<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<recommendedContent xmlns="http://api.mspoke.com">
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_377"
                     title="Advisory Panel Rates Genomic Cancer Tests"
                     score="0.012"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Medicare/tb/18269?impressionId=1265787770206"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Some genomic tests aimed at identifying patients most likely to respond to cancer drugs won a thumbs-up from a Medicare advisory panel, but others didn&apos;t make the grade.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As part of a national coverage determination under way at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, members of the Medicare Evidence Development &amp;amp; Coverage Advisory Committee (MEDCAC) last week rated the clinical value of several pharmacogenomic cancer tests now available.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The tests would be used to select patients for treatment with drugs including tamoxifen, irinotecan (Camptosar), trastuzumab (Herceptin), and imatinib (Gleevec).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;CMS has not previously decided whether such tests should be reimbursed by Medicare, although testing is already routine for some of these treatments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The FDA-approved labeling for trastuzumab requires such testing. Imatinib&apos;s approvals include chronic myeloid leukemia featuring the BCR-ABL &quot;Philadelphia chromosome&quot; mutation, although the label doesn&apos;t explicitly mention testing.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;CMS is aware that the body of evidence on the role of pharmacogenomic testing in cancer continues to evolve,&quot; according to the agency&apos;s notice of the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Recognizing the rapid accumulation of such evidence, CMS seeks guidance from the panel to inform future coverage determinations. We want to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries have access to any demonstrated improved health outcomes of pharmacogenomic testing, and are protected from inaccurate or inappropriate pharmacogenomic testing that could compromise therapy or increase the risks of adverse events during therapy.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;MEDCAC panelists were asked to rate their confidence in the clinical utility of five tests and in the scientific evidence available for review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The five tests cover: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;Polymorphisms in the CYP2D6 drug-metabolizing enzyme for breast cancer patients who are candidates for tamoxifen&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Polymorphisms in the UGT1A1 gene for colon cancer patients considered for irinotecan treatment&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Presence of HER/neu epidermal growth factor receptor expression in patients with breast cancer, indicating suitability for trastuzumab&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Presence of the BCR-ABL mutation in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia who would be candidates for imatinib&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Mutations in the K-ras gene for metastatic colorectal cancer patients eligible for cetuximab (Erbitux) or panitumumab (Vectibix)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The 15 panel members assigned values of one to five, reflecting low to high confidence, to each test. A score of two reflected medium-low confidence, while a four meant medium-high confidence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Most of the panelists agreed that the evidence underlying the tests for CYP2D6 and UGT1A1 polymorphisms was still too scant for an assessment of their clinical value. Mean scores for these tests were 2.07 and 1.83, respectively, with nearly all votes either a one or two.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But MEDCAC members were more confident that the usefulness of the other three tests for diagnostic and monitoring purposes could be evaluated. Mean scores for those tests were all well above four.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For the HER/neu, BCR-ABL, and K-ras tests, since members believed the evidence was adequate for assessment, MEDCAC also voted on whether their use actually would improve health outcomes in cancer patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A third ranking provided the committee&apos;s views on whether the conclusions could be generalized to the Medicare population and patients in the community.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mean scores for those rankings were all also above four, indicating the panel&apos;s support for these tests as clinically beneficial.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, when asked whether there was enough evidence to assess the utility of the BCR-ABL test in detecting treatment failure, panelists didn&apos;t think so. Most of those votes were twos, and the mean was 2.47.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;CMS has not given a time line for deciding whether to approve Medicare coverage for the tests.&lt;/p&gt;

    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_398"
                     title="ASCO GI: Gene Test, Nodes Predict Colon CA Recurrence Risk (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.012"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ASCOGI/tb/18301?impressionId=1265787770206"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;ORLANDO  --  An extended nodal examination and gene array test show promise for identifying patients at high risk of colorectal cancer recurrence in stage II disease, researchers reported at the Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Across the range of recurrence scores, examination of at least 12 nodes was associated with about a 5% absolute decrease in the three-year risk of recurrence in resected stage II colon cancers, compared with the same recurrence score and examination of fewer nodes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Noting limitations of other tests and biomarkers developed to evaluate recurrence risk, the gene expression-derived recurrence score &quot;has a real chance to make its way into the clinical decision algorithm,&quot; said David Kerr, MD, of the University of Oxford in England.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Both recurrence score and number of nodes examined were independent predictors of recurrence risk, but investigators found no association or interaction between the two parameters of risk assessment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The test gives us more information about individual patients about the likelihood of the cancer returning,&quot; said Kerr, who was an investigator in the study. &quot;I think the quality of the science underpinning it, the size of the sample, and the compelling statistics all combine to make this a potential winner.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Another study reported at the meeting showed few tumor-related genetic characteristics to distinguish stage II colon cancer from stage III.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Both studies involved use a 12-gene assay (Oncotype DX) validated for predicting recurrence risk in stage II colon cancer. Investigators in the QUASAR validation study used data from the trial to evaluate the prognostic value of nodal assessment combined with other parameters, including the 12-gene assay.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical guidelines for stage II colon cancer include number of nodes examined as a prognostic factor, Richard Gray, PhD, of the University of Birmingham in England, and colleagues noted in a poster presentation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Records for 657 stage II patients randomized to surgery alone showed that the median number of nodes examined was 10, including fewer than six nodes in 19% of patients and &amp;#8805;12 nodes in 37%. Risk of recurrence was more closely associated with examination of fewer than eight nodes versus more (HR 1.77, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001) than with a cutoff point of 12 nodes (HR 1.38, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.065). &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;More nodes were examined in later than earlier years, the investigators found.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a model that included recurrence score derived from the gene assay and the 12-node threshold recommended by NCCN, both factors proved to be independent predictors of recurrence risk (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.01, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.05). Similar results emerged from models that incorporated mismatch repair (or microsatellite instability) and T stage.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Across the range of recurrence scores, examination of &amp;#8805;12 nodes was associated with a 3% to 7% lower risk of recurrence compared with examination of fewer nodes (about 5% overall). The investigators concluded that both parameters should be included in assessment of recurrence risk after surgery for stage II colon cancer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second study examined the 12-gene assay&apos;s ability to distinguish stage II from stage III colon cancer. Investigators evaluated the assay, pathologic markers, and expression of 375 different genes in 634 patients with stage II disease and 844 with stage III colon cancer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data showed minimal differences in gene expression between the two stages of colon cancer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Five of the 375 genes differed significantly in their expression in stage II versus stage III cancer (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.05). Two tumor characteristics differed by stage, as stage II colon cancer was more likely to be mismatch repair-deficient (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.04) and have mucinous histology (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.007).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data also showed significant interaction of grade and stage (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.005), and borderline significance for interactions of stage with T-stage, mismatch repair, and mucinous histology, reflecting prognostic value in stage II but not stage III disease.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Overall, investigators in this second study found a &quot;striking similarity between stages for the recurrence score and the vast majority of genes analyzed.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The studies were supported by Genomic Health.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Investigators in the studies included employees of Genomic Health.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_304"
                     title="&apos;Virtual&apos; Colon Scans Effective in Seniors (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.006"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/ColonCancer/tb/18164?impressionId=1265787770206"
                     
      Patients 65 and older are as suitable as younger individuals for CT colonography, said researchers conducting a large retrospective study.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Advanced neoplasias were detected with CT colonography  --  often called &quot;virtual colonoscopy&quot;  --  in older patients at more than double the rate in the general screening population, reported David H. Kim, MD, of the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Wis., and colleagues in the February issue of &lt;em&gt;Radiology&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;They found that 7.6% of older patients had advanced neoplasias, compared with 3.2% of all patients screened in the university&apos;s clinic (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On the basis of this and other findings in 577 individuals 65 and older versus the entire group of 3,120 patients undergoing the procedure, Kim and colleagues concluded that &quot;CT colonography performance is maintained in an older cohort.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Overall, the observations from this clinical experience confirm that CT colonography may be a valuable screening modality in the older population,&quot; they wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the study did not address several objections raised by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in its decision last year to deny Medicare coverage for the procedure. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Medicare/14186&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Medicare/14186&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Medicare Finalizes Denial of Virtual Colonoscopy Coverage&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;CMS had pointed to relatively low sensitivity of CT colonography compared with optical colonoscopy in prospective trials, especially for small lesions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The agency also determined that CT colonography increased the costs of positive findings, since abnormalities in the CT scans must be confirmed with optical colonoscopy. In addition, CMS said there was no evidence to support claims that the less invasive imaging procedure would be more acceptable to patients and therefore would raise screening rates.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data analyzed by Kim and colleagues did not allow for calculations of false-negative rates or predictive values of positive or negative findings. Nor did the researchers report cost information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mean age of their older cohort was 69.2 (SD 3.8). The oldest was 79.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers reported that 15.3% of the older patients were referred for optical colonoscopy on the basis of the CT results, compared with 7.9% of the overall screening group.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Less than 4% of positive findings were determined to be false with the optical procedure (3.6% for polyps 6 to 10 mm in diameter, 2.1% for larger lesions).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Of the 59 advanced neoplasias identified in the older patients, all but three were at least 10 mm in size.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The scans also suggested abnormalities outside the colon in 89 (15.4%) patients. Of these, 45 received a full workup, which revealed substantial and previously unsuspected diagnoses in 21 cases  -- 18 were vascular aneurysms. The other three included one lung tumor, a femoral hernia, and a malrotation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Kim and colleagues reported that no &quot;substantial complications&quot; such as perforations or major hemorrhage occurred in the older patients, either with the CT scan or follow-up colonoscopy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They also indicated that the ratio of large to small neoplasias was similar in the older patients compared with their CT screening group as a whole. Histologic and morphologic findings were similar as well.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers cited the observational nature of the study, in which negative findings were not corroborated with optical colonoscopy, and its restriction to a single center as its main limitations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;No external funding for the study was reported.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Kim and one co-author reported relationships with Viatronix and Medicsight and are co-founders of a company called VirtuoCTC, which produces educational materials on CT colonography.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_309"
                     title="Increasing Copays: Penny-Wise but Pound-Foolish? (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.005"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Geriatrics/GeneralGeriatrics/tb/18173?impressionId=1265787770206"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Raising seniors&apos; copayments for ambulatory care to offset increasing healthcare costs may backfire on insurers, researchers asserted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Seniors enrolled in Medicare plans that increased copayments had significantly fewer outpatient visits but spent more time in the hospital than patients in plans that left copayments untouched, according to Amal Trivedi, MD, MPH, of Brown University in Providence, R.I., and colleagues.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Assuming an average reimbursement of $60 for an outpatient visit, seven annual visits per enrollee, and an average copay increase of $8.50 per visit, a plan should save $7,150 for every 100 enrollees, they noted in the Jan. 28 &lt;em&gt;New England Journal of Medicine&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But, assuming an average cost of $11,065 per hospitalization of a person 65 to 84, the researchers estimated that the costs for inpatient care would actually increase by $24,000 for every 100 enrollees in the year after copays are increased.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Even using more conservative criteria, the increased costs for inpatient care would nearly double any savings from increasing copays, they argued.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Cost-sharing has generally been thought to reduce total healthcare spending without harming health for the average person,&quot; the researchers wrote, but these results suggest increasing copays in Medicare beneficiaries &quot;may be a particularly ill-advised cost-containment strategy.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Increasing copayments may be particularly harmful to older patients, they said, because they have lower incomes and are more likely to have poor health and greater out-of-pocket healthcare expenses than younger patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To explore the issue in a Medicare population, Trivedi and colleagues compared the use of outpatient and inpatient care between enrollees in 18 plans that increased copays for ambulatory care and 18 that did not. The study included 899,060 patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to data from the Medicare Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, mean copays increased during the study period for both primary care ($7.38 to $14.38) and specialty care ($12.66 to $22.05) in the case plans.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mean copays remained stable at $8.33 and $11.38 for primary and specialty care, respectively, in the control plans.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In both groups, there were increases in the number of ambulatory visits over time, but the increase was smaller in the plans that raised copays.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There was also a rise in the number of hospitalizations, the proportion of patients who were hospitalized, and the length of time spent in the hospital in both groups, but there were larger increases in the plans that increased copays.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Compared with the control plans, in the year after the increase in copays, case plans had: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;19.8 fewer annual outpatient visits per 100 enrollees (95% CI 16.6 to 23.1)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;2.2 additional annual hospital admissions per 100 enrollees (95% CI 1.8 to 2.6)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;13.4 more annual inpatient days per 100 enrollees (95% CI 10.2 to 16.6)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;A 0.7% increase in the proportion of enrollees who were hospitalized (95% CI 0.51% to 0.95%)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The findings were amplified among enrollees living in areas of lower income and education, black patients, and those who had hypertension, diabetes, or a history of myocardial infarction.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Trivedi and colleagues noted some limitations of the analysis: it was not randomized, and unmeasured differences could have influenced the results.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also, the case and control plans could not be matched in a geographic area smaller than census region because of the small number of Medicare plans, and data were lacking on diagnoses, procedures, and costs associated with hospital admissions and outpatient visits.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;Trivedi is the recipient of a Pfizer Health Policy Scholars Award and a career development award from the Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Services.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_307"
                     title="Good Results in Poor-Risk Rectal Cancer (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.005"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/ColonCancer/tb/18169?impressionId=1265787770206"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Patients with high-risk rectal cancer had high response and three-year survival rates on a regimen of preoperative chemotherapy, followed by standard chemoradiation and then surgical resection, according to results of a multicenter study.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Three-fourths of patients had objective responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, increasing to 89% after chemoradiation, researchers reported online in &lt;em&gt;The Lancet Oncology&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Additionally, 97% of patients who underwent surgery had microscopically clear surgical margins. At three years, 83% of patients remained alive, including almost 70% who were progression free.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Intensification of systemic therapy with neoadjuvant combination chemotherapy before standard treatment is feasible in poor-risk, potentially operable rectal cancer, with acceptable safety and promising long-term outcomes,&quot; David Cunningham, MD, of the Royal Marsden Hospital in Sutton, England, and co-authors concluded.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Future development of this multidisciplinary treatment strategy in randomized trials is warranted.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although surgery remains the primary and potentially curative therapy for localized rectal cancer, local recurrence rates as high as 40% have been reported with conventional resection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The introduction of standardized surgery and total mesorectal excision reduced local recurrence rates to less than 10%, which has been associated with improved survival, the authors noted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Preoperative radiotherapy and then chemoradiation further reduced the risk of local recurrence, but did not improve overall survival compared with surgery alone.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Combination chemotherapy has led to higher response rates and progression-free survival compared with monotherapy for patients with advanced rectal cancer, the authors continued. Adjuvant chemotherapy containing oxaliplatin (Eloxatin) also has improved outcomes in resected colon cancer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given that oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine combinations have become a preferred standard, investigators designed a clinical trial of high-risk rectal cancer to investigate preoperative treatment with oxaliplatin and capecitabine (Xeloda).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A previous report involving the first 77 patients enrolled in the trial showed substantial tumor regression, rapid improvement in symptoms, and a high rate of clear surgical margins (&lt;em&gt;J Clin Oncol&lt;/em&gt; 2006; 24: 668-74).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Nine treatment-related cardiac events occurred in eight of the 77 patients, prompting a protocol amendment to exclude patients with a recent history of clinically significant cardiac problems.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The updated results comprised 105 patients, and only one cardiac event occurred after the change in eligibility criteria, the authors wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;All of the patients had MRI-defined, poor-risk but nonmetastatic rectal cancer. Patients received four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy over 12 weeks, followed by chemoradiotherapy consisting of a total radiation dose of 54 Gy administered over six weeks, plus daily capecitabine.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;After total mesorectal excision, patients received 12 weeks of adjuvant capecitabine.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The primary endpoint was pathologic complete response, and median follow-up was 55 months.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Radiologically confirmed response rates were 74% after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and 89% after chemoradiation. Of 97 patients who had surgery, 93 had microscopically clear margins, and 21 of 105 patients had pathologic complete responses.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Three-year progression-free and overall survival were 68% and 83%, respectively. Among patients who had surgery, three-year, relapse-free survival was 74%.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Our findings show the feasibility of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine and oxaliplatin before chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision, which accord with the initial results of this study,&quot; the authors declared.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;High radiological response rates to preoperative treatment were recorded, and the number of pathological complete responses surpassed the prespecified number needed to meet the primary objective of this trial.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was supported by England&apos;s National Health Service and sanofi-aventis.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Cunningham and co-author Niall Tebbutt disclosed relationships with Roche and sanofi-aventis.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Co-author Ian Chau disclosed relationships with Roche and sanofi-aventis.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Co-author Yu Jo Chua disclosed relationships with Roche and sanofi-aventis.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Co-author Gina Brown disclosed a relationship with sanofi-aventis.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
</recommendedContent>