| 1. |
- Mishra, A, et al.
(författare)
-
Diminishing benefits of urban living for children and adolescents' growth and development
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Nature. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1476-4687 .- 0028-0836. ; 615:7954, s. 874-883
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Optimal growth and development in childhood and adolescence is crucial for lifelong health and well-being1–6. Here we used data from 2,325 population-based studies, with measurements of height and weight from 71 million participants, to report the height and body-mass index (BMI) of children and adolescents aged 5–19 years on the basis of rural and urban place of residence in 200 countries and territories from 1990 to 2020. In 1990, children and adolescents residing in cities were taller than their rural counterparts in all but a few high-income countries. By 2020, the urban height advantage became smaller in most countries, and in many high-income western countries it reversed into a small urban-based disadvantage. The exception was for boys in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa and in some countries in Oceania, south Asia and the region of central Asia, Middle East and north Africa. In these countries, successive cohorts of boys from rural places either did not gain height or possibly became shorter, and hence fell further behind their urban peers. The difference between the age-standardized mean BMI of children in urban and rural areas was <1.1 kg m–2 in the vast majority of countries. Within this small range, BMI increased slightly more in cities than in rural areas, except in south Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and some countries in central and eastern Europe. Our results show that in much of the world, the growth and developmental advantages of living in cities have diminished in the twenty-first century, whereas in much of sub-Saharan Africa they have amplified.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Taddei, C, et al.
(författare)
-
Repositioning of the global epicentre of non-optimal cholesterol
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Nature. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1476-4687 .- 0028-0836. ; 582:7810, s. 73-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- High blood cholesterol is typically considered a feature of wealthy western countries1,2. However, dietary and behavioural determinants of blood cholesterol are changing rapidly throughout the world3 and countries are using lipid-lowering medications at varying rates. These changes can have distinct effects on the levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and non-HDL cholesterol, which have different effects on human health4,5. However, the trends of HDL and non-HDL cholesterol levels over time have not been previously reported in a global analysis. Here we pooled 1,127 population-based studies that measured blood lipids in 102.6 million individuals aged 18 years and older to estimate trends from 1980 to 2018 in mean total, non-HDL and HDL cholesterol levels for 200 countries. Globally, there was little change in total or non-HDL cholesterol from 1980 to 2018. This was a net effect of increases in low- and middle-income countries, especially in east and southeast Asia, and decreases in high-income western countries, especially those in northwestern Europe, and in central and eastern Europe. As a result, countries with the highest level of non-HDL cholesterol—which is a marker of cardiovascular risk—changed from those in western Europe such as Belgium, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Malta in 1980 to those in Asia and the Pacific, such as Tokelau, Malaysia, The Philippines and Thailand. In 2017, high non-HDL cholesterol was responsible for an estimated 3.9 million (95% credible interval 3.7 million–4.2 million) worldwide deaths, half of which occurred in east, southeast and south Asia. The global repositioning of lipid-related risk, with non-optimal cholesterol shifting from a distinct feature of high-income countries in northwestern Europe, north America and Australasia to one that affects countries in east and southeast Asia and Oceania should motivate the use of population-based policies and personal interventions to improve nutrition and enhance access to treatment throughout the world.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
|
|
| 15. |
- Di Giuseppe, D, et al.
(författare)
-
BIOLOGIC REFRACTORY DISEASE IN AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS - DEFINITION, PREVALENCE AND PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS. A COLLABORATION BETWEEN FIVE NORDIC BIOLOGIC REGISTRIES
- 2021
-
Ingår i: ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES. - : BMJ. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 80, s. 82-83
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- In clinical practice, some patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) fail several consecutive biological treatments (bDMARDs). How this group of ”refractory” patients should best be defined, how common they are, and what their characteristics are, is poorly understood.Objectives:To explore the point prevalence of bDMARD refractory disease in axSpA over time, according to different definitions, and to describe the characteristics of refractory vs. not-refractory patients upon start of their first bDMARD.Methods:Observational prospective cohort study. Patients with axSpA (ankylosing spondylitis/non-radiographic axial SpA) starting a first bDMARD 2009-2018 were identified in biologic registries in Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Iceland. Clinical characteristics and treatments were retrieved, and data were pooled for analysis.Refractory disease was defined based on the number of different bDMARD treatments started in individual patients: mild (≥3 bDMARDs), moderate (≥4), and strict (5 or more). Restart of same bDMARD with another bDMARD in between counted as separate courses whereas switch from originator to corresponding biosimilar was ignored.Proportions of patients fulfilling each definition of refractory disease at 2 and 5 years after the start of 1st bDMARD were calculated.Point-prevalence per calendar-year was calculated as the number of patients with refractory disease at the end of each year, divided by the total number of patients ever having starting a first bDMARD before that time-point, and who were still alive and resident in the country.Results:The point prevalence of refractory axSpA increased with calendar-time (Figure). Among 12,037 included axSpA patients (64% male), the point-prevalence of bDMARD refractory disease in 2018 was 16%/7%/3% according to mild/moderate/strict definitions (Table).Table 1.Biologic refractory axSpA according to three definitionsA.Baseline characteristics upon start 1st bDMARDRefractory definitionOverall cohortMILDMODERATESTRICTN120371969832351Age, years42 (13)41 (12)41 (12)41 (12)Male, %64%57%54%56%Disease duration, years7 (10)6 (9)6 (8)5 (8)BASDAI, 0-10053 (28)60 (29)63 (27)66 (35)ASDAS3.3 (1.1)3.5 (1.2)3.6 (1.0)3.7 (1.1)CRP, mg/L16 (23)18 (26)21 (28)23 (32)Patient global, VAS, 0-10059 (25)65 (22)66 (22)67 (23)Patient Pain, VAS, 0-10057 (24)62 (22)63 (22)63 (22)Fatigue, VAS, 0-10059 (27)66 (26)66 (26)68 (25)B.Proportions of patients having refractory disease 2 and 5 years after start of their first bDMARD2 years, %5%1%0%5 years, %13%4%1%Numbers are means (SD) unless otherwise statedUpon start of their 1st bDMARD, patients later fulfilling the definitions for refractory axSpA were more frequently women, had shorter disease duration, higher C-reactive protein and higher patient reported outcomes.Overall, 5%/1%/0% had mild/moderate/strict refractory disease 2 years after start of first bDMARD, after 5 years it was 13%/4%/1% (Table).Conclusion:In this large Nordic observational cohort of axSpA patients treated in routine care, we could demonstrate that a substantial proportion of all patients had used multiple bDMARDs. In 2018, one in six patients had received ≥3 bDMARDs, indicating a bDMARD refractory disease. Multiple switching was more frequent during later years, probably due to more bDMARDs becoming available. The characteristics of refractory axSpA, including sex and disease activity, will have to be further explored, as will the impact of refractory disease on long-term outcomes.Acknowledgements:the DANBIO, SRQ, ICEBIO, ROB-FIN and NOR-DMARD registries.Partly sponsored by Nordforsk and Foreum.Disclosure of Interests:Daniela Di Giuseppe: None declared, Ulf Lindström: None declared, Kalle Aaltonen: None declared, Heikki Relas Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Celgene, MSD, Roche, Sella Aarrestad Provan: None declared, Björn Gudbjornsson Speakers bureau: Amgen and Novartis, Merete L. Hetland Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Celtrion, Eli Lilly Denmark A/S, Janssen Biologics B.V, Lundbeck Fonden, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Biopis, Sandoz. MLH chairs the steering committee of the Danish Rheumatology Quality Registry (DANBIO), which receives public funding from the hospital owners and funding from pharmaceutical companies. MLH co-chairs the EuroSpA research collaboration, which generates real-world evidence of treatment of psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis based on secondary use of quality data and is partly funded by Novartis., Johan Askling: None declared, Tanja Schjødt Jørgensen: None declared, Lene Dreyer Speakers bureau: Eli-Lilly and Galderma, Grant/research support from: BMS, Dan Nordström: None declared, Brigitte Michelsen: None declared, Arni Jon Geirsson: None declared, Lennart T.H. Jacobsson: None declared, Bente Glintborg Grant/research support from: Abbvie, BMS, Pfizer, Lundbeck foundation
|
|
| 16. |
|
|
| 17. |
|
|
| 18. |
|
|
| 19. |
|
|
| 20. |
- Lindstrom, U, et al.
(författare)
-
COMPARISON OF TREATMENT RETENTION OF SECUKINUMAB AND TNF-INHIBITORS IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS. OBSERVATIONAL DATA FROM A NORDIC COLLABORATION.
- 2020
-
Ingår i: ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES. - : BMJ. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 79, s. 427-428
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- A head-to-head trial (EXCEED) has indicated similar effectiveness of secukinumab (SEC) and the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) adalimumab (ADA) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). In the clinical setting, treatment retention serves as a combined measure of overall effectiveness and tolerability.Objectives:To explore baseline patient characteristics, and compare treatment retention rates for SEC and each of etanercept (ETN), infliximab (IFX), golimumab (GOL), certolizimab (CZP) and ADA in PsA.Methods:Patients starting SEC or any TNFi in 2015-2018, in the 5 Nordic countries, were identified in clinical rheumatology registers. Data were pooled for analysis and stratified by 1st, 2ndand ≥3rdline of treatment. One year treatment retention was compared by crude Kaplan-Meier curves and a proportional hazard model for risk of discontinuation, censored at 1 year and adjusted for sex, age, country and baseline CRP, patient global and use of csDMARD, with ADA as reference.Results:In total, 6062 patients with PsA were included, contributing 8172 treatment starts (table 1). SEC was mainly used as 2ndor ≥3rdline treatment. The survival curves and 1-year treatment retention rates, stratified by line of treatment, were similar for SEC compared to the TNFis, with some differences between the different TNFi (fig 1, table 2). Adjusted hazard ratios (HR) also indicated similar risk of SEC withdrawal compared to ADA (table 2).Table 1.Patient characteristics at treatment start1stline2ndline≥3rdlineSECN=164TNFiN=3808SECN=273TNFiN=1767SECN=767TNFiN=1393Females48%47%44%42%36%39%Age, years52 (13)49 (13)50 (12)50 (13)52 (12)51 (12)Disease duration, years12 (10)10 (10)13 (10)13 (10)16 (10)16 (10)Swollen joint count 283 (4)2 (3)2 (3)2 (3)3 (4)2 (3)CRP, mg/L10 (18)10 (17)7 (11)9 (17)13 (22)11 (20)Patient global score57 (24)58 (24)60 (25)59 (26)68 (23)65 (24)Concomitant therapycsDMARD30%60%41%57%49%53% Methotrexate24%49%31%48%40%44% Sulphasalazine2%9%5%5%4%6%Numbers are mean (SD) unless noted otherwiseTable 2.One year treatment retention and hazard of discontinuation for SEC and TNFiLine of treatmentDrugN1 year treatment retention % (95% CI)Adjusted HR (95% CI) for discontinuation1stlineADA56973 (69-76)RefCZP27366 (60-72)1.2 (0.9-1.6)ETN174773 (71-75)0.9 (0.7-1.1)GOL21267 (60-73)1.2 (0.9-1.7)IFX100762 (59-65)1.4 (1.1-1.7)SEC16472 (63-78)1.0 (0.7-1.4)2ndlineADA41569 (63-73)RefCZP17651 (43-58)1.6 (1.2-2.2)ETN70163 (59-66)1.2 (0.9-1.5)GOL15169 (61-76)0.9 (0.6-1.2)IFX32465 (59-70)1.0 (0.8-1.4)SEC27369 (62-74)0.9 (0.7-1.2)≥3rdlineADA34667 (62-72)RefCZP22149 (42-56)1.5 (1.2-2.0)ETN37262 (57-67)1.1 (0.9-1.5)GOL20656 (49-63)1.3 (1.0-1.8)IFX24857 (50-63)1.3 (1.0-1.8)SEC76763 (59-67)1.0 (0.8-1.3)Conclusion:In this large study of bDMARD treatment of PsA in clinical practice, SEC was most often used as 2ndor ≥3rdline treatment, and the treatment retention of SEC was comparable with that of TNFi. Further analyses, taking into account other comorbidities, channeling and effectiveness will be presented.Acknowledgments:UL and BG are shared first, and LJ and LEK shared last authors.Partly funded by Nordforsk and FOREUM.Disclosure of Interests:Ulf Lindström: None declared, Bente Glintborg Grant/research support from: Grants from Pfizer, Biogen and Abbvie, Daniela Di Giuseppe: None declared, Tanja Schjødt Jørgensen Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, UCB, Biogen, and Eli Lilly, Björn Gudbjornsson Speakers bureau: Novartis and Amgen, Kathrine L. Grøn Grant/research support from: BMS, Sella Aarrestad Provan Consultant of: Novartis, Brigitte Michelsen: None declared, Merete L. Hetland Grant/research support from: BMS, MSD, AbbVie, Roche, Novartis, Biogen and Pfizer, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Speakers bureau: Orion Pharma, Biogen, Pfizer, CellTrion, Merck and Samsung Bioepis, Johan K Wallman Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis and UCB Pharma, Dan Nordström Consultant of: Abbvie, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB., Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB., Nina Trokovic: None declared, Thorvardur Love: None declared, Niels Steen Krogh: None declared, Johan Askling Grant/research support from: JA acts or has acted as PI for agreements between Karolinska Institutet and the following entities, mainly in the context of the ARTIS national safety monitoring programme of immunomodulators in rheumatology: Abbvie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, and UCB Pharma, Lennart T.H. Jacobsson Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis and Pfizer, Lars Erik Kristensen Consultant of: UCB Pharma (Advisory Board), Sannofi (Advisory Board), Abbvie (Advisory Board), Biogen (Advisory Board), Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb,Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Forward Pharma, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma
|
|
| 21. |
|
|
| 22. |
|
|
| 23. |
|
|
| 24. |
- Seidler, Y, et al.
(författare)
-
KNOWING WHAT TO DO WITH THE DATA - A QUALITATIVE STUDY ON CHALLENGES OF USING SMARTPHONE-BASED EPROS IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS
- 2022
-
Ingår i: ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES. - : BMJ. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 81, s. 1081-1081
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has a long tradition in rheumatology, and PRO measurement is included in many composite indices evaluating disease progression and treatment response [1]. However, little is known about patients´ and health professionals´ (HPs) perceptions of using digitally collected PROs, the so-called ePROs, with a personal smartphone app.ObjectivesTo identify main challenges in utilising ePROs for management and treatment of rheumatoid arthritis from patients’ and HPs’ perspectives.MethodsWe interviewed 25 people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and 17 HPs (nurses, rheumatologists, and physiotherapists) from Austria and Denmark. We used the RheumaBuddy app as a practical example to illustrate the digital data collection and the feedback that patients would get from entering their self-reported outcomes. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. We applied a qualitative thematic analysis to identify major themes using a procedure of rigorous coding. Analysis was done by two researchers, and conflicts were solved by consensus. Ethical approval was obtained in both countries.ResultsThree main themes emerged: 1) Being simple yet comprehensive; 2) Resources to interpret, use and act upon the collected data; and 3) Being reminded of the disease. Within the first theme, many valued the intuitiveness and simplicity of ePROs, especially when used as a monitoring tool in between clinical visits. HPs were concerned about not to overwhelm the patients with too many questions. On the other hand, the short ePROs asked in the app were not comprehensive enough to capture psychosocial and lifestyle aspects of the disease which were considered important both by patients and HPs. Within the second theme, patients and HPs expressed that ePROs could be the basis for shared decision making. Nevertheless, some patients had clearer ideas on making use of the feedback they could get from their self-reported data than the others. Participants from Denmark, who experienced a higher level of digital health maturity in official institutions, expressed more proactive use of the data than participants from Austria who were on average younger than their Danish counterparts. One patient in Austria even asserted having no idea what to do with the collected data but believed that the “doctor will make good use of it”. HPs in both countries, however, indicated that they needed more resources, skills, and time to make sense of the ePRO data and act accordingly. Under the third theme, patients considered the collection of ePROs to be very important when pain and disease activity were high. HPs, on the other hand, were more concerned that the regular collection of ePROs might constantly remind patients that they are living with the disease.ConclusionThe potential adoption of ePROs in practice depends on both patients and HPs’ motivations and ideas to use the feedback they would get from the collected data. This might be influenced by the level of digital health maturity of a country, as well as available resources. In addition, ePROs need to be intuitive and simple, but at the same time comprehensive and reliable enough so that they can be used for shared decision making. Challenges remain for the ePROs to be used as supporting and empowering tools, and not as reminders of the disease and pain.Table 1.Demographic data of the participants (N=42)DemographicAustriaDenmarkTotalDataPatientHPPatientHPPatientHPN14101172517Women (%)10(71)6(60)7(64)5(71)17(68)11(65)Men (%)4(29)4(40)4(36)2(29)8(32)6(35)AgeMean (Range)54(30-76)41(29-63)65(37-77)47(31-59)60(30-77)44(29-63)References[1]T Stamm, I Parodis, and P Studenic. Patient-reported outcomes with anifrolumab in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, Lancet Rheumatol, (2022), in Press.AcknowledgementsWe would like to express our particular thank you to all those who have taken part in the interview study and for their valuable inputs.Disclosure of InterestsYuki Seidler: None declared, Tanja Schjødt Jørgensen Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, UCB, Biogen and Eli Lilly., Consultant of: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, UCB, Biogen and Eli Lilly, Paul Studenic: None declared, Helga Radner Speakers bureau: Gilead, Merck Sharp, Pfizer, Abbvie, Consultant of: Gilead, Merck Sharp, Pfizer, Abbvie, Thomas Nygaard: None declared, Nadine Weibrecht: None declared, Nikolas Popper Speakers bureau: Roche, Consultant of: dwh GmbH (as CSO), Lars Erik Kristensen Speakers bureau: Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, UCB, Gilead, Biogen, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Janssen pharmaceuticals, Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, UCB, Gilead, Biogen, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Janssen pharmaceuticals, Grant/research support from: IIT research grants from Novo, UCB, Eli Lilly; Novartis and Abbvie, Tanita-Christina Wilhelmer: None declared, James Rickmann: None declared, Erika Mosor: None declared, Valentin Ritschl: None declared, Tanja Stamm Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda., Consultant of: AbbVie and Sanofi Genzyme., Grant/research support from: AbbVie and Roche.
|
|
| 25. |
- Studenic, P, et al.
(författare)
-
RHEUMABUDDY4.0 LEADING THE PATH TO A PATIENT-DRIVEN ELECTRONIC SUPPORT AND MONITORING TOOL
- 2022
-
Ingår i: ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES. - : BMJ. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 81, s. 1801-1802
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The use of health apps has become more popular in recent years, but it is still a small and rather unregulated market. Few apps have been designed in collaboration with patients and these mostly address patient reported symptoms. Some clinical registries have already developed patient apps to complete patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on smartphones, which normally would have been collected during an outpatient visit and have shown interchangeability. The next step would be providing a patient app offering possibilities not only of individual disease tracking, but to provide automated peer support, health information and behavioural advice.ObjectivesWe aimed to further develop and validate RheumaBuddy, a health app for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), from a standard monitoring app to an intelligent health app tailored to the needs of the user that provides transparency to all important stakeholders in Rheumatology care.MethodsThis is an international interdisciplinary project between Austrian and Danish partners funded by the EUREKA program. Rheumatologists, health scientists, digital data experts and patients with RA joined forces in a 4 phase-program, running from 2020 to 2023. Phase 1 continues to develop the app in a co-creation approach in several iterations with patients. Phase 2 concerns developing an automated learning algorithm based on user data to identify patient strata and connect these with helpful non-pharmacological interventions. Phase 3 connects healthcare system data on diagnosis, medication prescription, healthcare facility usage with a large clinical RA database. By that we develop patient pathways that correlate high granularity data with system resources to retrieve results on socioeconomic impact. In phase 4 a randomised clinical trial will evaluate the effect of the developed RB4.0 on clinical disease activity and quality of life.ResultsCurrently, RB is regularly being used by more than 3100 patients in 35 countries and 8 languages throughout Europe. The current RheumaBuddy version offers logging of symptoms using Likert scale questions, a joint mannequin to mark painful body parts and a peer-support forum. Additionally, the user can anytime display his/her entries over time in a graphical report and also share data with the healthcare provider. This version is extended with tracking of sleep, working hours and other behaviours. A consultation compass function helps the patient to reflect on goals and issues before the rheumatologist visit.Within this project, we already established a first version of a Recommender System (RS), which computes correlations between user entries (e.g. between a user’s mood and pain), thus providing individual feedback. Through integration of information obtained from the app with claims data and clinical data from a RA registry, patterns can be identified and translated into different case models that concern the impact of common RA symptoms. By mapping these scenarios with evidence based behaviour and lifestyle advice, the “virtual coach” (advanced RS) will be developed and integrated into the RB4.0 system. During continuous data collection on app users, similarities in user behaviour can be identified, and similar entry patterns can be grouped. This will allow users to exchange and learn from each other regarding certain difficult situations (ex. “life-hack”) etc.We are creating a comprehensive system in providing feedback to both clinical and psychosocial aspects of coping and disease management, as well as everyday practicalities for living with a chronic disease. Figure 1 displays these aspects, contributing the empowerment of patients.Figure 1.RB4.0 shall support people living with RA in dealing with disease impactConclusionRheumaBuddy4.0 will provide RA patients the means to improve their quality of life on an individual level, better understand their needs and therapy which could support overcoming barriers of successful shared decision making to achieve better outcomes.Disclosure of InterestsPaul Studenic: None declared, Tanja Stamm Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda, Consultant of: AbbVie and Sanofi Genzyme, Grant/research support from: AbbVie and Roche, Yuki Seidler: None declared, Andreas Dam Speakers bureau: Gilead, Galapagos, BMS, Roche, Takeda, Merck, Consultant of: Gilead, Galapagos, BMS, Roche, Takeda, Merck, Nadine Weibrecht: None declared, Günther Zauner: None declared, Thomas H Jakobsen: None declared, Rebekka L. Hansen: None declared, Nikolas Popper Speakers bureau: Roche, Consultant of: as CSO of dwh GmbH, Tanita-Christina Wilhelmer: None declared, Helga Radner Speakers bureau: Gilead, Merck Sharp, Pfizer, Abbvie, Consultant of: Gilead, Merck Sharp, Pfizer, Abbvie, Romualdo Ramos: None declared, James Rickmann: None declared, Christoph Urach: None declared, Lars Erik Kristensen Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer Janssen, Novartis, Galapagos, UCB, Biogen and Eli Lilly, Consultant of: AbbVie, Pfizer, Janssen, Novartis, Galapagos, UCB, Biogen and Eli Lilly, Grant/research support from: IIT grants from UCB, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Tanja Schjødt Jørgensen Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, UCB, Biogen and Eli Lilly, Consultant of: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, UCB, Biogen and Eli Lilly
|
|
| 26. |
|
|
| 27. |
|
|
| 28. |
|
|
| 29. |
|
|
| 30. |
|
|
