Abstract: Current data identifying COVID-19 risk factors lack standardized outcomes and insufficiently control for confounders. Objective To identify risk factors associated with COVID-19, severe COVID-19, and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Design, Setting, and Participants This secondary cross-protocol analysis included 4 multicenter, international, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled, COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials with harmonized protocols established by the COVID-19 Prevention Network. Individual-level data from participants randomized to receive placebo within each trial were combined and analyzed. Enrollment began July 2020 and the last data cutoff was in July 2021. Participants included adults in stable health, at risk for SARS-CoV-2, and assigned to the placebo group within each vaccine trial. Data were analyzed from April 2022 to February 2023. Exposures Comorbid conditions, demographic factors, and SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk at the time of enrollment. Main Outcomes and Measures Coprimary outcomes were COVID-19 and severe COVID-19. Multivariate Cox proportional regression models estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% CIs for baseline covariates, accounting for trial, region, and calendar time. Secondary outcomes included severe COVID-19 among people with COVID-19, subclinical SARS-CoV-2 infection, and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results A total of 57 692 participants (median [range] age, 51 [18-95] years; 11 720 participants [20.3%] aged ≥65 years; 31 058 participants [53.8%] assigned male at birth) were included. The analysis population included 3270 American Indian or Alaska Native participants (5.7%), 7849 Black or African American participants (13.6%), 17 678 Hispanic or Latino participants (30.6%), and 40 745 White participants (70.6%). Annualized incidence was 13.9% (95% CI, 13.3%-14.4%) for COVID-19 and 2.0% (95% CI, 1.8%-2.2%) for severe COVID-19. Factors associated with increased rates of COVID-19 included workplace exposure (high vs low: aHR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.16-1.58]; medium vs low: aHR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.21-1.65] ; P   & amp;lt; .001) and living condition risk (very high vs low risk: aHR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.21-1.66]; medium vs low risk: aHR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08-1.32] ; P   & amp;lt; .001). Factors associated with decreased rates of COVID-19 included previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.09-0.19]; P   & amp;lt; .001), age 65 years or older (aHR vs age & amp;lt;65 years, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.50-0.64]; P   & amp;lt; .001) and Black or African American race (aHR vs White race, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.67-0.91]; P  = .002). Factors associated with increased rates of severe COVID-19 included race (American Indian or Alaska Native vs White: aHR, 2.61 [95% CI, 1.85-3.69]; multiracial vs White: aHR, 2.19 [95% CI, 1.50-3.20] ; P   & amp;lt; .001), diabetes (aHR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.14-2.08]; P  = .005) and at least 2 comorbidities (aHR vs none, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.09-1.76]; P  = .008). In analyses restricted to participants who contracted COVID-19, increased severe COVID-19 rates were associated with age 65 years or older (aHR vs & amp;lt;65 years, 1.75 [95% CI, 1.32-2.31]; P   & amp;lt; .001), race (American Indian or Alaska Native vs White: aHR, 1.98 [95% CI, 1.38-2.83]; Black or African American vs White: aHR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.03-2.14] ; multiracial: aHR, 1.81 [95% CI, 1.21-2.69]; overall P  = .001), body mass index (aHR per 1-unit increase, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.01-1.04]; P  = .001), and diabetes (aHR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.37-2.49]; P   & amp;lt; .001). Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with decreased severe COVID-19 rates (aHR, 0.04 [95% CI, 0.01-0.14]; P   & amp;lt; .001). Conclusions and Relevance In this secondary cross-protocol analysis of 4 randomized clinical trials, exposure and demographic factors had the strongest associations with outcomes; results could inform mitigation strategies for SARS-CoV-2 and viruses with comparable epidemiological characteristics.

Abstract: Background: In Jan 2014, ponatinib was reintroduced to the US market after an 11 week withdrawal to review data on arterial thrombotic events, revise US prescribing information (USPI) and implement a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS). The USPI was revised to narrow the indicated population and recommend a starting dose of 45 mg, with consideration of 1) lower doses in patients with selected comorbidities or to manage adverse events, 2) dose reduction in chronic phase (CP) and accelerated phase (AP) chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients achieving major cytogenetic response, and 3) discontinuation if response has not occurred at 3 months. In the US, ponatinib is available exclusively through a specialty pharmacy that maintains prescribing data for all US ponatinib-treated patients since reintroduction. Examining these data provides insight into practitioners' patient selection and prescribing patterns, and real-world ponatinib outcomes. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients starting treatment with ponatinib between 01 January 2014 and 25 March 2015 using data from referring physicians, patient intake forms and pharmacy dispensing records. Patient and prescriber characteristics, and dosing and dose modifications were documented. Clinical, demographic and physician characteristics were examined as predictors of initial dose and dose modification using logistic regression; therapy duration was assessed using Kaplan-Meier techniques and proportional hazard regression. Results: 758 US patients initiated treatment with ponatinib over this 15-month period, (58% male; median age 55 years [range: 11-98]). Among 730 patients with a specified diagnosis, 80% had CML and 4% Philadelphia chromosome positive (Ph+) acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL); the remainder had unspecified ALL (10%), other hematologic malignancies (3%), and solid tumors (3%). Of 411 CML patients reporting disease phase, 61% were in CP, 18% AP and 21% blast phase (BP). 12% of CML and 8% of Ph+ ALL patients had a reported T315I mutation. 21% of CP, 34% of AP, 12% of BP and 31% of Ph+ ALL patients were receiving ponatinib as 2nd-line therapy, with the remainder in 3rd line or later. Most recent prior TKI was dasatinib for 48%, nilotinib for 23%, bosutinib for 17%, and imatinib for 12% of patients in all therapy lines. 50% received 45 mg as their initial dose, 33% 30 mg and 17% 15 mg. Prescribers' practice setting was 49% community and 51% academic. Most prescribers (82%) had only 1 ponatinib patient; only 7% had 3 or more. Prescribers with 〉 1 ponatinib patient were less likely to prescribe 45 mg starting dose (OR=0.53 for those with 2 patients; OR=0.25 for 3+ patients.) 23% of patients had at least one dose adjustment, including 17% with dose reduction. Among CP patients initially on 45 mg, with at least 6 months of therapy, 42% reduced dose (29% to 30 mg; 13% to 15 mg). Dose reduction decreased significantly for later therapy lines in CP, but did not differ by disease phase. Median time on therapy was 〉 15 months for CP, 10.6 months for AP, 7.0 months for BP, and 〉 14 months for Ph+ ALL. CP patients' time on therapy was longer for those started on 15 mg, although this difference was not significant (p=0.14) (Figure.) Reasons for dose adjustment and discontinuation were not well documented, but they appeared to occur at a relatively constant rate over time rather than at time points recommended for response monitoring. Conclusions: Real-world US data shows ponatinib is prescribed across disease phase, therapy line, and mutation status. While a majority of patients were in their 3rd line of therapy or later, a substantial proportion of patients, especially in AP CML and Ph+ ALL, received ponatinib as 2nd line therapy. Physicians appear to be selecting patients who are younger than those enrolled in registrational trial for ponatinib (55 years vs. PACE trial median age, 64 years), and mitigating against potential risk using lower starting doses and dose reduction. Most prescribers have only 1 ponatinib patient, but physicians with 〉 1 ponatinib patient favor lower starting doses. Dose reduction and discontinuation occurred steadily over time rather than clustered at routine response milestone time points. CP CML Patients starting at 15 mg appear to have similar or better treatment duration compared with those started at higher doses. Disclosures Mauro: Ariad: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. McGarry:ARIAD: Employment, Equity Ownership. Yang:ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Employment. Lustgarten:ARIAD Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Stock. Huang:ARIAD: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Abstract: Background: Ponatinib is a potent oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) active against native and mutant forms of BCR-ABL. It is approved for patients with resistant or intolerant CML or Ph+ ALL, or with the T315I mutation, which renders other TKIs ineffective. The USPI recommends a starting dose of 45 mg/day, with consideration of lower starting doses in patients with selected comorbidities. In the US, ponatinib is available exclusively through a specialty pharmacy that maintains prescribing data for all US ponatinib-treated patients. Analyses of dispensed ponatinib prescriptions for CP-CML patients show that median therapy duration exceeds 1.5 years but is variable across groups; examination of demographic, clinical and physician characteristics may reveal predictors of therapy duration. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients starting treatment with ponatinib over the 2.5-year period from 01 January 2014 and 30 June 2016 using data from referring physicians, patient intake forms and pharmacy dispensing records. Gender (M/F), age ( 〈 /≥65 years), reported T315I status (Y/N), line of therapy (2nd-5th), most recent prior TKI (imatinib, nilotinib, dasatinib, or bosutinib), starting dose (15, 30 or 45 mg/day), prescribing physician practice type (academic/community), and number of ponatinib patients treated by physician (1, 2, 3 or more) were examined as predictors of therapy duration using Kaplan-Meier (K-M) techniques and log-rank tests; multivariable, stepwise, proportional-hazard regression was used to generate adjusted hazard ratios and identify primary drivers of therapy duration. Results: 475 US patients identified with CP-CML initiated treatment with ponatinib over this 2.5-year period; K-M median time on therapy was 20.7 months. About one-half of patients were male (Table) and most were aged 〈 65 years. Only 10% were reported to have the T315I mutation, most were in their 3rd or 4th line of therapy, and had most commonly switched from dasatinib; nearly one-half had a starting dose of 45 mg/day. Slightly more than one-half of prescribing physicians were in academic settings, and more than three-quarters had only one ponatinib patient. When examining each predictor individually, only gender was a significant predictor of time on therapy (Table), with women having significantly shorter duration than men. There was also a trend for T315I patients to have longer duration than non-T315I. In analyses adjusted for other covariates, non-T315I patients had significantly shorter duration (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.09; p=0.033), as did those whose most recent TKI was not imatinib (HR nilotinib v imatinib: 3.61; dasatinib v imatinib 4.72; bosutinib v imatinib 1.85; overall p=0.001). Women had a borderline significantly shorter duration than men (HR: 1.40; p= 0.085) and versus 2nd line, patients in 3rd (HR: 0.67) and 4th (HR: 0.68) line had longer duration, while 5th line had shorter (HR: 1.45; overall p=0.054). Conclusions: Real-world US data for CP-CML patients receiving ponatinib show that a number of subgroups have median duration on ponatinib exceeding 2 years, but suggest drivers of therapy duration may be complex including both disease (e.g. T315I, prior line of tx) and patient (e.g. sex) related factors. Study sponsor: ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Disclosures Mauro: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; ARIAD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. McGarry:ARIAD: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lustgarten:ARIAD: Employment, Equity Ownership. Huang:ARIAD: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Abstract: In patients who have chronic‐phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) with the Philadelphia chromosome threonine to isoleucine mutation at codon 315, single‐agent ponatinib is associated with significantly longer overall survival compared with allogenic stem cell transplantation. In those who have accelerated‐phase CML, blast‐crisis CML, and Philadelphia chromosome‐positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia with the T315I mutation, single‐agent ponatinib is associated with similar or shorter overall survival compared with stem cell transplantation.

Abstract: Background: Allogeneic SCT is considered standard treatment for patients with advanced phase CML (accelerated phase, blast crisis), de novo Ph+ ALL, or patients in chronic phase (CP) resistant or intolerant to at least 2 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). Ponatinib is FDA and EMA approved for the treatment of CML or Ph+ ALL in patients with the BCR-ABL1 T315I mutation or for whom no other TKI therapy is indicated. In patients harboring the T315I mutation, ponatinib currently represents a suitable alternative treatment option to allogeneic SCT. However, differences in outcomes between patients treated with ponatinib and allogeneic SCT have not been analyzed. Objective: To compare overall survival (OS) among CML and Ph+ ALL patients with the BCR-ABL1 T315I mutation treated with ponatinib (in PACE) versus allogeneic SCT (in the EBMT database). Methods: Data from a Phase II trial of ponatinib (PACE trial; Cortes et al., New Engl J Med 2013; NCT01207440) and European Bone Marrow Transplant (EBMT) registry were pooled to conduct an indirect comparison of ponatinib with allogeneic SCT. Both ponatinib and allogeneic SCT cohorts comprised patients with the T315I mutation age 18 years or older in any phase of CML or with Ph+ ALL. All patients harbored the T315I mutation detected by Sanger sequencing, DHPLC, PCR-RFLP, or other equivalent tests. Allogeneic SCT patients in their second CP phase were excluded, and no patients in the EBMT database were treated with ponatinib prior to receiving allogeneic SCT. The date of intervention (ponatinib or SCT) served as the index date. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were compared between the two intervention groups. OS was compared between the two groups using adjusted Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival curves and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models; all comparisons were adjusted for age (as a continuous variable), gender, geographic region (Europe, Asia, and Australia vs. North America), time from CML diagnosis to intervention, and CML phase or Ph+ ALL at intervention to control confounding by these variables. Results were presented overall and stratified by phase of CML or Ph+ ALL. Results: A total of 184 (128 ponatinib, 56 allogeneic SCT) patients were included in the analysis: 90 were in CP-CML, 26 were in accelerated phase (AP-CML), 41 were in blast phase (BP-CML), and 27 had Ph+ ALL. On average, ponatinib patients were older than allogeneic SCT patients on the date of intervention (median age 53 vs. 45 years, p=0.006). In addition, a larger proportion of patients in the ponatinib group were from North America than in the allogeneic SCT group (43.8% vs. 26.8%, p=0.030). Median time from diagnosis to intervention was longer for patients treated with ponatinib compared with those treated with allogeneic SCT in CP-CML (58 vs. 32 months, p=0.029), but not significantly different in AP-CML (80 vs. 49 months, p=0.075) nor Ph+ ALL (17 vs. 10 months, p=0.212). This period was nominally shorter for the ponatinib cohort in BP-CML (26 vs. 43 months, p=0.340). Over 93% of patients in both treatment cohorts in all disease phases reported previous use of imatinib. Adjusted median OS was significantly longer in CP-CML patients treated with ponatinib as opposed to allogeneic SCT patients (KM median: not reached [NR] vs. 103.3 months, p=0.013), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.37 (95% CI: 0.16, 0.84, p=0.017). Median OS was not significantly different between the two treatment groups in patients with AP-CML (NR vs. 55.6 months, p=0.889; HR=0.90 [95% CI: 0.20, 4.10, p=0.889] ). However, among patients with BP-CML, ponatinib was associated with significantly shorter OS compared with allogeneic SCT: median 7.0 vs. 10.5 months (p=0.026), HR=2.29 (95% CI: 1.08, 4.82, p=0.030). Ph+ ALL patients treated with ponatinib had nominally shorter median OS than allogeneic SCT (6.7 vs. 32.4 months, p=0.119; HR=2.77 [95% CI: 0.73, 10.56, p=0.136]). See Figures 1a-1d for adjusted KM survival curves. Conclusion: AllogeneicSCT remains a potential curative therapy for patients with BP-CML. However, ponatinib was associated with significantly longer OS than allogeneic SCT in patients with CP-CML that harbor the T315I mutation and could represent a promising therapeutic alternative in this setting, although follow-up remains short to date. OS was similar between intervention groups in AP-CML and longer for allogeneic SCT patients in BP-CML and Ph+ ALL. Disclosures Nicolini: Ariad Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Basak:MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pierre-Fabre: Honoraria. Kim:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Il-Yang: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Pinilla-Ibarz:BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy; ARIAD: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Apperley:ARIAD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Hughes:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; ARIAD: Honoraria, Research Funding. Niederwieser:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Mauro:Ariad: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Chuah:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Chiltern International: Honoraria. Hochhaus:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; ARIAD: Honoraria, Research Funding. Martinelli:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; ROCHE: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AMGEN: Consultancy. DerSarkissian:ARIAD: Research Funding. Kageleiry:ARIAD: Research Funding. Yang:ARIAD: Employment. Huang:ARIAD: Employment, Equity Ownership. McGarry:ARIAD: Employment, Equity Ownership. Cortes:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; BerGenBio AS: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ambit: Consultancy, Research Funding; Arog: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Jenssen: Consultancy.

Abstract: Background: The current standard induction therapy for de novo Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) in combination with chemotherapy or corticosteroids. Three generations of TKIs are currently available for the treatment of Ph+ ALL. Ponatinib, a third generation multi-targeted TKI, is a more potent inhibitor of BCR/ABL than previous generations. It also is effective in cases where there is a threonine-to-isoleucine substitution at position 315 (T315I mutation), which confers resistance to all first- and second-generation TKIs (i.e., imatinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib). However, evidence on the comparative effectiveness of front-line combination therapy with ponatinib relative to other TKIs in de novo Ph+ ALL has not been well-established. Aims: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness, as measured by complete molecular response (CMR) and 2- and 3-year overall survival (OS), of front-line treatment combinations with ponatinib versus first- and second-generation TKIs in de novo Ph+ ALL. Methods: Twenty-six studies of front-line Ph+ ALL treatment with TKI in combination with chemotherapy or corticosteroids (18 studies of imatinib, 5 of dasatinib, 2 of nilotinib, and 1 of ponatinib) were identified from published targeted literature reviews and recently published trials. These consisted of 25 phase 2 through 4 trials and 1 retrospective analysis. Study arms in which patients received chemotherapy or corticosteroids only, a single TKI agent, or in which they received autologous stem cell transplant exclusively were excluded. Data on aggregated patient characteristics were extracted and summarized using the median (range). The proportions of patients achieving CMR (following induction or consolidation therapy) and 2- and 3-year OS were also extracted from all study arms and summarized by TKI group (ponatinib versus all other first and second generation TKIs) using pooled estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from a random-effects meta-analysis. A binomial distribution was assumed to calculate the 95% CIs for the ponatinib trial. Multivariate logistic meta-regressions were conducted to examine the association between each TKI treatment group and CMR rates, 2-year OS, and 3-year OS, separately, adjusting for age and gender. Results: A total of 32 TKI treatment arms were included in the analysis. The median (range) of age across trial arms was 46 years (36-69 years) and proportion of male patients was 53% (42-67%). The pooled proportion of patients achieving CMR with ponatinib was higher than that with first and second generation TKIs (79% versus 34%). The pooled 2- and 3-year OS with ponatinib were also higher than those with other TKIs (2-year: 83% versus 58%; 3-year: 79% versus 50%). Relative to other TKIs, ponatinib was associated with a statistically significant 6.09-fold increase in the odds of achieving CMR (N=25) [odds ratio=6.09 (95% CI: 1.16-31.90), p=0.034]. While ponatinib was not significantly associated with an increase in the odds of 2-year OS (N=27) [odds ratio=3.70 (95% CI: 0.93-14.73), p=0.062] , it was associated with a statistically significant 4.49-fold increase in the odds of 3-year OS (N=19) [odds ratio=4.49 (95% CI: 1.00-20.13), p=0.050] compared to earlier generation TKIs. Conclusion: Frontline treatment with ponatinib in combination with chemotherapy or corticosteroids was associated with significantly better odds of CMR and 3-year OS in patients newly diagnosed with Ph+ ALL than combination therapy with earlier generations of TKIs. In particular, ponatinib was associated with a 6-fold increase in CMR, the most important factor in predicting long-term survival outcomes. The improved efficacy of ponatinib in Ph+ ALL may be particularly important for patients who are ineligible to undergo stem cell transplantation due to lack of suitably matched donors, advanced age, or significant comorbidities. In such cases, combination therapy with TKI may be a suitable alternative. Though the number of studies included was small and few covariates could be used to adjust for heterogeneity across trials, the results suggest that ponatinib in combination with chemotherapy may represent an effective front-line treatment option for patients with Ph+ ALL. Prospective head-to-head clinical trials are needed to confirm these results. Sponsor: ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Disclosures Jabbour: ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy. DerSarkissian:ARIAD: Research Funding. Duh:Allergan: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Medtronic: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding. McCormick:ARIAD: Research Funding. Cheng:ARIAD: Research Funding. McGarry:ARIAD: Employment, Equity Ownership. Souroutzidis:ARIAD: Research Funding. Huang:ARIAD: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kantarjian:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer Inc: Research Funding; Delta-Fly Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.