scholarly journals Treatment Patterns and Sequences of Pharmacotherapy for Patients Diagnosed with Depression in the United States: 2014 through 2019

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Kern ◽  
M. Soledad Cepeda ◽  
Frank Defalco ◽  
Mila Etropolski
Keyword(s):  
Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors ◽  
Tricyclic Antidepressants ◽  
Antidepressant Medication ◽  
The United States ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
Inpatient Hospitalization ◽  
Class Level ◽  
Treatment Of Depression ◽  
Antidepressive Treatment

Abstract Background : Understanding how patients are treated in the real-world is vital to identifying potential gaps in care. We describe the current pharmacologic treatment patterns for the treatment of depression. Methods : Patients with depression were identified from four large national claims databases during 1/1/2014-1/31/2019. Patients had ≥2 diagnoses for depression or an inpatient hospitalization with a diagnosis of depression. Patients were required to have enrollment in the database ≥1 year prior to and three years following their first depression diagnosis. Treatment patterns were captured at the class level and included selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, other antidepressants, anxiolytics, hypnotics/sedatives, and antipsychotics . Treatment patterns were captured during all available follow-up. Results : We identified 269,668 patients diagnosed with depression . The proportion not receiving any pharmacological treatment during follow-up ranged from 31% to 54%. Of the treated, approximately half received ≥2 different classes of therapy, a quarter received ≥3 classes and 10% received 4 or more. SSRIs were the most common first-line treatment; however, many patients received an anxiolytic, hypnotic/sedative, or antipsychotic prior to any antidepressive treatment. Treatment with a combination of classes was relatively uncommon across all treatment lines. Conclusions : Many patients diagnosed with depression go untreated and many others receive a non-antidepressant medication class as their first treatment. More than half of patients received more than one type of treatment class during the study follow up, suggesting that the first treatment received may not be optimal for most patients.

scholarly journals Treatment patterns and sequences of pharmacotherapy for patients diagnosed with depression in the United States: 2014 through 2019

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Kern ◽  
M. Soledad Cepeda ◽  
Frank Defalco ◽  
Mila Etropolski
Keyword(s):  
Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors ◽  
Antidepressant Medication ◽  
The United States ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
First Line ◽  
Inpatient Hospitalization ◽  
Class Level ◽  
Treatment Of Depression ◽  
Antidepressive Treatment

Abstract Background Understanding how patients are treated in the real-world is vital to identifying potential gaps in care. We describe the current pharmacologic treatment patterns for the treatment of depression. Methods Patients with depression were identified from four large national claims databases during 1/1/2014–1/31/2019. Patients had ≥2 diagnoses for depression or an inpatient hospitalization with a diagnosis of depression. Patients were required to have enrollment in the database ≥1 year prior to and 3 years following their first depression diagnosis. Treatment patterns were captured at the class level and included selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, other antidepressants, anxiolytics, hypnotics/sedatives, and antipsychotics. Treatment patterns were captured during all available follow-up. Results We identified 269,668 patients diagnosed with depression. The proportion not receiving any pharmacological treatment during follow-up ranged from 29 to 52%. Of the treated, approximately half received ≥2 different classes of therapy, a quarter received ≥3 classes and more than 10% received 4 or more. SSRIs were the most common first-line treatment; however, many patients received an anxiolytic, hypnotic/sedative, or antipsychotic prior to any antidepressive treatment. Treatment with a combination of classes ranged from approximately 20% of first-line therapies to 40% of fourth-line. Conclusions Many patients diagnosed with depression go untreated and many others receive a non-antidepressant medication class as their first treatment. More than half of patients received more than one type of treatment class during the study follow up, suggesting that the first treatment received may not be optimal for most patients.

scholarly journals Treatment Patterns and Sequences of Pharmacotherapy for Patients Diagnosed with Depression in the United States: 2014 through 2019

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Kern ◽  
M. Soledad Cepeda ◽  
Frank Defalco ◽  
Mila Etropolski
Keyword(s):  
Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors ◽  
Antidepressant Medication ◽  
The United States ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
First Line ◽  
Inpatient Hospitalization ◽  
Class Level ◽  
Treatment Of Depression ◽  
Antidepressive Treatment

Abstract Background: Understanding how patients are treated in the real-world is vital to identifying potential gaps in care. We describe the current pharmacologic treatment patterns for the treatment of depression. Methods: Patients with depression were identified from four large national claims databases during 1/1/2014-1/31/2019. Patients had ≥2 diagnoses for depression or an inpatient hospitalization with a diagnosis of depression. Patients were required to have enrollment in the database ≥1 year prior to and three years following their first depression diagnosis. Treatment patterns were captured at the class level and included selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, other antidepressants, anxiolytics, hypnotics/sedatives, and antipsychotics. Treatment patterns were captured during all available follow-up. Results: We identified 269,668 patients diagnosed with depression. The proportion not receiving any pharmacological treatment during follow-up ranged from 29% to 52%. Of the treated, approximately half received ≥2 different classes of therapy, a quarter received ≥3 classes and more than 10% received 4 or more. SSRIs were the most common first-line treatment; however, many patients received an anxiolytic, hypnotic/sedative, or antipsychotic prior to any antidepressive treatment. Treatment with a combination of classes ranged from approximately 20% of first-line therapies to 40% of fourth-line. Conclusions: Many patients diagnosed with depression go untreated and many others receive a non-antidepressant medication class as their first treatment. More than half of patients received more than one type of treatment class during the study follow up, suggesting that the first treatment received may not be optimal for most patients.

scholarly journals Treatment Patterns and Sequences of Pharmacotherapy for Patients Diagnosed with Depression in the United States: 2014 through 2019

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Kern ◽  
M. Soledad Cepeda ◽  
Frank Defalco ◽  
Mila Etropolski
Keyword(s):  
Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors ◽  
Antidepressant Medication ◽  
The United States ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
First Line ◽  
Inpatient Hospitalization ◽  
Class Level ◽  
Treatment Of Depression ◽  
Antidepressive Treatment

Abstract Background: Understanding how patients are treated in the real-world is vital to identifying potential gaps in care. We describe the current pharmacologic treatment patterns for the treatment of depression. Methods: Patients with depression were identified from four large national claims databases during 1/1/2014-1/31/2019. Patients had ≥2 diagnoses for depression or an inpatient hospitalization with a diagnosis of depression. Patients were required to have enrollment in the database ≥1 year prior to and three years following their first depression diagnosis. Treatment patterns were captured at the class level and included selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, other antidepressants, anxiolytics, hypnotics/sedatives, and antipsychotics. Treatment patterns were captured during all available follow-up. Results: We identified 269,668 patients diagnosed with depression. The proportion not receiving any pharmacological treatment during follow-up ranged from 29% to 52%. Of the treated, approximately half received ≥2 different classes of therapy, a quarter received ≥3 classes and more than 10% received 4 or more. SSRIs were the most common first-line treatment; however, many patients received an anxiolytic, hypnotic/sedative, or antipsychotic prior to any antidepressive treatment. Treatment with a combination of classes ranged from approximately 20% of first-line therapies to 40% of fourth-line. Conclusions: Many patients diagnosed with depression go untreated and many others receive a non-antidepressant medication class as their first treatment. More than half of patients received more than one type of treatment class during the study follow up, suggesting that the first treatment received may not be optimal for most patients.

scholarly journals Treatment patterns and comorbid burden of patients newly diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in the United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Kern ◽  
M. Soledad Cepeda
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Dimethyl Fumarate ◽  
The United States ◽  
Physical Symptoms ◽  
Primary Diagnosis ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Inpatient Hospitalization ◽  
Metabolic Conditions

Abstract Background: The treatment landscape for multiple sclerosis (MS) is quickly evolving. Understanding real-world treatment patterns of patients is necessary to identifying potential gaps in care.Methods: Patients with incident MS were identified from a large national claims database during 1/1/2014-6/30/2019. Patients had ≥2 diagnoses for MS or an inpatient hospitalization with a primary diagnosis of MS. Patients were required to have enrollment in the database ≥1 year prior to and ≥1 year following their first MS diagnosis. Treatment sequences were captured for all available disease modifying therapies (DMTs) during all available follow-up. Presence of comorbid conditions were captured during the one year prior to and following (and including) the index date; absolute change in prevalence from the pre- to post-index periods was calculated. Results: We identified 5,691 patients with incident MS. Common comorbidities included physical symptoms (e.g., pain, weakness, fatigue), mental health conditions (anxiety, depression), and cardiovascular/metabolic conditions (hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, obesity). Just 1,994 (35.0%) of patients received a DMT at any time during follow-up. Of those receiving a DMT, 28.2% went on to receive a second line of therapy, 5.8% received a third, and just 0.9% went on to a fourth line. Use of more than one DMT concomitantly occurred in just 1.8% of all treated patients. Glatiramer and dimethyl fumarate were by far the most common first-line treatments received accounting for nearly 62% of patients receiving a DMT. Conclusion: Approximately two-thirds of patients newly diagnosed with MS did not receive a DMT and the disease is accompanied by a significant comorbid burden.

scholarly journals Treatment patterns and comorbid burden of patients newly diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in the United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Kern ◽  
M. Soledad Cepeda
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Dimethyl Fumarate ◽  
The United States ◽  
Physical Symptoms ◽  
Primary Diagnosis ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Inpatient Hospitalization ◽  
Metabolic Conditions

Abstract Background: The treatment landscape for multiple sclerosis (MS) is quickly evolving. Understanding real-world treatment patterns of patients is necessary to identifying potential gaps in care.Methods: Patients with incident MS were identified from a large national claims database during 1/1/2014-6/30/2019. Patients had ≥2 diagnoses for MS or an inpatient hospitalization with a primary diagnosis of MS. Patients were required to have enrollment in the database ≥1 year prior to and ≥1 year following their first MS diagnosis. Treatment sequences were captured for all available disease modifying therapies (DMTs) during all available follow-up. Presence of comorbid conditions were captured during the one year prior to and following (and including) the index date; absolute change in prevalence from the pre- to post-index periods was calculated. Results: We identified 5,691 patients with incident MS. Common comorbidities included physical symptoms (e.g., pain, weakness, fatigue), mental health conditions (anxiety, depression), and cardiovascular/metabolic conditions (hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, obesity). Just 1,994 (35.0%) of patients received a DMT at any time during follow-up. Of those receiving a DMT, 28.2% went on to receive a second line of therapy, 5.8% received a third, and just 0.9% went on to a fourth line. Use of more than one DMT concomitantly occurred in just 1.8% of all treated patients. Glatiramer and dimethyl fumarate were by far the most common first-line treatments received accounting for nearly 62% of patients receiving a DMT. Conclusion: Approximately two-thirds of patients newly diagnosed with MS did not receive a DMT and the disease is accompanied by a significant comorbid burden.

scholarly journals A comparative study on efficacy of amitriptyline and escitalopram in the treatment of depression

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 234
Author(s):  
Sushant Aryal ◽  
Kajal Chakrabarti ◽  
Mayuri Gupta
Keyword(s):  
Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors ◽  
Tricyclic Antidepressants ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Antidepressant Medication ◽  
Antidepressant Effect ◽  
Treatment Of Depression ◽  
Intergroup Comparison ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Antidepressant Efficacy ◽  
One Year

Background: Several generations of antidepressant medication which act by distinct pharmacological mechanisms have been introduced for the treatment of depression; tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) were first line of treatment for many years. However, over the last decade, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have displaced TCAs, mainly because of better side effect profile. There are no references in literature on comparison of efficacy of TCAs and SSRIs in Nepalese population. This study attempted to compare the efficacy of amitriptyline, a reference standard TCA with escitalopram, a newer SSRI in Nepalese population.Methods: An open level, randomised, prospective study was conducted for one year duration. Eighty outpatients suffering from major depression who met inclusion and exclusion criteria were randomly assigned to either amitriptyline or escitalopram group for four week study. Seventy one patients (amitriptyline N: 36, escitalopram N: 35) completed the study. Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) was used to measure the antidepressant effect. Antidepressant efficacy was evaluated on reduction of HDRS score before and after therapy (End of four weeks).Results: In amitriptyline group, mean percentage reduction in HDRS score was 58.29% (13.5 points), while in escitalopram group was 60.78% (14.03 points). Both the drugs significantly improved the HDRS score at the end of the study (p<0.05). On intergroup comparison, antidepressant efficacy of amitriptyline and escitalopram did not differ significantly from each other (p>0.05).Conclusions: This study suggests that escitalopram is effective in the treatment of depression and its efficacy appears to be comparable to amitriptyline at the end of four weeks.

scholarly journals Treatment patterns and comorbid burden of patients newly diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in the United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Kern ◽  
M. Soledad Cepeda
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Dimethyl Fumarate ◽  
The United States ◽  
Physical Symptoms ◽  
Primary Diagnosis ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Inpatient Hospitalization ◽  
Metabolic Conditions

Abstract Background: The treatment landscape for multiple sclerosis (MS) is quickly evolving. Understanding real-world treatment patterns of patients is necessary to identifying potential gaps in care.Methods: Patients with incident MS were identified from a large national claims database during 1/1/2014-6/30/2019. Patients had ≥2 diagnoses for MS or an inpatient hospitalization with a primary diagnosis of MS. Patients were required to have enrollment in the database ≥1 year prior to and ≥1 year following their first MS diagnosis. Treatment sequences were captured for all available disease modifying therapies (DMTs) during all available follow-up. Presence of comorbid conditions were captured during the one year prior to and following (and including) the index date; absolute change in prevalence from the pre- to post-index periods was calculated. Results: We identified 5,691 patients with incident MS. Common comorbidities included physical symptoms (e.g., pain, weakness, fatigue), mental health conditions (anxiety, depression), and cardiovascular/metabolic conditions (hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, obesity). Just 1,994 (35.0%) of patients received a DMT at any time during follow-up. Of those receiving a DMT, 28.2% went on to receive a second line of therapy, 5.8% received a third, and just 0.9% went on to a fourth line. Use of more than one DMT concomitantly occurred in just 1.8% of all treated patients. Glatiramer and dimethyl fumarate were by far the most common first-line treatments received accounting for nearly 62% of patients receiving a DMT. Conclusion: Approximately one-third of patients newly diagnosed with MS received a DMT and the disease is accompanied by a significant comorbid burden.

scholarly journals Prescribing patterns of antidepressants in Europe: Results from the Factors Influencing Depression Endpoints Research (FINDER) study

2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Bauer ◽  
Brigitta U. Monz ◽  
Angel L. Montejo ◽  
Deborah Quail ◽  
Nicolas Dantchev ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors ◽  
Antidepressant Medication ◽  
Prescribing Patterns ◽  
First Episode ◽  
Recurrent Depression ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Physical Conditions ◽  
Factors Influencing ◽  
Treatment Of Depression ◽  
Tetracyclic Antidepressants

AbstractAntidepressant prescribing patterns and factors influencing the choice of antidepressant for the treatment of depression were examined in the Factors Influencing Depression Endpoints Research (FINDER) study, a prospective, observational study in 12 European countries of 3468 adults about to start antidepressant medication for their first episode of depression or a new episode of recurrent depression. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) were the most commonly prescribed antidepressant (63.3% patients), followed by serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs, 13.6%), but there was considerable variation across countries. Notably, tricyclic and tetracyclic antidepressants (TCAs) were prescribed for 26.5% patients in Germany. The choice of the antidepressant prescribed was strongly influenced by the previous use of antidepressants, which was significantly associated with the prescription of a SSRI (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.54, 0.76), a SNRI (OR 1.49; 95% CI 1.18, 1.88) or a combination of antidepressants (OR 2.78; 95% CI 1.96, 3.96). Physician factors (age, gender, speciality) and patient factors (severity of depression, age, education, smoking, number of current physical conditions and functional syndromes) were associated with initial antidepressant choice in some models. In conclusion, the prescribing of antidepressants varies by country, and the type of antidepressant chosen is influenced by physician- as well as patient-related factors.

Second or none: Many patients treated for refractory differentiated thyroid cancer with small molecular kinase inhibitors do not receive a second line of therapy.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17589-e17589 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronda Copher ◽  
Oluwakayode Adejoro ◽  
Stacey DaCosta Byfield ◽  
Mary DuCharme ◽  
Debanjana Chatterjee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Thyroid Cancer ◽  
Differentiated Thyroid Cancer ◽  
Kinase Inhibitors ◽  
The United States ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Medicare Advantage ◽  
First Line ◽  
Line Of Therapy

e17589 Background: Describe the treatment patterns of patients initiated on NCCN-recommended small molecular kinase inhibitors (SMKIs) for radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) approved in the United States. Methods: A large national US claims database was used to identify adult patients diagnosed with thyroid cancer (≥2 non-DX medical claims, ≥ 30 days apart) from 1/1/2006 - 6/30/2016 (study period) with claims for SMKIs from 1/1/2010 - 5/31/2016. Continuous enrollment required participation in a commercial or Medicare Advantage health plan ≥3 months before and ≥1 month following index date (date of first pharmacy claim for SMKI). Line of therapy (LOT) periods were defined by receipt and timing of SMKIs. Patient follow up was earliest disenrollment, death or end of the study period. Patient characteristics and SMKI treatment patterns were described. Results: A total of 217 DTC patients were identified; 63% commercially insured and 37% Medicare Advantage. Almost half were male (48%); mean age was 61.2 years (standard deviation SD 12.5 years) and mean follow-up period was 499 days (SD 414 days). In the study period, 35% (n = 77) of patients had ≥2 LOTs and 18% (n = 39) had ≥3 LOTs. Mean treatment duration was 5.4 months (SD 6.7 mos) for LOT1, 4.9 months (SD 3.8 mos) for LOT2, and 4.2 months (SD 4.9 mo) for LOT3. During the full study period, the most used regimens were Sorafenib for both LOT1 (37%) and LOT2 (25%), pazopanib (18%) and sunitinib (18%) in LOT3. Also, in the study period, 33 patients had sorafenib in LOT1 of which 16 were treated with sorafenib again (48%) in LOT2. Post FDA approval in 2015, Lenvatinib became the predominant first-line regimen (47%, n = 29) during study period. Across all first line therapies, for those patients with ≥12 months of follow-up, 53% (n = 60) initiated LOT2. Conclusions: Sorafenib was the most common first line of therapy for DTC, with Lenvatinib adoption increasing as first-line therapy since the drug’s approval in 2015. Depending on the period evaluated, almost half to 2/3 of patients are not receiving a second line of treatment, efficacious and patient appropriate therapy is of importance in treating this rare cancer.

scholarly journals Treatment Patterns, Adverse Events, and Economic Burden in a Privately Insured Population of Newly Diagnosed Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in the United States

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3557-3557 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shaum Kabadi ◽  
Ravi K Goyal ◽  
Saurabh P Nagar ◽  
James A Kaye ◽  
Keith L Davis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
The United States ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
The Us ◽  
Privately Insured

Abstract Introduction: Contemporary data describing treatment patterns, adverse events (AEs) and outcomes in CLL patients in clinical practice is lacking. We conducted a retrospective cohort study and assessed treatment patterns, AEs, health care resource use (HCRU), and costs in patients with newly diagnosed CLL. Methods: Using a nationally representative population of privately insured patients in the US, adult patients with CLL 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 4 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. The most common systemic therapy regimens, regardless of therapy line, were bendamustine/rituximab (BR) (32%), rituximab monotherapy (24% [including maintenance]), ibrutinib monotherapy (15%), and fludarabine/cyclophosphamide/ rituximab (FCR) (14%). Of these, BR was the most common LOT-1 regimen (28.1%), while ibrutinib was the most common regimen in LOT-2 (20.8%) and in LOT-3 (25.5%). Use of idelalisib was limited to 1.6% of all patients receiving systemic therapy; however, an increasing trend was observed as patients moved from first to fourth LOT (<1% in LOT-1, 3.1% in LOT-2, 4.7% in LOT-3, and 8.6% in LOT-4). AEs identified during the most common treatments for CLL are presented by treatment regimen in Table 1. 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. Figure 1 depicts mean monthly costs by care setting and number of AEs, among all patients. Mean (SD) monthly all-cause costs during the post-index date follow-up were $905 ($1,865) among those with no AEs, $1,655 ($5,364) among those with 1-2 AEs, $2,883 ($8,483) among those with 3-5 AEs, and $6,032 ($13,290) among those with ≥6 AEs. Conclusions: This population-based study yielded recent real-world evidence on treatment patterns, AEs, HCRU, and costs in patients enrolled in health plans in the US. Immunochemotherapy, particularly BR, remained the preferred frontline therapy for CLL, whereas ibrutinib was the preferred therapy in LOT-2 and LOT-3, during the study period. This study demonstrates that the AE burden associated with current treatment alternatives for CLL is substantial, and the management of AEs occurring during treatments may have a significant impact on the overall health care costs. Disclosures Kabadi: AstraZeneca: Employment. Goyal:RTI Health Solutions: Employment, Research Funding. Nagar:RTI Health Solutions: Employment, Research Funding. Kaye:RTI Health Solutions: Employment, Research Funding. Davis:RTI Health Solutions: Employment, Research Funding. Mato:Celgene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Sunesis: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Research Funding; Prime Oncology: Speakers Bureau; Regeneron: Research Funding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document