Immunoscience — Request for Proposals
|Area of Interest
|Intended Audience (may include, but not limited to)
||Rheumatologists, Rheumatology Allied Healthcare Professionals, Multi-disciplinary teams (Physician, Nurse, Nurse Practitioners, Physicians Assistant, Pharmacists)
||Satellite Symposium, where innovative programming and/or technologies for engagement are encouraged.
Single supported grant less than $300,000
*note: proposals exceeding $300,000 are permitted; however, justification for higher program cost must be included, which may include multi-company support
|Deadline for Submission
||May 20, 2013 5:00pm EST
|Deadline for Review
||June 3, 2013
In the current RA and healthcare landscape there are many treatment options available for RA with lack of understanding as to which therapy is the most effective for the appropriate patient. RA is a chronic disease and some patients may not always respond to their initial or ongoing treatments. Choosing the appropriate treatment can be difficult, without understanding the various treatment profiles. Over the past few years, comparative effectiveness trials have become a critical need in RA, in order to understand which therapy is optimal in making patient treatment decisions. Therefore, it is important for healthcare professionals to understand what comparative effectiveness means, what data exists, and how to utilize it in clinical practice decision making.
- Educational need #1: Comparative effectiveness of current therapies in RA is often a confusing area for healthcare professionals, with many meta-analysis, case studies, and direct head to head comparisons in a randomized trials that must be considered. Thus, there is an educational need to understand the basis of comparative effectiveness and what data currently exists.
- Educational need #2: With the recent increase in trials and publications in the area of comparative effectiveness, there is a need to educate healthcare professionals on safety and efficacy data from these direct head to head comparisons of biologic therapies for Rheumatoid Arthritis, and how to utilize these data in clinical practice with appropriate treat-to-target goals.
Specific Area of Interest
Bristol-Myers Squibb is interested in funding a satellite symposium at ACR 2013 that addresses the education needs listed above.
The content and/or the format of the CME/CE activity and its related materials must be designed in such a way that it addresses the educational needs of health care professionals and, if appropriate, tools/aids that can help health care practitioners communicate with or better manage their patients.
Presentations and content must give a scientifically sound, fair and balanced overview of new and emerging therapeutic options currently available or in development to manage or prevent this disease.
The accrediting provider and, if applicable, the medical education provider (MEP) or other third party vendors executing the activities are expected to comply with current ethical codes and regulations. They must have a conflict-of-interest policy in place, identify and/or resolve all personal conflicts of interest from presenters or staff developing the content of the activity prior to delivery of the program, and must have an adequate firewall in place if they are performing promotional activities and providing/accrediting independent medical education.
If your organization wishes to submit an educational grant request, please click here to access the online application.
Please use RFP Code “RFPCAT2-13-IMM-201” in the title of your application.
- Van Vollenhoven RF, Fleischmann R, Cohen, S, et al. Tofacitinib or Adalimumab versus Placebo in Rheumatoid Arthritis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:508-19.
- Singh JA, Furst, DE, Bharat A, et al. 2012 Update of the 2008 American College of Rheumatology Recommendations for the Use of Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs and Biologic Agents in the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 2012;64(5):625-639.
- Smolen JS, Landewé R, Breedveld FC, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Ann Rheum Dis.2010;69:964-975
- Schiff M, Keiserman M, Codding C, et al. Efficacy and safety of abatacept or infliximab vs placebo in ATTEST: a phase III, multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008;67(8):1096–1103
- Weinblatt ME, Schiff M, Valente R, et al. Head-to-head comparison of subcutaneous abatacept versus adalimumab for rheumatoid arthritis: findings of a phase IIIb, multinational, prospective, randomized study. Arthritis Rheum. 2013 Jan;65(1):28-38.
- Gabay C, Emery P, van Vollenhoven R,et al. Tocilizumab monotherapy versus adalimumab monotherapy for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (ADACTA): a randomised, double-blind, controlled phase 4 trial. Lancet. 2013 Mar 18. pii: S0140-6736(13)60250-0