| 1 |
Review Raising expectations for arthritis treatment. Biologic response modifiers are making remission possible. 2004
Cohen MD. · Division of Rheumatology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA. · Postgrad Med. · Pubmed #15580919 No free full text.
This publication has no abstract.
|
| 2 |
Article Unresolved issues in identifying and overcoming inadequate response in rheumatoid arthritis: weighing the evidence. 2008
Cohen SB, Cohen MD, Cush JJ, Fleischmann RM, Mease PJ, Schiff MH, Simon LS, Weaver AL. · The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Office of Continuing Education, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas, TX 75390-9059. · J Rheumatol Suppl. · Pubmed #19193621 No free full text.
Abstract: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, multisystem, inflammatory disorder of the joints that affects about 1% of the world population. The ultimate goals of therapy include remission of disease and prevention of joint damage. Reaching these goals has become a realistic outcome for an increasing number of patients as treatment options have expanded over the past 3 decades. In addition to older therapies, such as methotrexate (MTX), other disease modifying drugs (DMARD), and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, newer biologic treatments have become available. For the substantial number of patients who experience an inadequate response to standard medications, biologic response modifiers (BRM) provide an important therapeutic alternative. The availability of multiple treatment options in the absence of clear definitions or criteria for remission and inadequate response, however, makes clinical decisions about measuring outcomes, predicting response to treatment, and prescribing pharmacologic therapies challenging. In this program, distinguished rheumatologists weigh the evolving body of clinical evidence to draw sound conclusions and resolve key issues in managing inadequate response to treatment and in achieving optimal outcomes in RA.
|
| 3 |
Article Improving the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. 2006
Cohen MD. · Division of Rheumatology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Jacksonville, Fla, USA. · Manag Care. · Pubmed #17175620 No free full text.
This publication has no abstract.
|
| 4 |
Article Longitudinal analysis of the use of etanercept versus infliximab determined from medical chart audit. free! 2004
Abarca J, Malone DC, Armstrong EP, Grizzle AJ, Cohen MD. · University of Arizona College of Pharmacy, Center for Health Outcomes & PharmacoEconomic Research, 1703 E. Mabel, P.O. Box 210207, Tucson, AZ 85721-0207, USA. · J Manag Care Pharm. · Pubmed #15548126 links to free full text
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To describe the dosing of etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Adult patients with a diagnosis of RA who were treated with either etanercept or infliximab between 1999 and 2002 were selected from 16 rheumatology practices in the western and southeastern United States. Patients with a terminal illness or those receiving a tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha inhibitor for an indication other than RA were excluded. Data were collected through a review of the patient medical records. Data collected on each patient included demographics, concurrent disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy, TNF-alpha inhibitor dose, frequency, duration of TNF-alpha inhibitor therapy, and discontinuation of TNF-alpha inhibitor therapy. RESULTS: A total of 244 patients were included in the evaluation (etanercept only [n=128; 52%], infliximab only [n=89; 36%], both [n=27; 11%]). The mean age of these patients was 55.1+/-13.3 years, 54.9+/-13.5 years, and 52.8+/-14.0 years, respectively; the mean duration of RA was 13.3 +/- 8.8 years, 13.4+/-8.0 years, and 14.0 +/- 9.9 years, respectively. Female patients constituted 70% of the sample. Health maintenance organization insurance was the most common form of medical insurance (45.8%), followed by Medicare (22.3%). The mean duration of follow-up for etanercept and infliximab treatment was 29.3+/-14.1 months and 14.8+/-6.9 months, respectively. Among patients who were still receiving therapy at the time of review, the mean initial and last etanercept doses were 25.0 mg versus 25.8 mg (P=0.16); the mean initial and last infliximab doses were 3.38 mg/kg versus 4.51 mg/kg (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The dosing of etanercept and infliximab therapy was consistent with the approved labeling of both medications.
|
|
|