Kooperativer Bibliotheksverbund

In: Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, Elsevier BV, Vol. 100 ( 2013-02), p. 77-87

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 1074-7427

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1016/j.nlm.2012.12.012

Language: English

Publisher: Elsevier BV

Publication Date: 2013

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1471414-0

SSG: 12

SSG: 5,2

In: Wellcome Open Research, F1000 Research Ltd, Vol. 6 ( 2021-1-21), p. 8-

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 2398-502X

URL: Journal

URL: Article

DOI: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres

DOI: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16506.1

Language: English

Publisher: F1000 Research Ltd

Publication Date: 2021

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2874778-1

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 138, No. Supplement 1 ( 2021-11-05), p. 1922-1922

Abstract: Introduction : Follicular lymphoma (FL) remains an incurable disease with a persistent risk of relapse and shorter durations of response with each subsequent line of therapy. As a result of this pattern of relapse, management of patients with FL requires multiple lines of therapy using various regimens with different mechanisms of action. To help inform FL treatment decisions among healthcare professionals (HCPs) in this complex and evolving treatment landscape, we developed an updated online treatment decision support tool that provides case-specific, individual recommendations from multiple experts in both the newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory (R/R) disease settings. Here, we analyzed self-reported practice trends from HCPs using this tool and compared them with corresponding treatment recommendations from FL experts. Methods: In November 2020, 5 experts in lymphoma patient care provided therapy recommendations for 264 unique case scenarios in both newly diagnosed and R/R FL as defined by a simplified set of key patient and disease characteristics: disease stage, tumor grade, tumor burden, presence of symptoms, age, and fitness as well as previous therapy, duration of response, and EZH2 mutation status. Participating HCPs entered specific patient and disease factors using selection menus along with their intended treatment plan for each case. After case entry was completed, individual expert treatment recommendations were shown for the specific case scenario entered. Subsequently, HCPs were asked to indicate if the expert recommendations impacted their planned treatment approach. Results: From March 2021 to July 2021, 205 HCPs entered 299 patient case scenarios (newly diagnosed: 154 cases; R/R: 145 cases) into the online tool. A comparison of treatment recommendations by experts and HCPs showed considerable divergence for several unique patient case scenarios (Table). For example, for patient cases with newly diagnosed, grade 1-3a, stage II-IV FL who had low tumor burden and no symptoms, 35% of HCPs recommended chemoimmunotherapy (CIT); by contrast, 100% of experts recommended observation or single-agent rituximab in this setting. For cases in the same disease setting but with high tumor burden and symptoms, 82% of HCPs chose CIT in agreement with expert consensus for CIT. However, experts exclusively recommended bendamustine-based CIT whereas 30% of HCPs selected a CHOP- or CVP-based regimen. In the setting of R/R FL, experts recommended second-line lenalidomide plus rituximab (R 2) for 78% of patient cases with relapse on frontline CIT. By contrast, only 14% of HCPs chose this regimen, with approximately two thirds of HCPs selecting either another CIT regimen or a PI3K inhibitor. In the third-line setting for symptomatic cases with high tumor burden and relapse after first-line CIT and second-line R 2, experts favored tazemetostat, choosing it for 58% of cases in this setting regardless of EZH2 mutation status, while recommending CIT for 33% or a PI3K inhibitor for 9% of these cases. By contrast, HCPs favored a PI3K inhibitor (36%) over tazemetostat (18%) in this setting. For HCPs reporting on the tool's clinical impact, 63% of HCPs who initially selected another treatment option or who were uncertain indicated that they would change their intended therapy to match the experts. Conclusions: Analysis of data from this tool suggests differences in clinical practice between experts and HCPs for multiple case scenarios of newly diagnosed and R/R FL, including examples of potential overtreatment. A majority of HCPs who initially selected treatment options that diverged from expert recommendations or who were uncertain about treatment choice changed their intended therapy to match the experts, suggesting that this online decision support tool may increase the number of HCPs making optimal management decisions for patients with FL. Detailed comparisons of expert recommendations and HCP responses from the online tool will be presented. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Burke: SeaGen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Kymera: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Flinn: Nurix Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Seagen: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: All Consultancy and Research Funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Calithera Biosciences: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Forma Therapeutics: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Merck: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Loxo: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Yingli Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; ArQule: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; IGM Biosciences: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Agios: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Great Point Partners: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Roche: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Curis: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Teva: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Trillium Therapeutics: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Incyte: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Forty Seven: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Iksuda Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Triphase Research & Development Corp.: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Century Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Hutchison MediPharma: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Vincerx Pharma: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Sarah Cannon Research Institute: Current Employment; Servier Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Yingli Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Seagen: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Servier Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Leonard: ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS/Celgene, Epizyme, Inc., Genmab, Gilead/Kite, Karyopharm, BMS/Celgene, Regeneron, MEI Pharma, Miltenyi, Roche/Genentech, Sutro: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy. Sharman: BMS: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Lilly: Consultancy; Centessa: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy. Flowers: EMD: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Allogene: Research Funding; Iovance: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Guardant: Research Funding; Nektar: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; Ziopharm: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy; Denovo: Consultancy; SeaGen: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Biopharma: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc.: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy; Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas: CPRIT Scholar in Cancer Research: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; 4D: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Adaptimmune: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2021-152937

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2021

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: The Lancet HIV, Elsevier BV, Vol. 10, No. 7 ( 2023-07), p. e482-e484

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 2352-3018

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1016/S2352-3018(23)00109-1

Language: English

Publisher: Elsevier BV

Publication Date: 2023

In: HIV Medicine, Wiley, Vol. 23, No. 1 ( 2022-01), p. 4-15

Abstract: Tuberculosis symptoms are very common among people living with HIV (PLHIV) initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART), are not specific for tuberculosis disease and may result in delayed ART start. The risks and benefits of same‐day ART initiation in PLHIV with tuberculosis symptoms are unknown. Methods We systematically reviewed nine databases on 12 March 2020 to identify studies that investigated same‐day ART initiation among PLHIV with tuberculosis symptoms and reported both their approach to TB screening and clinical outcomes. We extracted and summarized data about TB screening, numbers of people starting same‐day ART and outcomes. Results We included four studies. Two studies deferred ART for everyone with any tuberculosis symptoms (one or more of cough, fever, night sweats or weight loss) and substantial numbers of people had deferred ART start (28% and 39% did not start same‐day ART). Two studies permitted some people with tuberculosis symptoms to start same‐day ART, and fewer people deferred ART (2% and 16% did not start same‐day). Two of the four studies were conducted sequentially; proven viral load suppression at 8 months was 31% when everyone with tuberculosis symptoms had ART deferred, and 44% when the algorithm was changed so that some people with tuberculosis symptoms could start same‐day ART. Conclusions Although tuberculosis symptoms are very common in people starting ART, there is insufficient evidence about whether presence of tuberculosis symptoms should lead to ART start being deferred or not. Research to inform clear guidelines would help to maximise the benefits of same‐day ART.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 1464-2662 , 1468-1293

URL: Issue

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1111/hiv.v23.1

DOI: 10.1111/hiv.13169

Language: English

Publisher: Wiley

Publication Date: 2022

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2020341-X

In: Journal of the International AIDS Society, Wiley, Vol. 24, No. 7 ( 2021-07)

Abstract: HIV and tuberculosis are frequently diagnosed concurrently. In March 2021, World Health Organization recommended that antiretroviral therapy (ART) should be started within two weeks of tuberculosis treatment start, at any CD4 count. We assessed whether earlier ART improved outcomes in people with newly diagnosed HIV and tuberculosis. Methods We did a systematic review by searching nine databases for trials that compared earlier ART to later ART initiation in people with HIV and tuberculosis. We included studies published from database inception to 12 March 2021. We compared ART within four weeks versus ART more than four weeks after TB treatment, and ART within two weeks versus ART between two and eight weeks, and stratified analysis by CD4 count. The main outcome was death; secondary outcomes included IRIS and AIDS‐defining events. We pooled effect estimates using random effects meta‐analysis. Results and discussion We screened 2468 abstracts, and identified nine trials. Among people with all CD4 counts, there was no difference in mortality by earlier ART (≤4 week) versus later ART ( 〉 4 week) (risk difference [RD] 0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] −2% to +1%). Among people with CD4 count ≤50 cells/mm 3 , earlier ART (≤4 weeks) reduced risk of death (RD −6%, −10% to −1%). Among people with all CD4 counts earlier ART (≤4 weeks) increased the risk of IRIS (RD +6%, 95% CI +2% to +10%) and reduced the incidence of AIDS‐defining events (RD −2%, 95% CI −4% to 0%). Results were similar when trials were restricted to the four trials which permitted comparison of ART within two weeks to ART between two and eight weeks. Trials were conducted between 2004 and 2014, before recommendations to treat HIV at any CD4 count or to rapidly start ART in people without TB. No trials included children or pregnant women. No trials included integrase inhibitors in ART regimens. Discussion Earlier ART did not alter risk of death overall among people living with HIV who had TB disease. For logistical and patient preference reasons, earlier ART initiation for everyone with TB and HIV may be preferred to later ART.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 1758-2652 , 1758-2652

URL: Issue

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1002/jia2.v24.7

DOI: 10.1002/jia2.25772

Language: English

Publisher: Wiley

Publication Date: 2021

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2467110-1

In: Journal of the International AIDS Society, Wiley, Vol. 27, No. 3 ( 2024-03)

Abstract: Disengagement from antiretroviral therapy (ART) care is an important reason why people living with HIV do not achieve viral load suppression become unwell. Methods We searched two databases and conference abstracts from January 2015 to December 2022 for studies which reported reasons for disengagement from ART care. We included quantitative (mainly surveys) and qualitative (in‐depth interviews or focus groups) studies conducted after “treat all” or “Option B+” policy adoption. We used an inductive approach to categorize reasons: we report how often reasons were reported in studies and developed a conceptual framework for reasons. Results We identified 21 studies which reported reasons for disengaging from ART care in the “Treat All” era, mostly in African countries: six studies in the general population of persons living with HIV, nine in pregnant or postpartum women and six in selected populations (one each in people who use drugs, isolated indigenous communities, men, women, adolescents and men who have sex with men). Reasons reported were: side effects or other antiretroviral tablet issues (15 studies); lack of perceived benefit of ART (13 studies); psychological, mental health or drug use (13 studies); concerns about stigma or confidentiality (14 studies); lack of social or family support (12 studies); socio‐economic reasons (16 studies); health facility‐related reasons (11 studies); and acute proximal events such as unexpected mobility (12 studies). The most common reasons for disengagement were unexpected events, socio‐economic reasons, ART side effects or lack of perceived benefit of ART. Conceptually, studies described underlying vulnerability factors (individual, interpersonal, structural and healthcare) but that often unexpected proximal events (e.g. unanticipated mobility) acted as the trigger for disengagement to occur. Discussion People disengage from ART care for individual, interpersonal, structural and healthcare reasons, and these reasons overlap and interact with each other. While HIV programmes cannot predict and address all events that may lead to disengagement, an approach that recognizes that such shocks will happen could help. Conclusions Health services should focus on ways to encourage clients to engage with care by making ART services welcoming, person‐centred and more flexible alongside offering adherence interventions, such as counselling and peer support.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 1758-2652 , 1758-2652

URL: Issue

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1002/jia2.v27.3

DOI: 10.1002/jia2.26230

Language: English

Publisher: Wiley

Publication Date: 2024

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2467110-1

In: The Lancet Microbe, Elsevier BV, Vol. 4, No. 10 ( 2023-10), p. e811-e821

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 2666-5247

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1016/S2666-5247(23)00190-8

Language: English

Publisher: Elsevier BV

Publication Date: 2023

detail.hit.zdb_id: 3028547-1

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 134, No. Supplement_1 ( 2019-11-13), p. 414-414

Abstract: Background Follicular lymphoma (FL) remains an incurable disease characterized by a persistent risk of relapse and progression. Therefore, to effectively delay progression of disease while maintaining patient quality of life, it is critical that clinicians select therapy for patients with newly diagnosed FL that most optimizes clinical outcomes. To help inform frontline treatment decisions among healthcare providers (HCPs) who care for patients with FL, we have developed an online treatment decision support tool that provides case-specific, individual recommendations from multiple experts. Here we present data from an analysis of self-reported practice trends from HCPs using the tool and compared with corresponding treatment recommendations from FL experts. Methods In May 2018, 5 experts in lymphoma patient care provided specific treatment recommendations for 72 distinct case scenarios of newly diagnosed FL defined by a simplified set of key patient and disease characteristics: disease stage, tumor grade, tumor bulk or burden, presence of symptoms, age and fitness, and patient's primary goal for treatment. Participating HCPs used selection menus to enter specific patient and disease factors along with their intended treatment plan for the case. After completing case entry, individual expert treatment recommendations for that specific patient case were displayed, followed by a short survey designed to determine the impact of the expert recommendations on the HCP's planned course of treatment. Results From August 2018 to July 2019, 311 HCPs (86% MDs) entered 522 patient case scenarios into the online tool. Among the 5 experts, there was a majority consensus in treatment selection for 89% of newly diagnosed FL cases. However, a comparison of expert and HCP treatment choices showed substantial variability for several different patient case scenarios (Table). For example, more than 40% of HCPs recommended chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) for patients with grade 1-3a FL with low tumor burden and no symptoms in contrast to 100% of experts who recommended observation or single-agent rituximab. For patients with grade 1-3a FL, high tumor burden, and a goal to achieve CR or delay PFS, regardless of symptoms, more than 50% of HCPs chose a bendamustine-based CIT regimen in agreement with the experts. However, approximately one third of HCPs chose a more aggressive CHOP-based CIT regimen. For treatment of grade 3b disease or suspected transformation with the intention to achieve CR or delay PFS, more than 25% of HCPs would select a bendamustine-based CIT regimen as compared with 100% of experts who chose R-CHOP. Among the HCPs whose intended treatment plan differed from the consensus expert recommendation, 60% indicated that they would change their initial choice of treatment after viewing the expert recommendations. Conclusions Analysis of case data from this online treatment decision tool suggests ongoing differences in practice between experts and HCPs for multiple case scenarios of newly diagnosed FL, including examples of potential overtreatment in patients with low tumor burden and undertreatment of patients with suspected transformation. Consensus expert recommendations in this online tool changed the intended treatment plan of many HCPs using it and, therefore, has the potential to optimize the care of patients newly diagnosed with FL. A detailed comparison of expert and HCP practice for different case scenarios will be presented. Table Disclosures Burke: Gilead: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Flowers:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Optimum Rx: Consultancy; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Fowler:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ABBVIE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Sharman:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Flinn:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics, Trillum Therapeutics, Abbvie, ArQule, BeiGene, Curis, FORMA Therapeutics, Forty Seven, Merck, Pfizer, Takeda, Teva, Verastem, Gilead Sciences, Astra Zeneca (AZ), Juno Therapeutics, UnumTherapeutics, MorphoSys, AG: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma, Agios, Calithera Biosciences, Celgene, Constellation Pharmaceuticals, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Incyte, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; AbbVie, Seattle Genetics, TG Therapeutics, Verastem: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics, Trillum Therapeutics, Abbvie, ArQule, BeiGene, Curis, FORMA Therapeutics, Forty Seven, Merck, Pfizer, Takeda, Teva, Verastem, Gilead Sciences, Astra Zeneca (AZ), Juno Therapeutics, UnumTherapeutics, MorphoSys, AG: Research Funding.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2019-128988

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2019

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Journal of Microbiological Methods, Elsevier BV, Vol. 129 ( 2016-10), p. 103-108

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0167-7012

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2016.08.016

Language: English

Publisher: Elsevier BV

Publication Date: 2016

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1483012-7

SSG: 12