Shallis, Rory M.

e19007 Background: While clinical outcomes of patients (pts) with TP53 mutated (m) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are dismal, subsets of pts with eligibility to curative intent therapies can do better. As racial disparities are known to impact outcome in hematological malignancies, we sought to explore disparities in TP53m AML. Methods: We conducted a multicenter study of 304 TP53m AML pts, divided into 2 groups, White (n= 240) and Black/Hispanic (n=64), to compare difference in disease characteristics and clinical outcome. We grouped Black and Hispanic together as the number of pts were small in each group and our aim was to evaluate outcome in under-represented races/ethnicities. Results: Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table. The median age of the pts was comparable between White and Black/Hispanic (p= 0.97). A significantly higher proportion of Black/Hispanic pts (23%) had diabetes mellitus when compared with White (14%) pts (p= 0.02). A higher proportion of Black/Hispanic pts had therapy-related AML (33% vs. 20%, p= 0.03), complex cytogenetics (98% vs. 87%, p= 0.003) and co-mutations (70% vs. 57%, p= 0.02). The proportion of pts who received hypomethylating agent + venetoclax (29% vs 20%, p= 0.20) or CPX-351 (22% vs 20%, p= 0.13) were comparable between White and Black/Hispanic, respectively. A higher proportion of Black/Hispanic pts received supportive care (17% vs. 4%, p= 0.002). White pts had higher rates of complete remission with or without count recovery (25% vs. 19%, p= 0.07). Only 6% of Black/Hispanic pts received allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloHCT) compared to 16% for White pts (p= 0.01). The median event free survival was 2 months (mo) (95% CI;1.52-2.41) and 2.5 mo (95% CI:1.62-3.31) in White and Black/Hispanic pts, respectively (p= 0.71). The median overall OS was shorter for Black/Hispanic (6.37 mo [95% CI:2.88-9.85]) than for White (6.90 mo [95% CI:5.55-8.24] [p= 0.009]). Conclusions: Our study demonstrates poorer OS in Black/Hispanic pts with TP53m AML. Potential drivers of this disparity include lower alloHCT rates, higher rates of pts receiving supportive care, and higher-risk disease in Black/Hispanic pts.[Table: see text]

The NCCN Guidelines for Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS) provide recommendations for the evaluation, diagnosis, and management of patients with MDS based on a review of clinical evidence that has led to important advances in treatment or has yielded new information on biologic factors that may have prognostic significance in MDS. The multidisciplinary panel of MDS experts meets on an annual basis to update the recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on some of the updates for the 2022 version of the NCCN Guidelines, which include treatment recommendations both for lower-risk and higher-risk MDS, emerging therapies, supportive care recommendations, and genetic familial high-risk assessment for hereditary myeloid malignancy predisposition syndromes.

Abstract Background: TP53 mutations occur in 10-20% of patients with AML, constitute high-risk disease as per ELN criteria, and confer poorer prognosis. Venetoclax combination therapies and CPX-351 were recently approved for AML treatment and lead to improved outcomes in subsets of high-risk AML, however the most effective approach for treatment of TP53-mutated (m) AML remains unclear. In this study we explored the clinical outcome of TP53m AML patients treated over the last 8 years as novel therapies have been introduced to our therapeutic armamentarium. Methods: We conducted a multicenter observational study in collaboration with 4 U.S. academic centers and analyzed clinical characteristics and outcome of 174 TP53m AML patients diagnosed between March 2013 and February 2021. Mutation analysis was performed on bone marrow specimens using 42, 49, 199, or 400 gene targeted next generation sequencing (NGS) panels. Patients with an initial diagnosis of AML were divided into 4 groups (GP) based on the progressive use of novel therapies in clinical trials and their approvals as AML induction therapy during different time periods: 2013-2017 (GP1, n= 37), 2018-2019 (GP2, n= 53), 2019-2020 (GP3, n= 48) and 2020-2021 (GP4, n= 36) to analyze difference in outcome. Results: Baseline characteristics were not significantly different across different GP, as shown in Table 1. Median age of patients was 68 (range [R], 18-83), 65 (R, 29-88), 69 (R, 37-90) and 70 (R, 51-97) years in GP1-4, respectively (p=0.40). The percentage of patients with de novo AML/secondary AML/therapy-related AML in GP1-4 was 40/40/20, 36/29/24, 37.5/37.5/25 and 28/52/20, respectively (p=0.82). The proportion of patients with complex cytogenetics (CG) was 92%, 89%, 96% and 94% in GP1-4, respectively (p=0.54). The median TP53m variant allele frequency (VAF) was 48% (range [R], 5-94), 42% (R, 5-91), 45% (R, 10-94) and 60% (R, 8-82) in GP1-4, respectively (p=0.38). Four (11%), 13 (24.5%), 10 (21%) and 9 (25%) patients had multiple TP53 mutations in GP1-4, respectively (p=0.33). The proportion of patients who received 3+7 (30%, 16%, 6% & 8%; p=0.01), HMA only (11%, 18%, 2% & 8%; p=0.06), venetoclax-based (2.5%, 12%, 48%, & 61%; p <0.01) and CPX-351 induction (16%, 40%, 28% & 5%; p<0.001) were varied in GP1-4, respectively. The rate of CR/CRi was 22%, 26%, 28% and 18% in GP1-4, respectively (p=0.63). Treatment related mortality during induction was observed in 3%, 7%, 10% and 17% of patients in GP1-4, respectively (p=0.18). Overall, 28 (16%) patients received allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHCT) after induction/consolidation: 22%, 15%, 17% and 11% in GP1-4, respectively (p=0.67). In subset analysis, there was no difference in the rate of CR/CRi with venetoclax-based regimens vs. others (39% vs 61%, p=0.18) or with CPX-351 vs. others (25% vs 75%, p=0.84). The median progression-free survival was 7.7, 7.0, 5.1 and 6.6 months in GP1-4, respectively (p=0.60, Fig 1A). The median overall survival (OS) was 9.4, 6.1, 4.0 and 8.0 months in GP1-4, respectively (p=0.29, Fig 1B). In univariate analysis for OS, achievement of CR/CRi (p<0.001) and alloHCT in CR1 (p<0.001) associated with favorable outcome, whereas complex CG (p=0.01) and primary refractory disease (p<0.001) associated with poor outcome. Multiple TP53 mutations (p=0.73), concurrent ASXL1m (p=0.86), extra-medullary disease (p=0.92), ≥ 3 non-TP53m mutations (p=0.72), TP53m VAF ≥ 40% vs. < 40% (p=0.25), induction with CPX-351 vs. others (p=0.59) or venetoclax-based regimen vs. others (p=0.14) did not show significance for favorable or poor OS in univariate analysis. In multivariable analysis, alloHCT in CR1 (hazard ratio [HR]=0.28, 95% CI: 0.15-0.53; p=0.001) retained an association with favorable OS and complex CG (HR 4.23, 95%CI: 1.79-10.0; p=0.001) retained an association with dismal OS. Conclusion: We present the largest experience with TP53m AML patients analyzed by NGS. Although outcomes were almost universally dismal, alloHCT appears to improve the long-term survival in a subset of these patients. Effective therapies are warranted to successfully bridge patients to alloHCT and to prolong survival for transplant ineligible patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Badar: Pfizer Hematology-Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Litzow: Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Pluristem: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Shallis: Curis: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months. Goldberg: Celularity: Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aprea: Research Funding; Arog: Research Funding; DAVA Oncology: Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Research Funding; Prelude Therapeutics: Research Funding; Aptose: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Atallah: BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Foran: revolution medicine: Honoraria; gamida: Honoraria; bms: Honoraria; pfizer: Honoraria; novartis: Honoraria; takeda: Research Funding; kura: Research Funding; h3bioscience: Research Funding; OncLive: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria; aptose: Research Funding; actinium: Research Funding; abbvie: Research Funding; trillium: Research Funding; sanofi aventis: Honoraria; certara: Honoraria; syros: Honoraria; taiho: Honoraria; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; aprea: Research Funding; sellas: Research Funding; stemline: Research Funding.

BackgroundThe availability of novel agents (NAs), including blinatumomab and inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO), has improved the outcomes of patients with relapsed/refractory (RR) B‐cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Because of the relative effectiveness, it is often a challenge for clinicians to determine how to best sequence these NAs with respect to efficacy and toxicity.MethodsIn this multicenter, retrospective study of patients with RR ALL treated with blinatumomab, InO, or both, their efficacy as a first or second NA was compared.ResultsAmong 276 patients, 221 and 55 received blinatumomab and InO, respectively, as a first NA therapy. The complete remission (CR)/complete remission with incomplete count recovery (CRi) rate was 65% and 67% for the blinatumomab and InO groups, respectively (P = .73). The rate of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was 4% and 7% in the blinatumomab and InO groups, respectively. Ninety‐two patients (43%) in the blinatumomab group and 13 patients (29%) in the InO group proceeded with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The median overall survival (OS) was 15 and 11.6 months in the blinatumomab and InO groups, respectively. A subset analysis was performed for 61 patients who received both NAs (blinatumomab and then InO [n = 40] or InO and then blinatumomab [n = 21]). The CR/CRi rate was 58% for patients who received InO as the second NA and 52% for patients who received blinatumomab as the second NA. The median OS was 10.5 for patients who received InO as the second NA and 5.9 months for patients who received blinatumomab as the second NA (P = .09).ConclusionsAlthough the limited power of this study to detect a significant difference between subgroups is acknowledged, the data suggest that blinatumomab and InO may have comparable efficacy as a first or second NA therapy in RR ALL.

Abstract The availability and use of blinatumomab symbolizes a paradigm shift in the management of B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). We conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort analysis of 239 ALL patients (227 relapsed refractory [RR], n = 227; minimal residual disease [MRD], n = 12) who received blinatumomab outside of clinical trials to evaluate safety and efficacy in the “real-world” setting. The median age of patients at blinatumomab initiation was 48 years (range, 18-85). Sixty-one (26%) patients had ≥3 prior therapies and 46 (19%) had allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation before blinatumomab. The response rate (complete remission/complete remission with incomplete count recovery) in patients with RR disease was 65% (47% MRD−). Among 12 patients who received blinatumomab for MRD, 9 (75%) patients achieved MRD negativity. In patients with RR disease, median relapse-free survival and overall survival (OS) after blinatumomab was 32 months and 12.7 months, respectively. Among patients who received blinatumomab for MRD, median relapse-free survival was not reached (54% MRD− at 2 years) and OS was 34.7 months. Grade ≥3 cytokine release syndrome, neurotoxicity, and hepatotoxicity were observed in 3%, 7%, and 10% of patients, respectively. Among patients who achieved complete remission/complete remission with incomplete count recovery, consolidation therapy with allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation retained favorable prognostic significance for OS (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.97; P = .04). In this largest “real-world” experience published to date, blinatumomab demonstrated responses comparable to those reported in clinical trials. The optimal sequencing of newer therapies in ALL requires further study.

Background: Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of anti-CD22 antibody conjugated to the cytotoxic agent calicheamicin, which is approved for relapsed/ refractory (RR) B-cell acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), based on efficacy demonstrated in a randomized control trial. We sought to investigate the safety and efficacy of InO in the "real world" setting. Methods: We conducted a retrospective multicenter study in collaboration with 11 U.S. academic institutions, and evaluated the outcome of patients (pts) with RR B-cell ALL, who received InO outside of clinical trials. These pts were evaluated for response to InO, duration of response, overall survival (OS) and toxicity. Demographic and disease characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared via log-rank test. Duration of response was estimated among pts who achieve complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi). Results: From June 2016 to May 2019, 84 pts with RR-B cell ALL were identified. Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The median age of pts at InO initiation was 50 years (yrs) (range, 20-87). Twenty-two (27.5%) pts had t(9;22) (Ph+ve) and 6 (7.5%) pts had t(4;11) (MLL gene) chromosomal abnormalities. Nine (11%) and 20 (25%) pts had CNS disease at diagnosis and at relapse, respectively. Median number of therapies prior to InO was 2 (range, 0-7), 40 (48%) pts had ≥ 3 therapies and 23 (27%) pts had allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) prior to InO. Forty (48%) pts received blinatumomab prior to InO. Fourteen (17%) pts received InO in combination with chemotherapy and/ or tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Overall response rate (CR/CRi) was 63%; 44% had CR with minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity by flow cytometry. Response rate in Ph+ve B-cell ALL was 73%. Twenty-three (27%) pts were successfully bridged to allo-HCT. Median response duration with InO was 11.5 months (mo); 32.5% had sustained response at 2 yrs (Fig. 1a). Median response duration post InO, censored at allo-HCT was not reached (NR) (51% in remission at 2 yrs) (Fig. 1b). Median OS after InO was 11.6 mo and 32% were alive at 2 yrs (Fig. 1c). Median OS post InO, censored at of allo-HCT was 13.6 mo (Fig. 1d). Median OS after InO in Ph+ve pts was NR (71% alive at 1 yr). Forty-nine percent, 27%, 6% and 5% of pts discontinued InO due to progression, allo-HCT, adverse events and maintenance therapy, respectively. Nineteen (30%) pts had dose interruptions. In terms of toxicities, 14 (17%) and 7 (8%) pts had grade (G)1-2 and G3 transaminases secondary to InO, respectively. One pt each had G2 and G3 pancreatitis, respectively. One (1%) and 2 (2%) pts had G2 and G4 veno-occlusive disease secondary to InO, respectively. Two of these pts were treated with defibrotide. Two (2%) pts died due to InO toxicity. A complete description of adverse events are summarized in Table 1. Conclusion: Our real-world data obtained by multicenter collaboration suggest that InO was well tolerated and had significant efficacy in this heavily treated patient population of RR B-cell ALL. Disclosures Liedtke: Celator: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; IQVIA/Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Research Funding; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Aldoss:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodation/expenses, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; AUTO1: Consultancy; Helocyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodation/expenses. Curran:Incyte: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Podoltsev:Celgene: Other: Grant funding, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kartos Therapeutics: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yang:AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy. Mattison:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Advani:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding. Atallah:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy.

Background Blinatumomab is a bispecific T cell antibody construct, that binds and allows CD-3 positive cytotoxic T cells to recognize and eradicate CD19-positive acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) blasts. The drug is approved for patient (pts) with relapsed/ refractory (RR) B-cell ALL and those with minimal residual disease (MRD) based on efficacy in clinical trials. We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of blinatumomab in the "real world" setting. Methods We conducted a retrospective multicenter study in collaboration with 11 U.S. academic institutions, and evaluated the outcome of RR B-cell ALL pts, who received blinatumomab outside of clinical trials. These pts were evaluated for response, duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS) from the time of blinatumomab initiation and toxicity. DOR was estimated among pts who had achieved complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi). Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared via log-rank test. Results From December 2014 to May 2019, 239 pts with B-cell ALL were identified. Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The median age of pts at blinatumomab initiation was 48 years (yrs) (range, 18-85). Sixty-one (26%) pts had Philadelphia chromosome [t(9;22)] positive (Ph+ve) disease. Sixty-one (26%) pts had ≥ 3 prior therapies and 46 (19%) pts had allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) prior to blinatumomab. Twenty-two (9%) pts received inotuzumab ozagamicin prior to blinatumomab. Twenty-nine (12%) pts received blinatumomab in combination with tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Twelve (5%) pts received blinatumomab for MRD. Response rate (CR/CRi) in pts with RR disease was 61%; 44% had CR with MRD negativity by flow cytometry. Rate of CR/CRi in Ph+ve B-cell ALL was 74.5%. Among 12 pts who received Blinatumomab for MRD, 9 (75%) pts achieved MRD negativity. Overall 113 (48%) pts were successfully bridged to allo-HCT. Median DOR in pts with RR disease was 32.1 months (95% CI; 9.5-not reached [NR]) (Fig. 1a) and when censored at allo-HCT was 14.8 months (95% CI; 5.2-NR) (Fig. 1b). Median OS in pts with RR disease after blinatumomab was 12.7 months (95% CI; 9.2 -17.9) (Fig. 1c) and when censored at allo-HCT was 8.6 months (95% CI; 6.4-11.6) (Fig.1d). Median OS after blinatumomab in RR B-cell ALL Ph+ve pts was NR (59% alive at 2 yr). Among pts who received blinatumomab for MRD, median DOR was NR and 54% sustained MRD negativity at 2 yrs. Median OS was 34.7 months (95% CI; 8.8-34.7) in group of pts who received blinatumomab for MRD. Seven (3%) pts discontinued blinatumomab due to adverse events and 40 (21%) pts had dose interruptions. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade (G) was reported in higher number of pts (93 [39%]) compared to clinical trials, though G3-4 CRS appears to be similar (G1-2 [36%], G3-4 [3%]). Forty-four (44%) pts were treated with steroids and 8 (8%) pts required tocilizumab with steroids for CRS. Ninety-three percent of pts had complete resolution of CRS. CNS toxicities were observed in 31 (13%) pts, among them 60% (n= 19) had G3-4 toxicities. Hepatic toxicities were observed in 84 (35%) pts as outlined in Table 1. Six (2.5%) pts died due to blinatumomab induced toxicities. Conclusion: Our real-world data with multicenter collaboration suggest that overall blinatumomab was well tolerated and had led to significant response in pts with RR B-cell ALL. Disclosures Advani: Amgen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Aldoss:AUTO1: Consultancy; Helocyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodation/expenses; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodation/expenses, Speakers Bureau. Podoltsev:Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Grant funding, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kartos Therapeutics: Research Funding. Curran:Incyte: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Yang:Agios: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Mattison:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Liedtke:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; IQVIA/Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Atallah:Helsinn: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy.