Kooperativer Bibliotheksverbund

In: Circulation, Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), Vol. 146, No. Suppl_1 ( 2022-11-08)

Abstract: Introduction: Catheter ablation is used increasingly as a 1st-line (1L) alternative to antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD) including dronedarone in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Healthcare resource utilization (HCRU)-related costs with dronedarone vs 1L ablation are unknown. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, observational cohort study using Optum Clinformatics Data Mart® from Jan 2012-Jan 2022 among US adults with AF and no prior rhythm control therapy who received new AAD therapy with dronedarone (index: date of incident dronedarone fill) vs those who received 1L ablation, or a non-dronedarone AAD followed by ablation within 3 mo (index: date of first recorded ablation or AAD). Patients were required to have ≥24 mo of pre-index data, and ≥3 mo follow-up. Patients in the 1L ablation cohort were propensity score matched 2:1 to the dronedarone cohort. Mean payer costs per patient per month (PPPM) during the 24-mo post-index period were calculated for total HCRU, inpatient visits, emergency room (ER) visits, outpatient physicians’ office visits, and all outpatient visits, and compared by zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) regression model. Results: Post-matching, the dronedarone (n=1440) and 1L ablation (n=2253) cohorts had similar baseline characteristics (mean age at index: 68.4 vs 67.7 years; male: 57.7% vs 59.3%; mean time from AF diagnosis to index: 80.2 vs 91.6 days; Charlson comorbidity index: 2.3 vs 2.2; CHADS2-VASc score: 3.4 vs 3.2). Mean PPPM costs were lower with dronedarone vs 1L ablation for all-cause total HCRU, inpatient visits, any outpatient visit, ER visit, and outpatient office visit (Table). ZINB analyses showed significant cost differences for all-cause total HCRU and any outpatient visit events. Conclusion: In patients with AF and no prior rhythm control therapy, 1L dronedarone was associated with lower total HCRU and outpatient visit costs during 24-mo follow-up vs 1L ablation; future studies will assess cost-effectiveness.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0009-7322 , 1524-4539

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1161/circ.146.suppl_1.15002

Language: English

Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Publication Date: 2022

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1466401-X

In: Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), Vol. 16, No. 8 ( 2023-08), p. 456-467

Abstract: Sotalol and dronedarone are both used for maintenance of sinus rhythm for patients with atrial fibrillation. However, while sotalol requires initial monitoring for QT prolongation and proarrhythmia, dronedarone does not. These treatments can be used in comparable patients, but their safety and effectiveness have not been compared head to head. Therefore, we retrospectively evaluated the effectiveness and safety using data from a large health care system. METHODS: Using Veterans Health Administration data, we identified 11 296 antiarrhythmic drug–naive patients with atrial fibrillation prescribed dronedarone or sotalol in 2012 or later. We excluded patients with prior conduction disease, pacemakers or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, ventricular arrhythmia, cancer, renal failure, liver disease, or heart failure. We used natural language processing to identify and compare baseline left ventricular ejection fraction between treatment arms. We used 1:1 propensity score matching, based on patient demographics, comorbidities, and medications, and Cox regression to compare strategies. To evaluate residual confounding, we performed falsification analysis with nonplausible outcomes. RESULTS: The matched cohort comprised 6212 patients (3106 dronedarone and 3106 sotalol; mean [±SD] age, 71±10 years; 2.5% female; mean [±SD] CHA 2 DS 2 -VASC, 2±1.3). The mean (±SD) left ventricular ejection fraction was 55±11 and 58±10 for dronedarone and sotalol users, correspondingly. Dronedarone, compared with sotalol, did not demonstrate a significant association with risk of cardiovascular hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.88–1.21]) or all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.68–1.16] ). However, dronedarone was associated with significantly lower risk of ventricular proarrhythmic events (hazard ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.38–0.74]) and symptomatic bradycardia (hazard ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.37–0.87] ). The primary findings were stable across sensitivity analyses. Falsification analyses were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Dronedarone, compared with sotalol, was associated with a lower risk of ventricular proarrhythmic events and conduction disorders while having no difference in risk of incident cardiovascular hospitalization and mortality. These observational data provide the basis for prospective efficacy and safety trials.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 1941-3149 , 1941-3084

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1161/CIRCEP.123.011893

Language: English

Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Publication Date: 2023

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2425487-3

In: Cancer Medicine, Wiley, Vol. 8, No. 8 ( 2019-07), p. 3803-3810

Abstract: Contemporary data describing treatment patterns, adverse events (AEs), and outcomes in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in clinical practice are lacking. We conducted a retrospective cohort study and assessed treatment patterns, AEs, health‐care resource use (HCRU), and costs in patients with diagnosis of CLL. Methods Using a nationally representative population of privately insured patients in the US, adult patients with CLL diagnosis (July 2012‐June 2015) were selected if they had continuous health plan enrollment for ≥12 months before the first CLL diagnosis without any evidence of any CLL‐directed treatment. Treatment patterns up to four lines of therapy (LOT) and occurrence of AEs during CLL therapies were assessed. Mean per‐patient monthly HCRU and costs were assessed overall and by number of unique AEs. Results Of all patients meeting the selection criteria (n = 7,639; median age, 66 years), 18% (n = 1,379) received a systemic therapy during study follow‐up. Of these, bendamustine/rituximab (BR) was the most common first observed regimen (28.1%), while ibrutinib was the most common therapy in the second (20.8%) and third (25.5%) observed regimens. The mean monthly all‐cause and CLL‐related costs, among patients treated with a systemic therapy, were $7,943 (SD = $15,757) and $5,185 (SD = $9,935), respectively. Mean monthly all‐cause costs increased by the number of AEs (from $905 [SD = $1,865] among those with no AEs to $6,032 [SD = $13,290] among those with ≥6 AEs). Conclusions Chemoimmunotherapy, particularly BR, was the most common first observed therapy for CLL, whereas ibrutinib was most preferred in the second and third observed lines of therapy during the study period. Findings demonstrate that the economic burden of AEs in CLL is substantial.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 2045-7634 , 2045-7634

URL: Issue

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1002/cam4.2019.8.issue-8

DOI: 10.1002/cam4.2268

Language: English

Publisher: Wiley

Publication Date: 2019

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2659751-2

In: Cancer Medicine, Wiley, Vol. 8, No. 17 ( 2019-12), p. 7174-7185

Abstract: There are limited data on treatment patterns, adverse events (AEs), and economic burden in younger, commercially insured patients treated for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Methods Adults with ≥1 treatment for MCL between 1 November 2013‐31 December 2017 were identified from IQVIA Real‐World Data Adjudicated Claims‐US; index date was first treatment. Patients carried ≥1 MCL diagnosis, were newly treated, and were enrolled continuously for ≥12 months prior to and ≥30 days following index. Patients receiving the four most common MCL regimens were included. Measures included frequency of incident AEs, resource use, and costs overall and by number of AEs. Adjusted logistic regression and generalized linear modeling evaluated risk of hospitalization and all‐cause costs per patient per month (PPPM). Results Two thousand five hundred and nine treated patients had a drug‐specific code and were classified to a specific treatment regimen. Of those patients, 1785 patients received at least one of the four most commonly used MCL regimens (R‐CHOP, rituximab monotherapy, B‐R, and ibrutinib) at some point over follow‐up (median 23 months). R‐CHOP was the most common regimen observed in the first line (26%), followed by rituximab monotherapy (19%), B‐R (15%), and ibrutinib (5%). The median age was 57 years; median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 0. Among patients receiving the four most common regimens, 63% of patients experienced ≥1 incident AE (R‐CHOP 77%, B‐R 58%, and ibrutinib 52%). An increasing number of incident AEs was associated with increased hospitalization risk (odds ratio = 2.4; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 2.1‐2.7) and increased mean costs PPPM (cost ratio = 1.1; 95% CI 1.1‐1.2). Discussion This is the largest study describing treatment patterns and clinical and economic impact of MCL treatment. The most common regimens were R‐CHOP, rituximab monotherapy, B‐R, and ibrutinib. The majority of treated patients experienced at least one incident AE, with hospitalization risk and all‐cause costs increasing as the number of AEs increased.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 2045-7634 , 2045-7634

URL: Issue

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1002/cam4.v8.17

DOI: 10.1002/cam4.2559

Language: English

Publisher: Wiley

Publication Date: 2019

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2659751-2

In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 39, No. 3_suppl ( 2021-01-20), p. 283-283

Abstract: 283 Background: Treatment and management of pts with HCC is complicated by the presence of underlying chronic liver disease. Clinical trials with unresectable HCC pts are generally limited to Child-Pugh A or pts with good performance status. Therefore there is limited data for less fit HCC pts, particularly those treated in the community practice setting. Methods: The study design was a retrospective cohort study using the US-based CancerLinQ Discovery Database (CLQ). CLQ was launched by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2016 and consists of longitudinal, demographically, and geographically diverse data aggregated from oncology practice Electronic Health Record databases. Eligible pts were ≥18 years at time of HCC diagnosis, had a diagnosis of stage IV HCC within the record, and had ≥2 clinical encounters on separate dates during follow-up after the date of diagnosis. The study period and patient identification period was Jan 1997–Aug 2019; follow up continued through May 2020. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and general treatment characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results: 460 pts were eligible for analysis. Of these, 141 pts (31%) had a Child-Pugh score as reported in medical charts or imputed based on structured and curated data. 76 (54%) pts were Child-Pugh class A, 59 (42%) Child-Pugh class B, and 6 (4%) Child-Pugh class C. The proportion of pts with chronic hepatitis C infection and liver cirrhosis was higher in pts with Child-Pugh classes B and C compared to A. Time from diagnosis to first systemic therapy decreased from a median of 126 days for pts with Child-Pugh class A, to 47 and 16 days for class B and C, respectively. Sorafenib was the most common regimen regardless of line of therapy, followed by PD-1 pathway inhibitors and chemotherapy. Median duration of sorafenib therapy decreased from Child-Pugh class A to C (table). There was a similar decrease in duration of therapy for pts receiving PD-1 pathway inhibitors and chemotherapy when moving from class A to class C. Conclusions: This is the first published retrospective study in HCC using the CLQ. Pts with Child-Pugh class B or C, who are typically excluded from clinical trials, represented 48% of the pts with a Child-Pugh score included in this analysis. Duration of therapy was numerically lower for pts with Child-Pugh class B or C compared to Child-Pugh class A. Further research is needed to describe real-world evidence outside the context of a clinical trial for HCC pts. Funding: AstraZeneca. [Table: see text] Avg, average; obs, observed; TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2021.39.3_suppl.283

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)

Publication Date: 2021

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5

In: JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), , No. 5 ( 2021-12), p. 658-667

Abstract: In 2014, the ASCO developed CancerLinQ (CLQ), a health technology platform for oncology. The CLQ Discovery (CLQD) database was created to make data available for research and this paper provides a summary of this database. METHODS This study described the clinical and demographic characteristics of the 12 most common cancers in the CLQD database. We included patients with a new malignant tumor diagnosis between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2018, of the following cancers: breast, lung and bronchus, prostate, colon and rectum, melanoma of the skin, bladder, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, kidney and renal pelvis, uterus, leukemia, pancreas, and thyroid. Patients with an in-situ diagnosis were excluded. Summary statistics and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were calculated for each tumor. RESULTS From 2013 to 2018, 491,360 patients were diagnosed with the study tumors. Breast cancer (139,506) was the most common, followed by lung and bronchus (70,959), prostate (63,303), and colon and rectum (53,504). The median age at diagnosis (years) was 61, 68, 68, and 64 in breast, lung and bronchus, prostate, and colon and rectum cohorts, respectively. Compared to the SEER 5-year overall survival estimates for several tumor types were higher in the CLQD database, possibly because of incomplete mortality capture in electronic health records. CONCLUSION This paper presents the first description of the CLQD database since its inception. CLQ will continue to evolve over time, and the breadth and depth of this data asset will continue to grow. ASCO and CLQ's long-term goal is to improve the quality of patient care and create a sustainable database for oncology researchers. These results demonstrate that CLQ built a scalable database that can be used for oncology research.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 2473-4276

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1200/CCI.21.00011

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)

Publication Date: 2021

In: Gastro Hep Advances, Elsevier BV, Vol. 1, No. 4 ( 2022), p. 618-626

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 2772-5723

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1016/j.gastha.2022.04.007

Language: English

Publisher: Elsevier BV

Publication Date: 2022

detail.hit.zdb_id: 3113057-4

In: ChemInform, Wiley, Vol. 37, No. 51 ( 2006-12-29)

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0931-7597 , 1522-2667

URL: Issue

URL: Journal

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1002/chin.v37:51

DOI: 10.1002/(ISSN)1522-2667

DOI: 10.1002/chin.200651160

Language: English

Publisher: Wiley

Publication Date: 2006

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2110203-X

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 134, No. Supplement_1 ( 2019-11-13), p. 63-63

Abstract: Background: Most data on overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs) in patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) are from controlled trials in academic centers; data from real world management and outcomes in patients with MCL are sparse. We therefore conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of patients with MCL in the Medicare database to assess treatment patterns, OS, AEs, and economic burden. Methods: Patients with MCL who received any systemic cancer-directed treatment from 2013 to 2015 were selected from the nationwide Medicare claims database and followed through 2016. The date of the first observed systemic therapy defined each patient's index date. Patients were included if they (a) were ≥ 18 years of age at the index date; (b) had ≥ 12 months of continuous Medicare enrollment before the index date (baseline period); and (c) had no evidence of prior MCL-directed treatment (systemic therapy and/or SCT) at any time before the index date (i.e., during at least the previous 12 months). An observed line of therapy was defined as all agents received on or within 35 days after the first claim for a systemic therapy drug; the observed therapy line was considered ended upon switch to another regimen or a gap ≥ 90 days after the last treatment. OS was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method from the index date (start of first observed line of therapy) until the last follow-up or death. We also calculated rates of occurrence for hematologic and nonhematologic AEs often associated with the most commonly observed regimens (irrespective of observed line of therapy). The occurrence of AEs was defined based on the presence of at least one claim containing an AE-specific diagnosis code during the treatment, regardless of any history of the AE before treatment initiation. All-cause health care costs were assessed from Medicare's perspective. Multivariable models were fitted to assess the association between number of AEs and average costs during the first observed therapy. Results: We analyzed 1,465 patients who met the inclusion criteria (median age=74 years; 68% male; 93% white). Across all observed lines of therapy, ibrutinib monotherapy (Ibr) (n=588 [40%]) was the most frequently used regimen, followed by bendamustine/rituximab (BR) (n=527 [36%] ). Ibr recipients had a median age of 75 years, median Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score of 4.0, and were followed for a median duration of 15 months; 52% died during the study period. BR recipients had a median age of 75 years, median CCI score of 3.0, and were followed for a median duration of 21 months; 28% died during the study period. In Ibr recipients, median OS was 22 months (95% CI = 16.9-28.6) and 24-month OS was 47% (95% CI = 42.9%-50.5%). In BR recipients, median OS was not reached while OS at 24 months was 73% (95% CI = 69.4%-76.0%). The occurrence of common AEs during Ibr and BR therapies are presented in Tables 1 and 2. The average per patient per month costs, among all patients, were $2,501 (SD = $2,818) during the baseline period and $12,604 (SD = $14,437) during the period after initiation of the first observed MCL-directed systemic therapy. Multivariable analysis showed that the patients with 3 or more AEs had nearly 4 times higher monthly per patient costs (cost ratio = 4.12, 95% CI = 3.53-4.82) compared with those with 0-2 AEs. Conclusions: Two-year survival rates observed in this study are comparable to those reported in clinical trials (47% for Ibr in the relapsed disease setting [Wang, 2015, Blood]) and nearly 75% for BR in patients with relapsed indolent disease and MCL [Rummel, 2016, Lancet] ). Rates of AE occurrence in Ibr- and BR-treated patients in this study highlight the substantial burden and susceptibility to AEs among Medicare patients in the real-world setting. These findings also demonstrate a substantial increase in the economic burden from the baseline period to the period after MCL treatment initiation and as the number of AEs increased. Disclosures Kabadi: AstraZeneca: Employment, Equity Ownership. Goyal:RTI Health Solutions: Employment. Nagar:RTI Health Solutions: Employment. Davis:RTI Health Solutions: Employment. Le:AstraZeneca: Employment, Other: Stocks. Wang:Dava Oncology: Honoraria; Guidepoint Global: Consultancy; BioInvent: Consultancy, Research Funding; VelosBio: Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Aviara: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MoreHealth: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kaye:RTI Health Solutions: Employment.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2019-122841

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2019

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 134, No. Supplement_1 ( 2019-11-13), p. 5892-5892

Abstract: Background: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a heterogeneous and often aggressive malignancy characterized by a varied median overall survival ranging from 2 years to under 10 years based on risk criteria (Hoster E, et al. JCO, 2016). While response rates to front-line chemoimmunotherapy strategies can exceed 90%, patients inevitably relapse. Novel therapies, including Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immunomodulatory agents, have been approved in the relapsed/refractory settings, yet the impact of these agents on outcomes and costs in real world populations are unknown. In an era of rapidly rising costs of therapies for hematologic malignancies, it is important to understand not only treatment patterns with the integration of novel therapies into MCL algorithms but also value, defined as incremental costs per improvement in health outcomes. Accordingly, we have designed a national prospective study of MCL patients who are initiating novel therapy. Methods: This study (NCT03816683) is an observational, prospective cohort study of patients with MCL treated in clinical practice. Eligibility includes persons ages 18 and older who have initiated standard or novel therapy within 3 months of the index enrollment date. 250 patients will be recruited from 50 academic (60%) and community (40%) settings in the United States. Recruitment will occur over 3 years, with a maximum follow-up of 60 months. The primary measures of the registry are to understand treatment patterns and value with novel therapies in MCL. The secondary measures include toxicity and efficacy of these agents when administered outside of a clinical trial and their impact on health-related quality of life and healthcare resource use. The study employs a novel patient portal that will collect patient outcomes and resource utilization over time. Analyses will be conducted from the patient, physician, and payer perspectives. Our hypothesis is that novel agents are cost-effective - as measured by costs per quality-adjusted year of life (QALY) - when used in clinical practice. Outcome measures include health state utilities (EQ-5D), (QLC-C30), survival, and healthcare resource use (HCRU), treatment modification based on adverse events, and grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events. Uniform price weights (e.g., Medicare reimbursements) will be applied to HCRU to estimate costs. Incremental cost-utility estimates will be calculated both for the within-study period and over a lifetime, the latter using modeling. Conclusions: As the first observational study specifically designed to evaluate the clinical and economic outcomes of novel therapies for MCL in clinical practice, the findings will have high relevance for clinicians, payers, and patients. Disclosures Ujjani: AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Mato:Celgene: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB member , Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Cohen:Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Svoboda:Kite: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Andorsky:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genetech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Goy:Takeda: Other: Grants outside of the submitted work; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; University of Nebraska: Research Funding; Hakensackumc: Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; Hackensack University Medical Center, RCCA: Employment; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; Astrazenca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; COTA: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: leadership role for profit healthcare company. Wang:Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; MoreHealth: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Guidepoint Global: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy, Research Funding; VelosBio: Research Funding; Aviara: Research Funding; Dava Oncology: Honoraria; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kumar:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Other: Steering Committee for MCL Registry ; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Abbvie Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Dawson:AstraZeneca: Employment, Equity Ownership. Elesinmogun:AstraZeneca: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kabadi:AstraZeneca: Employment, Equity Ownership. Seal:AstraZeneca: Employment, Equity Ownership. Pagel:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy. Ramsey:ASCO Quality: Other: $1500 honorarium that he will receive as a speaker at.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2019-122845

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2019

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7