Intersectionality Between Country, Gender and Funding in Authorship for Phase III Trials Presented at the ASCO Annual Meeting 2022.

PURPOSE: Multiple disparities have been recognized in the area of location, gender, and funding for leadership in oncology clinical trials. Understanding their intersectionality is crucial to be able to formulate policies and actions, to ensure research is representative of the global oncology community. Here, data from phase III trials presented at the ASCO Annual Meeting of 2022 (ASCO22) were analyzed. METHODS: The location of institution, gender of lead and senior authors, and funding source for solid tumor phase III trial abstracts presented at the ASCO22 were analyzed. World Bank analytical grouping version 2021-2022 was used to describe regions and countries as high (HIC), upper-middle (UMIC), lower-middle (LoMIC), and low-income (LIC). RESULTS: Across 239 phase III abstracts, lead and senior authors respectively represented HIC institutions in 83% and 85%, UMIC in 13% and 12%, and LoMIC in 4% and 3%. No authors worked in LICs or sub-Saharan Africa. Women accounted for 29% of lead and 23% of senior authors. This distribution persisted across regions, with women as lead authors ranging from 19% (UMIC) to 31% (HIC), and as senior authors from 7% (UMIC) to 25% (HIC). Industry funded 62% of trials, academia 17%, and others 15%; 6% lacked funding. Industry funding was highest in HIC trials (66% for lead and senior authors), followed by UMICs (55% lead, 53% senior) and LoMICs (11% lead, 0% senior). Industry-sponsored trials were proportionally equally represented among female and male senior authors (63% each). CONCLUSION: There is marked intersectionality in leadership of oncology clinical trials presented at the world's largest oncology conference.

The need for economic evaluations for neuro-oncology in low- and middleincome: the Pakistan perspective.

The incidence and prevalence of brain tumours have steadily increased within low- and middle-income countries, similar to patterns seen in high-income countries. In addition to the epidemiological landscape of brain tumours in Pakistan, it is important to consider the economics of brain tumour diagnosis and management to inform policy on neuro-oncological healthcare service delivery. The challenges associated with conducting economic evaluations in LMICs include the ability to receive funding for country-specific estimates, dearth of existing data and methodological development, and the need for investment in economic evaluations of health. Economic evaluations are most useful when funding support is given to country-specific initiatives to allocate resources. Cost and cost components must also be meticulously collected to enable accurate calculations of economic evidence for the decision-making process. To put neuro-oncological care at the forefront of the national health agenda, it is crucial for vigorous epidemiological and economic evidence to be available for policymakers.

Enhancing access to expensive oncology medications in Pakistan: The critical role of pharmaceutical patient assistance programs in oncology care.

This article aims to explore the access of patient assistance program (PAPs) and the role of pharmacists in improving access to oncology care in Pakistan. PAPs aim to reduce the financial burden of cancer in Pakistan, with pharmaceutical companies providing medication at reduced costs, ranging from 33% to 90%. Pharmacists play a pivotal role in managing these programs, facilitating PAP, pharmacist, oncology care setting, cancer therapy more accessible to those who faced financial barriers to accessing them.

Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter.

While some recent drug treatments have been transformative for patients with cancer, many treatments offer small benefits despite high clinical toxicity, time toxicity and financial toxicity. Moreover, treatments that do provide substantial clinical benefits are not available to many patients globally due to issues with availability and affordability. The Common Sense Oncology's vision is that patients will have access to treatments that provide meaningful improvements in outcomes that matter, regardless of where they live. In recognition of the growing challenges in the field of oncology, Common Sense Oncology seeks to achieve this vision by improving evidence generation, evidence interpretation and evidence communication.

Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Next-Generation Sequencing as a Biomarker Testing Approach in Oncology and Policy Implications: A Literature Review.

OBJECTIVE: A key hurdle in broader next-generation sequencing (NGS) biomarker testing access in oncology is the ongoing debate on NGS's cost-effectiveness. We conducted a systematic review of existing evidence of the costs of NGS as a biomarker testing strategy in oncology and developed policy suggestions. METHODS: We searched multiple databases for studies reporting cost comparisons and cost-effectiveness of NGS across oncology indications and geographies between 2017 and 2022, inclusive. Inclusion criteria were established based on indication and type of cost-effectiveness analysis provided. We validated analyses and policy recommendations with 5 payer/policy maker interviews in the United States, Europe, and United Kingdom. RESULTS: Of the 634 identified studies, 29 met inclusion criteria, spanning 12 countries and 6 indications. Cost comparisons of NGS were evaluated using 3 methodologies: (1) comparison of direct testing costs, (2) comparison of holistic testing costs, and (3) comparison of long-term patient outcomes and costs. Targeted panel testing (2-52 genes) was considered cost-effective when 4+ genes were assessed, and larger panels (hundreds of genes) were generally not cost-effective. Holistic analysis demonstrated that NGS reduces turnaround time, healthcare staff requirements, number of hospital visits, and hospital costs. Finally, studies evaluating NGS testing including the cost of targeted therapies generally found the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to be above common thresholds but highlighted valuable patient benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Current literature supports NGS's cost-effectiveness as an oncology biomarker testing strategy under specific conditions. These findings underscore the need to develop policies to support holistic assessment of NGS to ensure appropriate reimbursement and access.

Informing Structural Assumptions for Three State Oncology Cost-Effectiveness Models through Model Efficiency and Fit.

The characteristics and relative strengths and weaknesses of partitioned survival models (PSMs) and state transition models (STMs) for three state oncology cost-effectiveness models have previously been studied. Despite clear and longstanding economic modeling guidelines, more than one structure is rarely presented, and the choice of structure appears correlated more with audience or precedent than disease, decision problem, or available data. One reason may be a lack of guidance and tools available to readily compare measures of internal validity such as the model fit and efficiency of different structures, or sensitivity of results to those choices. To address this gap, methods are presented to evaluate the fit and efficiency of three structures, with an accompanying R software package, psm3mkv. The methods are illustrated by analyzing interim and final analysis datasets of the KEYNOTE-826 randomized controlled trial. At both interim and final analyses, the STM Clock Reset structure provided the best and most efficient fit. Structural uncertainties had been reduced from interim to final analysis. Beyond measures of internal validity, guidelines highlight the importance of reflecting all available data, avoiding model selection purely on the basis of goodness of fit and strongly considering external validity. The method and software allow modelers to more easily evaluate and report model fit and efficiency, examine implicit assumptions, and reveal sensitivities to structural choices.

Impact of Early Access Reform on Oncology Innovation in France: Approvals, Patients, and Costs.

BACKGROUND: An ambitious reform of the early access (EA) process was set up in July 2021 in France, aiming to simplify procedures and accelerate access to innovative drugs. OBJECTIVE: This study analyzes the characteristics of oncology drug approvals through the EA process and its impact on real-life data for oncology patients. METHODS: The number and characteristics of EA demands concerning oncology drugs submitted to the National Health Authority (HAS, Haute Autorité de Santé) were reviewed until 31 December 2022. A longitudinal retrospective study on patients treated with an EA oncology drug between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2022 was also performed using the French nationwide claims database (Systeme National des Données de Santé [SNDS]) to assess the impact of the reform on the number of indications and patients, and the costs. RESULTS: Among 110 published decisions, the HAS granted 88 (80%) EA indications within 70 days of assessment on average, including 46 (52%) in oncology (67% in solid tumors and 33% in hematological malignancies). Approved indications were mostly supported by randomized phase III trials (67%), whereas refused EA relied more on non-randomized (57%) trials. Overall survival was the primary endpoint of 28% of EA approvals versus none of denied EAs. In the SNDS data, the annual number of patients with cancer treated with an EA drug increased from 3137 patients in 2019 to 18,341 in 2022 (+ 484%), whereas the number of indications rose from 12 to 62, mainly in oncohematology (n = 17), lung (n = 12), digestive (n = 9) and breast cancer (n = 9). Reimbursement costs for EA treatments surged from €42 to €526 million (+ 1159%). CONCLUSION: The French EA reform contributed to enabling rapid access to innovations in a wide range of indications for oncology patients. However, the findings highlight ongoing challenges in financial sustainability, warranting continued evaluation and adjustments.

Premix versus On-Demand Workflow Models in a Veterans Affairs Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy: Impact on Estimated Waste Costs and Patient Wait Time.

Background: The balance between reducing patient wait time and mitigating waste of parenteral products has not been well described in literature. Objective: Evaluate the patient wait times and cost-effectiveness of employing a premix versus an on-demand workflow model for compounding parenteral admixtures in a hematology/oncology infusion setting. Methods: This single center, retrospective cost analysis compiled manually documented monthly waste reports and estimated drug pricing for the institution to calculate the cost of waste during both premix and on-demand compounding workflows. Time to administration was audited for one week with both models. Results: Over a period of 28.5 months following the premix model, 564 products were documented as wasted ($1,196,014.01 in estimated drug purchasing cost). Over a period of 3 months following the on-demand model, 12 products were wasted ($34,823.98 in estimated drug purchasing cost). Switching models reduced the monthly average number of wasted products from 20 to 4 per month; the average cost of waste was reduced from $41,965.40 to $11,607.99 per month (P < .0001). Overall patient wait time from clearance until administration, excluding any recommended wait times after premedication administration (if applicable), was similar in both models: an average of 38.26 minutes in the premix model and 40.97 minutes in the on-demand model. Conclusion: Premixing parenteral admixtures was not cost effective at our institution. After resuming an on-demand compounding model, the monthly cost of waste (based on drug pricing alone) was reduced by over 70%. The wait time from clearance to treatment administration was similar in both models.

Real-world evidence in the reassessment of oncology therapies: payer perceptions from five countries.

Aim: This study explored the perceived value of real-world evidence (RWE) in the reassessment of oncology therapies by collecting the perspectives of health technology assessment/payer decision-makers.Materials & methods: A web-based survey was conducted using the Market Access Transformation Rapid Payer Response online portal. 30 participants from France, Germany, Spain, the UK and the USA were recruited based on their expertise.Results: Participants agreed that the most common uses of RWE are to confirm efficacy and safety results from randomized controlled trials and to reevaluate the projected utilization of an oncology therapy. We found variability in other reported uses of RWE.Conclusion: The organizations developing RWE should ensure that their plans recognize the heterogeneity in payer perceptions.

A survey from the Market Access Transformation RPR portal queried decision-makers from five countries about the value of real-world evidence in oncology therapy reassessment. Participants agreed that RWE can confirm efficacy/safety and reevaluate utilization, but other uses varied.

ESMO expert consensus statements on the screening and management of financial toxicity in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Financial toxicity, defined as both the objective financial burden and subjective financial distress from a cancer diagnosis and its treatment, is a topic of interest in the assessment of the quality of life of patients with cancer and their families. Current evidence implicates financial toxicity in psychosocial, economic and other harms, leading to suboptimal cancer outcomes along the entire trajectory of diagnosis, treatment, supportive care, survivorship and palliation. This paper presents the results of a virtual consensus, based on the evidence base to date, on the screening and management of financial toxicity in patients with and beyond cancer organized by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) in 2022. METHODS: A Delphi panel of 19 experts from 11 countries was convened taking into account multidisciplinarity, diversity in health system contexts and research relevance. The international panel of experts was divided into four working groups (WGs) to address questions relating to distinct thematic areas: patients with cancer at risk of financial toxicity; management of financial toxicity during the initial phase of treatment at the hospital/ambulatory settings; financial toxicity during the continuing phase and at end of life; and financial risk protection for survivors of cancer, and in cancer recurrence. After comprehensively reviewing the literature, statements were developed by the WGs and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment, and voting. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A total of 25 evidence-informed consensus statements were developed, which answer 13 questions on financial toxicity. They cover evidence summaries, practice recommendations/guiding statements and policy recommendations relevant across health systems. These consensus statements aim to provide a more comprehensive understanding of financial toxicity and guide clinicians globally in mitigating its impact, emphasizing the importance of further research, best practices and guidelines.

Health Care Lobbying and Oncology.

BACKGROUND: The health care industry spends more on lobbying than any other industry, with more than $700 million spent in 2022. However, health care lobbying related to cancer has not been characterized. In this study, we sought to describe overall health sector lobbying spending and oncology-related lobbying spending across patient and clinician organizations. METHODS: We obtained lobbying data from OpenSecrets.org and the Federal Election Commission. Overall health sector lobbying spending was categorized by OpenSecrets into 4 groups: pharmaceuticals/health products, health services/health maintenance organizations (HMOs), hospitals/nursing homes, and health professionals. We then identified and categorized 4 oncology-related lobbying groups: oncology physician professional organizations (OPPOs), prospective payment system (PPS)-exempt cancer hospitals, patient advocacy organizations, and provider networks (eg, US Oncology Network). We described temporal trends in lobbying spending from 2014 to 2022, in both overall dollar value (inflation-adjusted 2023 dollars) and in per-physician spending (using American Association of Medical Colleges [AAMC] data for number of hematologists/oncologists) using a Mann-Kendall trend test. RESULTS: Among the overall health sector lobbying, pharmaceuticals/health products had the greatest increase in lobbying spending, with an increase from $294 million in 2014 to >$376 million in 2022 (P=.0006). In contrast, lobbying spending by health professionals did not change, remaining at $96 million (P=.35). Regarding oncology-related lobbying, OPPOs and PPS-exempt cancer hospitals had a significant increase of 170% (P=.016) and 62% (P=.009), respectively. Per-physician spending also demonstrated an increase from $60 to $134 for OPPOs and from $168 to $226 for PPS-exempt cancer hospitals. Overall, OPPO lobbying increased as a percentage of overall physician lobbying from 1.16% in 2014 to 3.76% in 2022. CONCLUSIONS: Although overall health sector lobbying has increased, physician/health professional lobbying has remained relatively stable in recent years, spending for lobbying by OPPOs has increased. Continued efforts to understand the utility and value of lobbying in health care and across oncology are needed as the costs of care continue to increase.

R WE ready for reimbursement? A round up of developments in real-world evidence relating to health technology assessment: part 15.

In this latest update we discuss real-world evidence (RWE) guidance from the leading oncology professional societies, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology, and the PRINCIPLED practical guide on the design and analysis of causal RWE studies.

Financial Conflicts of Interest: Payment at the Expense of Patients?

This provocative editorial proposes four steps that can be immediately implemented to reduce the impact of financial conflicts of interest in oncology without stifling collaboration.

Oncology and Palliative Care Integration Model: A Cost Analysis Study in a Brazilian Hospital Setting.

Background: In 2019, the São Paulo State Cancer Institute (ICESP) implemented a novel model integrating Oncology with Palliative Care specialists. We evaluated the impact of this model on healthcare resource utilization and costs. Methods: We analyzed data from all patients who passed away in February (1 month prior to implementation) and November (8 months after model implementation group) at ICESP, Brazil. Healthcare utilization data, including emergency department visits, hospital and intensive care unit admissions, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy use, were retrieved from Electronic Medical Records. Unit cost values were obtained from the administrative database. Results: A total of 198 patients who died in February and 196 in November were included in the analysis. Groups exhibited similarities in sex, age, ECOG, cancer type, previous outpatient palliative care consultations, and place of death (ward: 56.6% pre-intervention, 50% post-intervention). The mean cost per patient was US$13,226.29 pre-intervention and US$11,445.82 post-intervention (P = .007). Statistically significant differences were noted in days hospitalized in the surgical ward (227 vs 115), emergency department visits (233 vs 45), chemotherapy sessions (140 vs 26), and radiotherapy sessions (146 vs 10). Excluding outpatient treatments, the total costs for chemotherapy and radiotherapy in the last 30 days of life were US$16,924.45 pre-intervention and US$7851.65 post-intervention. Reductions were more pronounced in patients with ECOG 3-4 (P = .039). Conclusion: Our data suggests that the integration model was associated with a reduction in potentially inappropriate treatments during the last month of life, leading to decreased healthcare utilization and costs.

The Inflation Reduction Act and Community Oncology Practices.

This Viewpoint explains how the Inflation Reduction Act negatively affects reimbursement and may undermine the solvency of community oncology practices and care.

Implementation of Systematic Financial Screening in an Outpatient Breast Oncology Setting.

PURPOSE: Implementation of routine financial screening is a critical step toward mitigating financial toxicity. We evaluated the feasibility, sustainability, and acceptability of systematic financial screening in the outpatient breast oncology clinic at a large, urban cancer center. METHODS: We developed and implemented a stakeholder-informed process to systematically screen for financial hardship and worry. A 2-item assessment in English or Spanish was administered to patients through the electronic medical record portal or using paper forms. We evaluated completion rates and mode of completion. Through feedback from patients, clinicians, and staff, we identified strategies to improve completion rates and acceptability. RESULTS: From March, 2021, to February, 2022, 3,500 patients were seen in the breast oncology clinic. Of them, 39% (n = 1,349) responded to the screening items, either by paper or portal, 12% (n = 437) preferred not to answer, and the remaining 49% (n = 1,714) did not have data in their electronic health record, meaning they were not offered screening or did not complete the paper forms. Young adults (18-39 years) were more likely to respond compared with patients 70 years or older (61% v 30%, P < .01). English-preferring patients were more likely to complete the screening compared with those who preferred Spanish (46% v 28%, P < .01). Non-Hispanic White patients were more likely to respond compared with Non-Hispanic Black patients and with Hispanic patients (46% v 39% v 32%, P < .01). Strategies to improve completion rates included partnering with staff to facilitate paper form administration, optimizing patient engagement with the portal, and clearly communicating the purpose of the screening. CONCLUSION: Systematic financial screening is feasible, and electronic data capture facilitates successful implementation. However, inclusive procedures that address language and technology preferences are needed to optimize screening.

Cost-effectiveness of running a paediatric oncology unit in Ethiopia.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of running a paediatric oncology unit in Ethiopia to inform the revision of the Ethiopia Essential Health Service Package (EEHSP), which ranks the treatment of childhood cancers at a low and medium priority. METHODS: We built a decision analytical model-a decision tree-to estimate the cost-effectiveness of running a paediatric oncology unit compared with a do-nothing scenario (no paediatric oncology care) from a healthcare provider perspective. We used the recently (2018-2019) conducted costing estimate for running the paediatric oncology unit at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital (TASH) and employed a mixed costing approach (top-down and bottom-up). We used data on health outcomes from other studies in similar settings to estimate the disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted of running a paediatric oncology unit compared with a do-nothing scenario over a lifetime horizon. Both costs and effects were discounted (3%) to the present value. The primary outcome was incremental cost in US dollars (USDs) per DALY averted, and we used a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 50% of the Ethiopian gross domestic product per capita (USD 477 in 2019). Uncertainty was tested using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The incremental cost and DALYs averted per child treated in the paediatric oncology unit at TASH were USD 876 and 2.4, respectively, compared with no paediatric oncology care. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of running a paediatric oncology unit was USD 361 per DALY averted, and it was cost-effective in 90% of 100 000 Monte Carlo iterations at a USD 477 WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The provision of paediatric cancer services using a specialised oncology unit is most likely cost-effective in Ethiopia, at least for easily treatable cancer types in centres with minimal to moderate capability. We recommend reassessing the priority-level decision of childhood cancer treatment in the current EEHSP.

Trends in treatment patterns and survival outcomes in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a Canadian population-based real-world analysis.

BACKGROUND: As part of the multi-country I-O Optimise research initiative, this population-based study evaluated real-world treatment patterns and overall survival (OS) in patients treated for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) before and after public reimbursement of immuno-oncology (I-O) therapies in Alberta province, Canada. METHODS: This study used data from the Oncology Outcomes (O2) database, which holds information for ~ 4.5 million residents of Alberta. Eligible patients were adults newly diagnosed with NSCLC between January 2010 and December 2017 and receiving first-line therapy for advanced NSCLC (stage IIIB or IV) either in January 2010-March 2016 (pre-I-O period) or April 2016-June 2019 (post-I-O period). Time periods were based on the first public reimbursement of I-O therapy in Alberta (April 2017), with a built-in 1-year lag time before this date to allow progression to second-line therapy, for which the I-O therapy was indicated. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate OS. RESULTS: Of 2244 analyzed patients, 1501 (66.9%) and 743 (33.1%) received first-line treatment in the pre-I-O and post-I-O periods, respectively. Between the pre-I-O and post-I-O periods, proportions of patients receiving chemotherapy decreased, with parallel increases in proportions receiving I-O therapies in both the first-line (from < 0.5% to 17%) and second-line (from 8% to 47%) settings. Increased use of I-O therapies in the post-I-O period was observed in subgroups with non-squamous (first line, 15%; second line, 39%) and squamous (first line, 25%; second line, 65%) histology. First-line use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors also increased among patients with non-squamous histology (from 26% to 30%). In parallel with these evolving treatment patterns, median OS increased from 10.2 to 12.1 months for all patients (P < 0.001), from 11.8 to 13.7 months for patients with non-squamous histology (P = 0.022) and from 7.8 to 9.4 months for patients with squamous histology (P = 0.215). CONCLUSIONS: Following public reimbursement, there was a rapid and profound adoption of I-O therapies for advanced NSCLC in Alberta, Canada. In addition, OS outcomes were significantly improved for patients treated in the post-I-O versus pre-I-O periods. These data lend support to the emerging body of evidence for the potential real-world benefits of I-O therapies for treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC.

Payer perceptions on the use of patient-reported outcomes in oncology decision making.

BACKGROUND: In oncology, especially with accelerated regulatory approvals and niche populations, US payers appreciate all evidence that can help support formulary decision making, including evidence beyond traditional safety and efficacy data from clinical trials. Research suggests payers incorporate patient-reported outcome (PRO) evidence in their decision making and expect the importance of PRO evidence to grow. Greater understanding on payers' use of PRO information in oncology is needed. OBJECTIVE: To assess US payer perceptions regarding the use of PRO evidence in informing oncology formulary decision making. METHODS: A multidisciplinary steering committee involving a measurement specialist, health economics and outcomes research experts, and payers developed a survey containing single-answer, multiple-answer, and free-response questions. The pilot survey was tested at a mini-advisory board with 5 US payers and revised based on feedback. In February 2020, the survey was distributed to 221 US payers through the AMCP Market Insights program and 10 additional payer panelists who were invited to discuss and contextualize the survey results. Results were presented primarily as frequencies of responses and evaluated by plan size, type of health plan, and geography (regional vs national). Differences in categorical data responses were compared using Pearson chi-square or Fisher exact tests. Two-tailed values are reported and a P value less than or equal to 0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: Overall, 106 of 231 payers (45.9%) completed the survey; 45.5% represented small plans (< 1 million lives), and 54.5% represented large plans (≥ 1 million lives). Respondents were largely pharmacists (89.9%), with 55.6% of all respondents indicating their job was pharmacy administrator. The majority of payers (60.0% of small health plans and 57.8% of large plans) felt PRO evidence from clinical trials is useful. Similarly, the majority of payers (57.8% of small plans and 51.9% of large plans) felt PRO evidence from real-world studies is useful. Almost half (47.1%) suggested formulary review would be influenced by a lack of PRO evidence from oncology clinical trials either somewhat, much, or a great deal. Most payers (78.2%) thought PRO evidence is useful for providing additional context for safety of oncology therapies. More than one-third of payers (34.3%) valued PRO evidence when comparing 2 similar therapies, and 51.5% felt PRO evidence may help in measuring value for value-based agreements. Panelists indicated PRO evidence can be useful for developing treatment pathways for addressing health-related quality of life, informing provider-patient dialogues, and defining progression-free survival length and quality. CONCLUSIONS: US payers view PRO evidence from both clinical trials and real-world studies as useful for supplementing traditional clinical trial data when making oncology formulary decisions and for refining treatment pathways and care delivery models. Manufacturers of oncology therapies should collect and consider leveraging PRO evidence from both settings when engaging with US payers. DISCLOSURES: Pfizer provided funding for this research, and employees of Pfizer contributed to the development of the survey instrument, were involved in the interpretation of the data, and contributed to the discussion and output as authors. Biskupiak, Oderda, and Brixner are managers of Millcreek Outcomes Group and were paid as consultants on this project. Burgoyne was a consultant for Pfizer on this project. Arondekar, Deal, and Niyazov are employees of Pfizer and own Pfizer stock. Qwek was an employee of Pfizer at the time of this project and owns Pfizer stock.