Rheumatoid Arthritis: Gibofsky A

Pincus T, Gibofsky A, Weinblatt ME. · No affiliation provided · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #11953958 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Lipsky PE, Abramson SB, Breedveld FC, Brook P, Burmester R, Buttgereit F, Cannon GW, Catella-Lawson F, Crofford LJ, Doherty M, Dougados M, DuBois RN, Froelich J, Garcia Rodriguez LA, Gibofsky A, Hernandez-Diaz S, Hochberg MC, Krause A, Liang MH, Machold K, Peloso PM, Raisz LG, Schayes B, Scheiman JM, Simon LS, Smolen J. · No affiliation provided · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #10852251 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Kremer JM, Gibofsky A, Greenberg JD. · Albany Medical College, 1367 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12206, USA. · Curr Opin Rheumatol. · Pubmed #18349740 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review highlights the present state of efforts at registry implementation which exist internationally. These efforts are contrasted with those in the USA. RECENT FINDINGS: The implications of the different data which are derived from diverse registry sources are discussed. The need for long-term data from large and varied sources is fulfilled by registries that collect data from different populations. The potential differences in the nature of the data derived from these registries is dependent upon the national healthcare system from which they are derived, as there are significant differences in access to newer biologic agents which are inconsistent across countries. SUMMARY: Registry data are critical in order to develop an understanding of the performance and safety of new agents in the real world. The challenges for implementing a registry are manifold in the USA because of the somewhat chaotic nature of the healthcare delivery system. In order to overcome these unique challenges, registries in the USA need to be exceptionally well organized and funded, while maintaining independence from the pharmaceutical industry funding sources in the reporting and interpretation of data in peer-reviewed publications. Examples of these registries are provided and discussed.

Furst DE, Breedveld FC, Kalden JR, Smolen JS, Burmester GR, Dougados M, Emery P, Gibofsky A, Kavanaugh AF, Keystone EC, Klareskog L, Russell AS, van de Putte LB, Weisman MH, Kavenaugh AF. · University of California, UCLA, Rheumatology, Division Los Angeles, USA. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #14532138 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Gibofsky A. · Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York, USA. · J Hypertens Suppl. · Pubmed #12683424 No free full text.

Abstract: Celecoxib and rofecoxib are highly specific cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors. Both agents are as effective as conventional, non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) but they have a markedly reduced propensity to cause injury to the gastroduodenal mucosa compared with conventional NSAIDs. Celecoxib and rofecoxib are approved for treatment of both osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. This presentation reviews the mechanism of action of these agents, the clinical studies showing their effectiveness for treatment of arthritis, and the gastrointestinal side effect profiles compared with conventional NSAIDs.

Gibofsky A. · Departments of Medicine and Public Health, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, USA, · HSS J. · Pubmed #18751844 links to  free full text

Abstract: Early, aggressive disease management is critical for halting disease progression and joint destruction in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Combination therapy with at least two disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, such as methotrexate (MTX), sulfasalazine, or hydroxychloroquine, is often more effective than monotherapy in reducing disease activity. Biologic therapies represent more effective and tolerable treatment options that, when combined with MTX, have been shown to dramatically reduce inflammation, inhibit radiographic progression, and induce remission. Although several types of treatment strategies are used in clinical practice, the most aggressive approaches that target early disease have shown the most promise in reversing disease progression and reducing disease-related costs.

Gibofsky A, Rodrigues J, Fiechtner J, Berger M, Pan S. · Department of Medicine and Public Health, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York 10021, USA. · Clin Ther. · Pubmed #17692722 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of the cyclooxygenase-2-selective inhibitor valdecoxib with the nonselective NSAID naproxen and with placebo in treating severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study compared the efficacy and tolerability of valdecoxib 10 mg QD (n = 170) or naproxen 500 mg BID (n = 167) with placebo (n = 171) in treating the signs and symptoms of severe RA. Study patients were aged >or=18 years and were diagnosed as having RA for >or=6 months that was stable due to a treatment regimen. Severe RA was defined as a physician's and patient's global assessment of disease activity of fair, poor, or very poor at baseline; >or=6 tender or painful joints; >or=3 swollen joints; >or=45 minutes of morning stiffness; a visual analog scale pain rating of >or=40 mm; or increases since baseline in these measures. Efficacy outcome measures included the percentage of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology Responder Index 20% (ACR-20) at weeks 1, 6 and 12. Adverse events (AEs) were graded by the investigator as mild, moderate, or severe at weeks 1, 6, and 12. RESULTS: Of the 508 patients randomized, 340 completed the study. The study groups were comparable for age, ethnic origin, weight, height, and concomitant medications, but the naproxen group had significantly more men (29% [49/167]) than the valdecoxib (18% [31/170]) and placebo (16% [27/171]) groups. The percentage of patients achieving an ACR-20 response was significantly greater in the valdecoxib and naproxen treatment groups (58.8% [100/170] and 60.8% [101/166], respectively) than in the placebo group (39.6% [67/169]) at week 12 (both, P < 0.001). The percentage of patients achieving an ACR-20 response was significantly greater in the naproxen group than in the placebo group at both week 1 (53.6% [89/166] vs 37.9% [64/169]; P = 0.003) and week 6 (64.5% [107/166] vs 46.7% [79/169]; P = 0.001), and in the valdecoxib group compared with placebo at week 1 (52.9% [90/170]; P = 0.008) but not at week 6. Patients in the valdecoxib and naproxen groups had significantly improved efficacy compared with placebo in most of the other secondary assessments of inflammation, pain, and function. The incidence of AEs was similar in all groups (valdecoxib, 54.1% [92/170]; naproxen, 55.4% [92/166]; and placebo, 52.9% [90/170]). CONCLUSION: Valdecoxib 10 mg QD administered over 12 weeks was significantly better than placebo and similar to naproxen 500 mg BID in treating the signs and symptoms of severe RA in these patients.

Niewold TB, Gibofsky A. · Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #16802375 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Weaver AL, Lautzenheiser RL, Schiff MH, Gibofsky A, Perruquet JL, Luetkemeyer J, Paulus HE, Xia HA, Leff JA, Anonymous00550. · University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA. · Curr Med Res Opin. · Pubmed #16393444 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of select biologics, methotrexate (MTX), and other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in the management of adult rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in routine clinical practice. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: RADIUS (Rheumatoid Arthritis DMARD Intervention and Utilization Study) comprises two prospective, 5-year, observational registries of over 10 000 patients. Over 4600 patients who initiated MTX or a biologic regimen (etanercept [ETN], infliximab [INF], ETN + MTX, and INF + MTX) and who had at least one on-regimen, follow-up evaluation, were included in this analysis. Adalimumab was not included because it had not yet received FDA approval at RADIUS initiation. Other common DMARD regimens (N = 762) were also compared with MTX. Patients who initiated less commonly used regimens, such as anakinra or cyclosporine, and those who did not have at least one on-regimen, follow-up evaluation, were not eligible for this analysis. Because ESR/CRP measurements were often not available, a modified ACR20 response (mACR20), defined as three out of four response criteria excluding ESR/CRP, was used to assess response at 12 months. Logistic regression analysis was performed to control for baseline covariates that may affect outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved a mACR20 response at 12 months post-RADIUS entry. RESULTS: After adjusting for baseline covariates, patients receiving either ETN + MTX or ETN monotherapy were more likely to achieve a mACR20 response at 12 months than patients receiving MTX alone (odds ratio [OR] 1.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.52; p < 0.01 and OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02-1.47; p < 0.05, respectively). Conversely, patients treated with MTX + leflunomide (LEF) were less likely to achieve a mACR20 response than those receiving MTX alone (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.96; p < 0.05). Significant differences were not observed between patients receiving MTX alone and either INF + MTX, MTX + hydroxychloroquine, MTX + hydroxychloroquine + sulfasalazine, INF monotherapy, or LEF monotherapy. CONCLUSION: These data from routine rheumatology clinical practice settings highlight the effectiveness of common biologic and DMARD therapies, and provide additional data beyond those of randomized, controlled trials.

Gibofsky A, Palmer WR, Goldman JA, Lautzenheiser RL, Markenson JA, Weaver A, Schiff MH, Keystone EC, Paulus HE, Harrison MJ, Whitmore JB, Leff JA. · Department of Rheumatology, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA. · Curr Med Res Opin. · Pubmed #16393443 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drug (DMARD) Intervention and Utilization Study (RADIUS) is a unique, real-world, prospective, 5-year, observational study of over 10 000 patients with RA. RADIUS provides a snapshot of use patterns, effectiveness, and safety of DMARDs, biologics, and combination therapies used to manage RA in clinical practice. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients with RA requiring a new DMARD or biologic (addition or switch) were eligible for the RADIUS study. Two separate patient cohorts were enrolled; RADIUS 1 patients initiated any new therapy at entry, and RADIUS 2 patients initiated etanercept at entry. Patient demographics and disease activity measures were collected at study entry, and baseline characteristics were summarized for various subgroups. Effectiveness, safety, and patterns of use will be tracked for therapies utilized during the 5-year study. RESULTS: RADIUS 1 enrolled 4959 patients, and RADIUS 2 enrolled 5102 patients, mostly at community private practices (88%). In RADIUS 1, most patients initiated methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy, followed by MTX in combination with a biologic (e.g. infliximab plus MTX) or other DMARD. In RADIUS 2, most patients initiated etanercept in combination with MTX, followed by etanercept monotherapy. When a new therapy was required, physicians tended to add another therapy versus switching therapies. Patients initiating a biologic had a longer duration of RA and more severe disease compared with patients initiating non-biologic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: These real-world data provide evidence of the prescribing practices of rheumatologists in 2001-2003. Future analyses will allow evidence-based comparisons of the long-term safety and effectiveness of DMARDs, biologics, and combination therapies to assist physicians in clinical decision-making.