Academic literature on the topic 'Samsung Flip 2'

This paper describes the ongoing 3 years research and development at Amkor Technology on CoC (Chip on Chip)/FtF (Face to Face) – PossumTM technology. This technology has showed a lot of interests from the microelectronics customers/industries because of its various advantages, which include a) providing smaller form factor (SFF) to the final package, b) more functionalities (dies) can be incorporated/assembled in one package, c) improving the electrical performance - including lower parasitic resistance, lower power, and higher frequency bandwidth, and d) Opportunity for lower cost 3D system integration. Unlike other 3D Packaging technology (e.g. using TSV (Through Silicon Vias)) that requires some works in the front stream (wafer foundry) level, needs new capitals for machines/equipments, and needs modified assembly lines; CoC/FtF technology uses the existing flip Chip Attach (C/A) or TC (Thermal Compression) equipment/machine to perform the assembly joint between the two dies, which are named as the mother (larger) die and the daughter (smaller) die. Furthermore, the cost to assemble CoC/FtF is relatively inexpensive while the applications are very wide and endless, which include the 3D integration of MEMS and ASIC. The current MEMS packaging and test cost contributes about 35 to 45% to the overall MEMS unit cost. WLC (Wafer Level Capping) with wire bonding have been widely used for mass production for accelerometer (e.g. ADI and Motorola), gyroscope (e.g. Bosch and Invensense), and oscillator /timer (e.g. Discera). The WLC produce drawbacks of a large form factor and the increase in the capacitive and electrical resistances. Currently, the industries have been developing a new approach of 3D WLP (Wafer Level Packaging) by using a) TSV MEMS cap with wire bonding (e.g. Discera), b) TSV MAME cap with solder bump (e.g. Samsung, IMEC, and VTI), and c) TSV MEMS wafer/die with cap (e.g. Silex Microsystems). The needs of TSVs in the 3D WLP will add the packaging cost and reduce the design flexibility is pre-TSV wafer is used. “Amkor CoC/FtoF – PossumTM” is an alternative technology for 3D integration of MEMS and ASIC. CoC/FtoF – PossumTM does not require TSV or wire bonding; Miniaturizing form factor of 1.5 mm x 1.5 mm x 0.95 mm (including the package) of MEMS and ASIC can be achieved by using CoC/FtoF – PossumTM while Discera's design of 3D WLP requires substrate size > 2 mm x 2 mm. CoC/FtoF – PossumTM will likely produce packaging cost which is lower than WLC or 3D WLP – TSV at the same time the customer is benefited from smaller FF and reduced electrical/parasitic resistance. CoC/FtoF – PossumTM can be applied to any substrates including FCBGA and laminate. This technology also can be applied to package multiple MEMS microsensors, together with ASIC, microcontroller, and wireless RF to realize the 3D system integration.

EDITORIAL 4 Millenials in Medicine: Tradition and Disruption Lapeña JF ORIGINAL ARTICLES 6 Ehretia Microphylla (Tsaang Gubat) versus Loratadine as Treatment for Allergic Rhinitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial Umali FAC, Chua AH 11 Hungry Bone Syndrome (HBS) in Patients Operated for Primary Hyperparathyroidism (PHPT): A Six-Year Experience Padilla-Baraoidan RZM, Capuli-Isidro MJ, Cudal BIB, Embestro-Pontillas AA 17 Prevalence and Reasons for Non-Follow-Up of Newborns with “Refer” Results on Initial Hearing Screening Ong KMC, Cruz TLG, Grullo PER 22 Thyroid Gland Invasion in Laryngeal Carcinoma Vitamog MC, Castaneda SS 25 Risk Factors for Recurrent Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma Gloria JDL, Pontejos AQY, Grullo PER 30 An Initial Overview of Management and Treatment Outcomes for Head and Neck Hemangiomas Fernandez RU 34 Oral Propranolol Therapy for Benign Capillary Hemangiomas in a Series of Adult and Pediatric Patients Dimaguila GAC, Samson ES CASE REPORTS 38 Basal Cell Carcinoma, Odontogenic Cysts, Brain and Skeletal Abnormalities (Gorlin Goltz Syndrome) in a 46-Year-Old Woman Magbuhat DCD, Matsuo JMS, de la Cruz RAR 43 Unilateral Tonsilar Hypertrophy in a 4-Year-Old Girl with Focal Dermal Hypoplasia (Goltz Syndrome) Ong JEL, Barrientos CMAG, Cruz ETS 47 Late-onset Anterolateral Thigh Free Flap Failure in Buccal Carcinoma Reconstruction Mendoza DJC, Nieves CS, Castañeda SS 51 Supernumerary Nostril in a 15-Year-Old Girl Lluisma ACP FEATURED GRAND ROUNDS 55 A Second Branchial Cleft Cyst Presenting as a Dumbbell-Shaped Anterior Neck Mass Sunga ABG, Castañeda SS FROM THE VIEWBOX 58 Unilateral Horizontal Semicircular Canal Malformation Causing Recurrent Vertigo Yang NW UNDER THE MICROSCOPE 60 Sinonasal Tract Meningioma Rivera JP, Carnate JM LETTER TO THE EDITOR 62 Total Thyroidectomy From a Patient’s Perspective Villafuerte CV PASSAGES 65 Joseph Anthony R. Rivera, MD (1980-2016) Gelera JE

Background:Up to 50% of patients with RA discontinue DMARD treatment within 18 months.1 However, up to 20% of patients who fail multiple treatments may have a good treatment response to another therapy.1 Predictive biomarkers, such as RF and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs), may be useful to stratify patients with RA to the most appropriate treatment.1 ASCORE (Abatacept SubCutaneOus in Routine Clinical PracticE; NCT02090556) was a 2-year, observational, prospective, multicentre study of SC abatacept for the treatment of RA in routine clinical practice.2Objectives:To determine if RF/ACPA serostatus and treatment line impact abatacept retention in patients with RA in a post hoc analysis of ASCORE.Methods:Eligible patients, aged ≥18 years, with active moderate-to-severe RA (ACR/EULAR 2010 criteria) who were IV abatacept-naive and initiated SC abatacept 125 mg once weekly, were enrolled into two cohorts: biologic (b)DMARD-naive patients and those with ≥1 prior bDMARD treatment failure. This post hoc analysis assessed abatacept retention rate at 2 years in a subset of patients with RF/ACPA serostatus data (n=1748) from the ASCORE study (N=2892; as observed). Baseline (BL) serostatus groups examined by treatment line were: RF/ACPA double positive (+/+) RA, RF/ACPA single positive (RF+/ACPA– or RF–/ACPA+) RA (data not shown) and RF/ACPA double negative (–/–) RA. Last observation carried forward (LOCF) analyses were used to assess change from BL and measures of disease remission (DAS28 [CRP] <2.6, CDAI ≤2.8, and SDAI ≤3.3) in patients with +/+ RA versus –/– RA.Results:BL demographic and disease characteristics were similar across serostatus groups and treatment lines (Table 1). Mean age was 57.1 and 57.8 years for +/+ RA and –/– RA, respectively. Mean DAS28 (CRP) was 4.7 and 4.8 for +/+ RA and –/– RA, respectively. In patients with +/+ RA, abatacept retention was greater when given as first-line treatment (57% vs 48% when given as ≥ second-line) (Figure 1). Retention was similar in patients with –/– RA regardless of treatment line. After 2 years, mean (SE) change from BL (LOCF) in DAS28 (CRP) was –1.41 (0.06) and –0.97 (0.09) for patients with +/+ and –/– RA, respectively. For patients with +/+ RA, mean (SE) change from BL in DAS28 (CRP) was –1.62 (0.08) for those in whom abatacept was first-line and –1.19 (0.08) for those in whom abatacept was ≥ second-line. For patients with –/– RA, mean (SE) change from BL in DAS28 (CRP) was –1.03 (0.13) for those in whom abatacept was first-line and –0.93 (0.12) for those in whom abatacept was ≥ second-line. Remission rates (LOCF) were significantly (p<0.0001) higher in patients with +/+ RA vs –/– RA respectively: DAS28 (CRP) 38.4% (n=393) versus 19.3% (n=62); CDAI 50.6% (n=513) versus 33.0% (n=107); and SDAI 49.5% (n=497) versus 32.5% (n=102).Table 1.BL demographics and disease characteristics by RF/ACPA status+/+ RA(n=1079)–/– RA(n=343)First-line (n=511)≥ second-line (n=568)First-line(n=140)≥ second-line(n=203)Age57.1 (13.4)57.1 (12.2)59.5 (14.7)56.6 (13.2)DAS28 (CRP)4.7 (1.2)4.7 (1.2)4.8 (1.1)4.8 (1.2)CDAI26.6 (12.5)26.6 (12.4)27.7 (12.5)28.6 (13.8)SDAI28.1 (13.1)28.1 (12.9)29.1 (12.9)30.2 (14.7)Data are mean (SD). Patients with missing data for BL RF/ACPA status are excluded.ACPA=anti-citrullinated protein antibody; BL=baseline.Conclusion:In this real-world analysis, patients with +/+ RA treated with first-line abatacept had higher retention than patients receiving abatacept as a ≥ second-line therapy. Remission rates on abatacept were higher in patients with +/+ RA versus –/– RA. These results support early treatment with abatacept and highlight the importance of further evaluating precision medicine approaches in RA.References:[1]Smolen JS, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79:685–699.[2]Alten R, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2019;78(suppl 2):A1639.Acknowledgements:Professional medical writing and editorial assistance was provided by Lindsay Craik at Caudex and was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. This study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.Disclosure of Interests:Rieke Alten Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Xavier Mariette Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB, Rene-Marc Flipo Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Maya H Buch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Merck Serono, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Gilead, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Yusuf Patel: None declared, Raimón Sanmartí Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gebro, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gebro, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Sara Marsal Speakers bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galapagos, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, M.T. Nurmohamed Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Roche, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Hedley Griffiths Consultant of: AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Peter Peichl: None declared, Bettina Bannert: None declared, Adrian Forster: None declared, Melanie Chartier Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Sean Connolly Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Yedid Elbez Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Christiane Rauch Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Vadim Khaychuk Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Karissa Lozenski Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb

Background:RA is characterised by the production of autoantibodies, including RF and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs).1 Seropositive disease is associated with poorer prognosis in patients with RA,2 and response to different treatments has been shown to vary based on ACPA status.3 ASCORE (Abatacept SubCutaneOus in Routine Clinical PracticE; NCT02090556) was a 2-year, observational, prospective, multicentre study of SC abatacept for the treatment of RA.4Objectives:This post hoc analysis of the ASCORE study evaluated patient-reported outcomes, assessed using HAQ-DI, by RF/ACPA serostatus and treatment line over 24 months of treatment with abatacept.Methods:Eligible patients, aged ≥18 years, with active moderate-to-severe RA (ACR/EULAR 2010 criteria) who were IV abatacept-naive and initiated SC abatacept 125 mg once weekly, were enrolled into two cohorts: biologic (b)DMARD-naive patients and those with ≥1 prior bDMARD treatment failure. This post hoc analysis assessed mean change from baseline in HAQ-DI score at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months in response to treatment with abatacept stratified by baseline serostatus (RF/ACPA double positive [+/+]; RF/ACPA single positive [+/−; RF+/ACPA– or RF–/ACPA+] or RF/ACPA double negative [–/–]) and by line of therapy (all patients, patients receiving abatacept as a first-line bDMARD or as a ≥ second-line bDMARD [data not shown], and those receiving abatacept following 1 [data not shown] or ≥2 prior bDMARDs). Estimates of mean difference with 95% CIs between patients with different serostatus were calculated using a t-test for all patients and within different lines of therapy.Results:Among 2892 eligible patients in ASCORE, 1748 patients with RF/ACPA status available at baseline were included in this analysis (1079 +/+, 326 +/– and 343 –/–). Of these, 791 patients received abatacept as a first-line bDMARD therapy and 957 as a ≥ second-line bDMARD therapy (505 patients had received ≥2 prior bDMARDs). Among all patients, mean change from baseline in HAQ-DI score at 6 months was greater for patients with +/+ RA (mean difference [95% CI]: –0.2 [–0.3, –0.0]; p=0.0068) or +/– RA (mean difference [95% CI]: –0.2 [–0.3, –0.0]; p=0.0315) versus those with –/– RA at baseline (Figure 1). Similarly, mean change (95% CI) in HAQ-DI score at 6 months was greater for patients with +/+ RA versus –/– RA among those receiving abatacept as first-line therapy (–0.2 [–0.4, –0.0]; p=0.0407) or following treatment with ≥2 bDMARDs (–0.3 [–0.5, –0.0]; p=0.0265) (Figure 1). Among patients treated with abatacept following ≥2 prior bDMARDs, mean change in HAQ-DI score was higher among patients with +/– RA versus –/– RA at 18 months (data not shown) and 24 months (Figure 1). No other significant differences were observed by serostatus or line of therapy at any other time points.Conclusion:Patients with RA who were RF+/ACPA+ at baseline showed an enhanced initial response to abatacept compared with those who were RF–/ACPA–. Over 24 months of treatment in this real-world setting, abatacept was equally effective as a first- or ≥ second-line therapy.References:[1]Scott DL, et al. Lancet 2010;376:1094–1108.[2]Hecht C, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2015;74:2151–2156.[3]Harrold LR, et al. J Rheumatol 2018;45:32–39.[4]Alten R, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2019;78(suppl 2):A1639.Acknowledgements:Professional medical writing and editorial assistance was provided by Fiona Boswell, PhD, at Caudex and was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. This study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.Disclosure of Interests:Rieke Alten Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Xavier Mariette Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB, Rene-Marc Flipo Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Maya H Buch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Merck Serono, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Gilead, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Yusuf Patel: None declared, Sara Marsal Speakers bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galapagos, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, M.T. Nurmohamed Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Roche, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Hedley Griffiths Consultant of: AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Peter Peichl: None declared, Bettina Bannert: None declared, Adrian Forster: None declared, Melanie Chartier Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Yedid Elbez Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Christiane Rauch Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Karissa Lozenski Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Vadim Khaychuk Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb

Background:Longer disease duration and greater number of prior DMARDs have been associated with lower treatment efficacy in patients with RA.1 Abatacept is a biologic (b)DMARD for treatment of moderate-to-severe RA and is available in SC formulation, which may offer convenience benefits with efficacy similar to IV administration.2 ASCORE (Abatacept SubCutaneOus in Routine Clinical PracticE; NCT02090556) was a 2-year, observational, prospective, multicentre study of SC abatacept for treatment of RA in routine clinical practice.3Objectives:This post hoc analysis was conducted to determine if retention and efficacy of abatacept were impacted by disease duration and/or treatment line.Methods:Eligible patients, aged ≥18 years, with active moderate-to-severe RA (ACR/EULAR 2010 criteria) who were IV abatacept-naive and initiated SC abatacept 125 mg once weekly, were enrolled into two cohorts: bDMARD-naive patients and those with ≥1 prior bDMARD treatment failure. This post hoc analysis evaluated abatacept retention using Kaplan-Meier estimates, as well as disease activity scores (DAS28 [ESR]), CDAI and SDAI in patients with disease duration of ≤2, 3–5, 6–10 or >10 years, and in patients taking abatacept as first-line or ≥ second-line treatment.Results:Table 1 shows baseline (BL) characteristics. Mean age increased with disease duration; other characteristics were comparable across groups. Retention proportions (95% CIs) at Month 24 were 0.50 (0.4, 0.5), 0.47 (0.4, 0.5), 0.51 (0.5, 0.5) and 0.46 (0.4, 0.5) in the ≤2, 3–5, 6–10 and >10 years’ duration groups, respectively. Proportion of patients (95% CI) with ≤2 years’ duration retaining treatment at Month 24 were 0.51 (0.4, 0.6) among those using abatacept as first-line treatment and 0.44 (0.3, 0.6) among those using abatacept as a ≥ second-line treatment (Figure 1). Proportions (95% CI) at Month 24 were 0.51 (0.5, 0.6), 0.57 (0.5, 0.6) and 0.52 (0.5, 0.6) in first-line patients and 0.43 (0.4, 0.5), 0.48 (0.4, 0.5) and 0.44 (0.4, 0.5) in ≥ second-line patients in the 3–5, 6–10 and >10 years’ duration groups, respectively. Mean (SE) changes from BL in DAS28 (ESR) at Month 24 were –2.12 (0.205), –1.86 (0.151), –2.07 (0.140) and –2.05 (0.115) in the ≤2, 3–5, 6–10 and >10 years’ duration groups, respectively; respective mean (SE) changes in CDAI were –18.74 (1.604), –15.60 (1.099), –18.50 (1.038) and –17.68 (0.850); and respective mean (SE) changes in SDAI were –19.10 (1.873), –15.72 (1.345), –19.54 (1.103) and –17.07 (0.939).Conclusion:In this post hoc analysis of the real-world ASCORE trial, patients with RA receiving abatacept in clinical practice as first-line therapy had better retention versus those receiving it as a ≥ second-line treatment, regardless of disease duration at BL. Retention rates were similar across disease duration subgroups. Improvements in disease activity were seen in all duration subgroups, without consistently greater or lesser improvement seen with longer disease duration.References:[1]Aletaha D, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2019;78:1609–1615.[2]Genovese MC, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2011;63:2854–2864.[3]Alten R, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2019;78(suppl 2):A1639.Table 1.BL characteristics (n=2872)RA disease duration, years≤2(n=338)3–5(n=655)6–10(n=686)>10(n=1193)Age, years n3386556861193 Mean (SD)55.2 (12.8)55.6 (12.7)56.9 (13.0)59.9 (12.2)Weight, kg n3276296651150 Mean (SD)75.3 (18.1)76.4 (19.0)74.7 (17.4)72.9 (16.0)DAS28 (ESR) n247439441743 Mean (SD)5.2 (1.3)4.9 (1.3)5 (1.2)5.1 (1.3)DAS28 (CRP) n267460467799 Mean (SD)4.7 (1.2)4.6 (1.2)4.7 (1.1)4.7 (1.2)CDAI n269477474805 Mean (SD)26.9 (12.7)25.3 (12.2)26.8 (12.4)26.6 (12.2)SDAI n255448445749 Mean (SD)28.3 (13.3)26.8 (12.9)27.9 (12.6)28.0 (12.7)RF status, n (%) RF+159 (47.0)342 (52.2)345 (50.3)597 (50.0) RF–103 (30.5)152 (23.2)158 (23.0)215 (18.0)Anti-CCP status, n (%) Anti-CCP+165 (48.8)332 (50.7)333 (48.5)516 (43.3) Anti-CCP–89 (26.3)126 (19.2)137 (20.0)175 (14.7)Patients with missing duration of disease are excluded.CCP=cyclic citrullinated peptide.Acknowledgements:Professional medical writing and editorial assistance was provided by Rob Coover, MPH, at Caudex and was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. This study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.Disclosure of Interests:Rieke Alten Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Xavier Mariette Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB, Rene-Marc Flipo Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Maya H Buch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Merck Serono, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Gilead, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Yusuf Patel: None declared, Raimón Sanmartí Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gebro, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gebro, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Sara Marsal Speakers bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galapagos, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, M.T. Nurmohamed Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Roche, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Hedley Griffiths Consultant of: AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Peter Peichl: None declared, Bettina Bannert: None declared, Adrian Forster: None declared, Melanie Chartier Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Yedid Elbez Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Christiane Rauch Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Vadim Khaychuk Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Karissa Lozenski Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb

Background:RF and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) are associated with a severe and aggressive disease course in patients with RA.1 Abatacept is a selective co-stimulation modulator for the treatment of RA.2 ASCORE (Abatacept SubCutaneOus in Routine Clinical PracticE; NCT02090556) was a 2-year, observational, prospective, multicentre study of SC abatacept for the treatment of RA in routine clinical practice.3Objectives:To determine if serostatus and treatment line impacted disease activity in patients enrolled in the ASCORE study.Methods:Eligible patients, aged ≥18 years, with active moderate-to-severe RA (ACR/EULAR 2010 criteria) who were IV abatacept-naive and initiated SC abatacept 125 mg once weekly, were enrolled into two cohorts: biologic (b)DMARD-naive patients and those with ≥1 prior bDMARD treatment failure. This post hoc analysis assessed the mean change in disease activity (CDAI, SDAI and DAS28 [ESR]) from baseline (BL) at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months in response to treatment with abatacept. Patients were stratified by BL serostatus (all patients, RF/ACPA double positive [+/+] RA; RF/ACPA single positive [+/–; RF+/ACPA– or RF–/ACPA+] RA and RF/ACPA double negative [–/–] RA) and by line of therapy (all patients, patients receiving abatacept as a first-line or ≥ second-line therapy and those receiving abatacept following 1 or ≥2 prior bDMARDs). Overall patient data, as well as data for patients who were +/– or those who had 1 or ≥2 previous bDMARDs, are not shown. Estimates of mean difference are from t-test.Results:Among 2892 eligible patients in ASCORE, 1748 patients with RF/ACPA status available at BL were included in this analysis (1079 +/+ RA, 326 +/− RA and 343 −/− RA). After 6 months, patients with +/+ RA on first-line abatacept therapy had better improvements in CDAI and SDAI scores from BL than patients on ≥ second-line abatacept therapy (mean difference [95% CI]: –3.4 [–5.6, –1.1]; p=0.0032 and –3.9 [–6.5, –1.3]; p=0.0035, respectively); better improvements in SDAI were also seen after 12 months (mean difference [95% CI]: –3.5 [–6.5, –0.5]; p=0.0207). Changes in CDAI and SDAI scores were comparable after 18 and 24 months. At 6 and 12 months, patients with +/+ RA on first-line therapy had better improvements from BL in DAS28 (ESR) than those on ≥ second-line therapy (mean differences [95% CI]: –0.5 [–0.8, –0.2]; p=0.0002 and –0.4 [–0.7, –0.0]; p=0.0317, respectively); changes were comparable at 18 and 24 months (Figure 1). For patients on ≥ second-line therapy, at 18 months those with +/+ RA had better improvements from BL in DAS28 (ESR) than those with –/– RA (mean difference [95% CI]: –0.7 [–1.2, –0.1]; p=0.0232). For patients not stratified by line of therapy, changes in DAS28 (ESR) were comparable between the +/+ and –/– RA subgroups over time, with the exception of 6 months where patients with –/– RA had better improvements from BL compared with patients with +/+ RA (mean difference [95% CI]: –0.3 [–0.6, –0.0]; p=0.0495).Conclusion:In this real-world, post hoc analysis, patients with +/+ RA who received abatacept as a first-line therapy had greater early improvements in disease activity compared with patients who received abatacept as a ≥ second-line therapy. Improvements in disease activity at 24 months were comparable between patients who were +/+ and those who were –/–. Larger studies are needed to further corroborate these findings.References:[1]Katchamart W, et al. Rheumatol Int 2015;35:1693–1699.[2]Malmström V, et al. Nat Rev Immunol 2017;17:60–75.[3]Alten R, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2019;78(Suppl 2):A1639.Acknowledgements:Professional medical writing and editorial assistance was provided by Rachel Rankin, PhD, at Caudex and was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. This study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.Disclosure of Interests:Rieke Alten Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Xavier Mariette Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB, Rene-Marc Flipo Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Maya H Buch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Merck Serono, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Gilead, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Yusuf Patel: None declared, Raimón Sanmartí Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gebro, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gebro, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Sara Marsal Speakers bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galapagos, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, M.T. Nurmohamed Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Roche, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Hedley Griffiths Consultant of: AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Peter Peichl: None declared, Bettina Bannert: None declared, Adrian Forster: None declared, Melanie Chartier Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Yedid Elbez Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Christiane Rauch Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Karissa Lozenski Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Vadim Khaychuk Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb

PurposeThis study, an exploratory research, aims to investigate social media users' expectations of information systems (IS) products that are conceived but not yet launched. It specifically analyses social media data from Twitter about forthcoming smartphones and smartwatches from Apple and Samsung, two firms known for their innovative gadgets.Design/methodology/approachTweets related to the following four forthcoming IS products were retrieved from 1st January 2020 to 30th September 2020: (1) Apple iPhone 12 (6,125 tweets), (2) Apple Watch 6 (553 tweets), (3) Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 2 (923 tweets) and (4) Samsung Galaxy Watch Active 3 (207 tweets). These 7,808 tweets were analysed using a combination of the Natural Language Processing Toolkit (NLTK) and sentiment analysis (SentiWordNet).FindingsThe online community was quite vocal about topics such as design, camera and hardware specifications. For all the forthcoming gadgets, the proportion of positive tweets exceeded that of negative tweets. The most prevalent sentiment expressed in Apple-related tweets was neutral, but in Samsung-related tweets was positive. Additionally, it was found that the proportion of tweets echoing negative sentiment was lower for Apple compared with Samsung.Originality/valueThis paper is the earliest empirical work to examine the degree to which social media chatter can be used by project managers for IS development projects, specifically for the purpose of end-users' expectation management.

Gadgets have now become the daily necessities of modern society, ranging from laptops, tablets to smartphones. The survey (theAsian Parent Insight with Samsung Kidstime: 2014) states that 98% of children in Southeast Asia have used a smartphone / tablet. The high intensity of the use of gadgets by children to play games and access video content is certainly a problem in itself. If in the past children often spend their free time playing with friends, studying and reading books, now children prefer to spend their time playing gadgets. Though the end of childhood (elementary school children) is an important time to interact with friends. Activities to interact with friends include playing in groups. Play is important for the physical, psychological, and social development of children. By playing in groups, children interact with friends so they can provide valuable lessons for children to tolerate with fellow friends. (Rita Eka Izzaty, et al., 2008: 112). This research is to find out: 1) the length of time using a gadget by elementary school students, 2) the content that is accessed when using a gadget. This research uses qualitative research. The conclusion is that the flap book lift can be used as a learning medium to reduce the behavior of gadget addiction in elementary level students.

I ett projektarbete i en ingenjörsutbildning används olika metoder och verktyg, för att planera och strukturera arbetet. En möjlighet är att använda fysiska projekttavlor. Det finns även interaktiva smartskärmar med uppkoppling till internet, som möjliggör arbete på distans. Detta arbete fokuserar på smartskärmen Samsung Flip 2, och undersöker om det går att använda den för projektarbeten i ingenjörsutbildningar. Projektet inleds med en förstudie, vars fokus är på whiteboardtavlor, planeringstavlor och interaktiva skärmar. Vidare utförs opinionsundersökningar med två olika studentgrupper. Med hjälp av de svar som erhållits, identifieras de funktioner som anses viktiga när projekttavlor används i utbildningen. Dessutom för- och nackdelar vägs för olika typer projekttavlor. En önskebild av en projekttavla, som är en samling av önskade egenskaper, tas fram baserad på förstudien och opinionsundersökningarna. Sedan testas mjukvaruverktygen Lucidchart, Notion, Trello och Jira i samband med smartskärmen Samsung Flip 2, för att se om det går att uppnå önskebilden. Resultaten av testningen används sedan för att utvärdera Samsung Flip 2. Det visar sig att den inte är en lämplig ersättning för en fysisk whiteboardtavla i projektarbeten. Utvärdering av andra smarskärmar och andra mjukvaruverktyg kan ge andra resultat.
In a project in an engineering education, different methods and tools are used, to plan and structure the work. One possibility is to use physical project boards. Another alternative is using an interactive smart-screen with access to the internet, which gives the opportunity to work remotely. This work focuses on the smart-screen Samsung Flip 2, and examines if it is possible to use it for projects in an engineering education. The project is initiated with a pre-study, where the focus is on whiteboards, project boards and interactive screens. Further on opinion polls are executed with two different student-groups. The answers help identify which functions that are important when project boards are used within the education, as well as pros and cons for different types of project boards. An ideal-picture of a project board, which is a collection of desired functionalities, is made based on the pre-study and opinion polls. After that the softwares Lucidchart, Notion, Trello and Jira are tested in combination with the smart-screen Samsung Flip 2, to see if it can fulfil the ideal-picture. The result from the tests is used to evaluate Samsung Flip 2. The evaluation shows that Samsung Flip 2 is not a suitable replacement for a physical whiteboard. Evaluations on other smart-boards and other softwares may yield a different result.