stamm Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Sanofi Genzyme, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Roche, Sanofi, Simon Stones Consultant of: I have been a paid consultant for Envision Pharma Group and Parexel. This does not relate to this abstract., Speakers bureau: I have been a paid speaker for Actelion and Janssen. These do not relate to this abstract., Anja Strangfeld Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Robert B.M. Landewé Consultant of: AbbVie; AstraZeneca; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly & Co.; Galapagos NV; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB Pharma, Axel Finckh Grant/research support from: Pfizer: Unrestricted research grant, Eli-Lilly: Unrestricted research grant, Consultant of: Sanofi, AB2BIO, Abbvie, Pfizer, MSD, Speakers bureau: Sanofi, Pfizer, Roche, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Sytske Anne Bergstra: None declared, Delphine Courvoisier: None declared
|
|
