The Experts below are selected from a list of 294 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Megan A. Gibbs - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a dose response meta analysis for quantifying Relative Efficacy of biologics in rheumatoid arthritis
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 2011Co-Authors: J W Mandema, David H. Salinger, Scott Baumgartner, Megan A. GibbsAbstract:We present a dose-response meta-analysis to quantify Relative Efficacy of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). There is a strong rationale for this analysis because, although multiple biologics are available, information on head-to-head comparisons is limited. Data on the percentage of patients attaining American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, 50, and 70 responses were extracted from 50 randomized controlled trials representing 21,500 patients, five mechanisms of action, and nine biologics. The analysis showed that all tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (anti-TNFs) share the same dose-response relationship for ACR 20, 50, and 70, differing only in potency. Yet there are significant differences in Efficacy among the anti-TNFs due to differences in the clinical dose ranges available. At the suggested starting dose, golimumab was the least efficacious, followed by infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, and certolizumab. Significant differences in the dose-response relationship were found between anti-TNFs and other biologics, resulting in differences in Efficacy and differential impact of dose titration.
-
A dose–response Meta‐Analysis for Quantifying Relative Efficacy of Biologics in Rheumatoid Arthritis
Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2011Co-Authors: J W Mandema, David H. Salinger, Scott Baumgartner, Megan A. GibbsAbstract:We present a dose-response meta-analysis to quantify Relative Efficacy of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). There is a strong rationale for this analysis because, although multiple biologics are available, information on head-to-head comparisons is limited. Data on the percentage of patients attaining American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, 50, and 70 responses were extracted from 50 randomized controlled trials representing 21,500 patients, five mechanisms of action, and nine biologics. The analysis showed that all tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (anti-TNFs) share the same dose-response relationship for ACR 20, 50, and 70, differing only in potency. Yet there are significant differences in Efficacy among the anti-TNFs due to differences in the clinical dose ranges available. At the suggested starting dose, golimumab was the least efficacious, followed by infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, and certolizumab. Significant differences in the dose-response relationship were found between anti-TNFs and other biologics, resulting in differences in Efficacy and differential impact of dose titration.
Gopalan Sethuraman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Relative Efficacy of haloperidol and pimozide in children and adolescents with tourette s disorder
American Journal of Psychiatry, 1997Co-Authors: Floyd R. Sallee, Lori Nesbitt, Cherry W. Jackson, Lauren Sine, Gopalan SethuramanAbstract:Objective: The authors evaluated the Relative Efficacy and safety of pimozide and haloperidol in the treatment of Gilles de la Tourette’s syndrome in children and adolescents. Method: A double-blind, 24-week, placebo-controlled double crossover study of equivalent dose formulations of haloperidol and pimozide was conducted with 22 subjects, aged 7‐16 years, with Tourette’s disorder who were randomly assigned to first one active drug treatment and then the other. Biweekly assessment and flexible dose titration mimicked clinical practice. The primary outcome variable was total score on the Tourette Syndrome Global Scale. Final outcome was determined after 6 weeks of each treatment (placebo, pimozide, haloperidol), with a 2-week placebo baseline period and intervening 2-week placebo washout periods between treatments. Results: Pimozide proved significantly different from placebo in affecting the primary outcome variable, whereas haloperidol failed to have a significant effect. Haloperidol exhibited a threefold higher frequency of serious side effects and significantly greater extrapyramidal symptoms Relative to pimozide. Haloperidol-associated treatment-limiting adverse events were experienced by 41% of the patients. The therapeutic doses of pimozide and haloperidol were equivalent (mean=3.4 mg/day, SD=1.6, and mean=3.5 mg/day, SD=2.2, respectively). Conclusions: At equivalent doses, pimozide is superior to haloperidol for controlling symptoms of Tourette’s disorder in children and adolescents. (Am J Psychiatry 1997; 154:1057‐1062)
-
Relative Efficacy of Haloperidol and Pimozide in Children and Adolescents With Tourette's Disorder
The American journal of psychiatry, 1997Co-Authors: Floyd R. Sallee, Lori Nesbitt, Cherry W. Jackson, Lauren Sine, Gopalan SethuramanAbstract:The authors evaluated the Relative Efficacy and safety of pimozide and haloperidol in the treatment of Gilles de la Tourette's syndrome in children and adolescents. A double-blind, 24-week, placebo-controlled double crossover study of equivalent dose formulations of haloperidol and pimozide was conducted with 22 subjects, aged 7-16 years, with Tourette's disorder who were randomly assigned to first one active drug treatment and then the other. Biweekly assessment and flexible dose titration mimicked clinical practice. The primary outcome variable was total score on the Tourette Syndrome Global Scale. Final outcome was determined after 6 weeks of each treatment (placebo, pimozide, haloperidol), with a 2-week placebo baseline period and intervening 2-week placebo washout periods between treatments. Pimozide proved significantly different from placebo in affecting the primary outcome variable, whereas haloperidol failed to have a significant effect. Haloperidol exhibited a threefold higher frequency of serious side effects and significantly greater extrapyramidal symptoms Relative to pimozide. Haloperidol-associated treatment-limiting adverse events were experienced by 41% of the patients. The therapeutic doses of pimozide and haloperidol were equivalent (mean = 3.4 mg/day, SD = 1.6, and mean = 3.5 mg/day, SD = 2.2, respectively). At equivalent doses, pimozide is superior to haloperidol for controlling symptoms of Tourette's disorder in children and adolescents.
Craig Walker - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Relative Efficacy of Three Recovery Modalities After Professional Rugby League Matches
Journal of strength and conditioning research, 2013Co-Authors: Nicholas P. Webb, Nigel K. Harris, John B. Cronin, Craig WalkerAbstract:This study investigated the Relative Efficacy of postgame recovery modalities on jump height performance and subjective ratings of muscle soreness and muscle damage at 1, 18, and 42 hours after professional rugby league competition games. Twenty-one professional rugby league players performed 3 different postmatch recovery modalities: cold water immersion (CWI), contrast water therapy (CWT), and active recovery (ACT). The effects of the recovery treatments were analyzed with mixed modeling including a covariate (fatigue score) to adjust for changes in the intensity of each match on the postmatch values of the dependent variables of interest. Standardization of effects was used to make magnitude-based inferences, presented as mean with ±90% confidence limits. Cold water immersion and CWT clearly recovered jump height performance (CWI 2.3 ± 3.7%; CWT 3.5 ± 4.1%), reduced muscle soreness (CWI -0.95 ± 0.37; CWT -0.55 ± 0.37), and decreased creatine kinase (CWI -11.0 ± 15.1%; CWT 18.2 ± 20.1%) by 42 hours postgame compared with ACT. Contrast water therapy was however clearly more effective compared with CWI on the recovery of muscle soreness and creatine kinase by 42 hours postgame. Based on these findings, CWT recovery is recommended postmatch for team rugby sports.
Alan S. Perelson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Determining the Relative Efficacy of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy
The Journal of infectious diseases, 2003Co-Authors: Michael Louie, Christine Hogan, Michele Di Mascio, Arlene Hurley, Viviana Simon, James F. Rooney, Nancy Ruiz, Scott C. Brun, Eugene Sun, Alan S. PerelsonAbstract:Despite the clinical benefits of combination antiviral therapy, whether maximal antiviral potency has been achieved with current drug combinations remains unclear. We studied the first phase of decay of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) RNA in plasma, one early indicator of antiviral activity, after the administration of a novel combination of lopinavir/ritonavir, efavirenz, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, and lamivudine and compared it with that observed in matched cohorts treated with alternative combination regimens. On the basis of these comparisons, we conclude that the Relative potency of highly active antiretroviral therapy may be augmented by as much as 25%-30%. However, it is important to emphasize that further study is warranted to explore whether these early measurements of Relative Efficacy provide long-term virologic and clinical benefits. Nevertheless, we believe that optimal treatment regimens for HIV-1 have yet to be identified and that continued research to achieve this goal is warranted.
-
Short-term measures of Relative Efficacy predict longer-term reductions in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 RNA levels following nelfinavir monotherapy
Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2001Co-Authors: John E. Mittler, Paulina Essunger, Geoffrey J. Yuen, Neil Clendeninn, Martin Markowitz, Alan S. PerelsonAbstract:We calculated the Relative Efficacy of treatment, defined as the rate of decline of virus levels in plasma during treatment Relative to the rate of decline during highly potent combination therapy, in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) patients treated for 56 days with different doses of the protease inhibitor nelfinavir. Relative efficacies based on the rate of decline of HIV-1 RNA levels in plasma over the first 14 to 21 days correlated with drug dose and viral load reduction by day 56. Calculation of Relative treatment efficacies over the first 2 to 3 weeks of treatment can allow rapid assessment of new antiretroviral agents and dosing regimens, reducing the need to keep subjects in clinical trials on monotherapy for prolonged periods of time. Relative Efficacy may also serve as a measure of treatment Efficacy in patients in initiating established therapies.
J W Mandema - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a dose response meta analysis for quantifying Relative Efficacy of biologics in rheumatoid arthritis
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 2011Co-Authors: J W Mandema, David H. Salinger, Scott Baumgartner, Megan A. GibbsAbstract:We present a dose-response meta-analysis to quantify Relative Efficacy of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). There is a strong rationale for this analysis because, although multiple biologics are available, information on head-to-head comparisons is limited. Data on the percentage of patients attaining American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, 50, and 70 responses were extracted from 50 randomized controlled trials representing 21,500 patients, five mechanisms of action, and nine biologics. The analysis showed that all tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (anti-TNFs) share the same dose-response relationship for ACR 20, 50, and 70, differing only in potency. Yet there are significant differences in Efficacy among the anti-TNFs due to differences in the clinical dose ranges available. At the suggested starting dose, golimumab was the least efficacious, followed by infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, and certolizumab. Significant differences in the dose-response relationship were found between anti-TNFs and other biologics, resulting in differences in Efficacy and differential impact of dose titration.
-
A dose–response Meta‐Analysis for Quantifying Relative Efficacy of Biologics in Rheumatoid Arthritis
Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2011Co-Authors: J W Mandema, David H. Salinger, Scott Baumgartner, Megan A. GibbsAbstract:We present a dose-response meta-analysis to quantify Relative Efficacy of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). There is a strong rationale for this analysis because, although multiple biologics are available, information on head-to-head comparisons is limited. Data on the percentage of patients attaining American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, 50, and 70 responses were extracted from 50 randomized controlled trials representing 21,500 patients, five mechanisms of action, and nine biologics. The analysis showed that all tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (anti-TNFs) share the same dose-response relationship for ACR 20, 50, and 70, differing only in potency. Yet there are significant differences in Efficacy among the anti-TNFs due to differences in the clinical dose ranges available. At the suggested starting dose, golimumab was the least efficacious, followed by infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, and certolizumab. Significant differences in the dose-response relationship were found between anti-TNFs and other biologics, resulting in differences in Efficacy and differential impact of dose titration.
