The Experts below are selected from a list of 324 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
David J Bjorkman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
systematic review short term adverse effects of 5 aminosalicylic acid agents in the treatment of ulcerative colitis
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 2004Co-Authors: Edward V Loftus, Sunanda V Kane, David J BjorkmanAbstract:AIM To determine whether there is a difference in short-term adverse events in patients with ulcerative colitis treated with mesalazine, olsalazine or balsalazide. METHODS MEDLINE was searched for articles published until 2002. Randomized trials of oral mesalazine, olsalazine or balsalazide for the treatment of active disease or the maintenance of remission were included. Outcomes of interest were the frequencies of patients experiencing adverse events and those withdrawn due to adverse events. RESULTS Forty-six trials were included. One study of mesalazine vs. Sulfasalazine for active colitis showed significantly fewer patients with adverse events with mesalazine. Both balsalazide vs. Sulfasalazine studies for active disease showed significantly fewer withdrawals with balsalazide. One trial of balsalazide vs. Sulfasalazine for maintenance showed significantly fewer patients with adverse events with balsalazide. Otherwise, no significant differences in safety outcomes were noted. CONCLUSION All three 5-aminosalicylic acid agents are safe in the short term. In mesalazine-treated patients, the frequencies of adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events were comparable with those in placebo-treated patients and lower than those in Sulfasalazine-treated patients. Overall, adverse events or withdrawals were not significantly more frequent with olsalazine than with placebo or Sulfasalazine. Adverse events and study withdrawals on balsalazide were less frequent than those on Sulfasalazine.
-
short term adverse effects of 5 aminosalicylic acid agents in the treatment of ulcerative colitis
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 2004Co-Authors: Edward V Loftus, Sunanda V Kane, David J BjorkmanAbstract:Summary Aim : To determine whether there is a difference in short-term adverse events in patients with ulcerative colitis treated with mesalazine, olsalazine or balsalazide. Methods : MEDLINE was searched for articles published until 2002. Randomized trials of oral mesalazine, olsalazine or balsalazide for the treatment of active disease or the maintenance of remission were included. Outcomes of interest were the frequencies of patients experiencing adverse events and those withdrawn due to adverse events. Results : Forty-six trials were included. One study of mesalazine vs. Sulfasalazine for active colitis showed significantly fewer patients with adverse events with mesalazine. Both balsalazide vs. Sulfasalazine studies for active disease showed significantly fewer withdrawals with balsalazide. One trial of balsalazide vs. Sulfasalazine for maintenance showed significantly fewer patients with adverse events with balsalazide. Otherwise, no significant differences in safety outcomes were noted. Conclusion : All three 5-aminosalicylic acid agents are safe in the short term. In mesalazine-treated patients, the frequencies of adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events were comparable with those in placebo-treated patients and lower than those in Sulfasalazine-treated patients. Overall, adverse events or withdrawals were not significantly more frequent with olsalazine than with placebo or Sulfasalazine. Adverse events and study withdrawals on balsalazide were less frequent than those on Sulfasalazine.
B Combe - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
efficacy safety and patient reported outcomes of combination etanercept and Sulfasalazine versus etanercept alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis a double blind randomised 2 year study
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 2009Co-Authors: B Combe, C Codreanu, U Fiocco, M Gaubitz, Piet Geusens, T K Kvien, K Pavelka, Philip N Sambrook, J S Smolen, R KhandkerAbstract:Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety of etanercept and etanercept plus Sulfasalazine versus Sulfasalazine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite Sulfasalazine therapy. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to etanercept (25 mg twice weekly; Sulfasalazine was discontinued at baseline), etanercept plus Sulfasalazine (unchanged regimen of 2–3 g/day) or Sulfasalazine in a double-blind, randomised, 2-year study in adult patients with active RA despite Sulfasalazine therapy. Efficacy was assessed using the American College of Rheumatology criteria, disease activity scores (DAS) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO). Results: Demographic variables and baseline disease characteristics were comparable among treatment groups; mean DAS 5.1, 5.2 and 5.1 for etanercept (n = 103), etanercept plus Sulfasalazine (n = 101) and Sulfasalazine (n = 50), respectively. Withdrawal due to lack of efficacy was highest with Sulfasalazine (26 (52%) vs 6 (6%) for either etanercept group, p Conclusion: Etanercept and etanercept plus Sulfasalazine are efficacious for the long-term management of patients with RA. The addition of etanercept or substitution with etanercept should be considered as treatment options for patients not adequately responding to Sulfasalazine.
-
etanercept and Sulfasalazine alone and combined in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite receiving Sulfasalazine a double blind comparison
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 2006Co-Authors: B Combe, C Codreanu, U Fiocco, M Gaubitz, Piet Geusens, T K Kvien, K Pavelka, Philip N Sambrook, J S Smolen, Joseph WajdulaAbstract:Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of etanercept and Sulfasalazine, alone and in combination, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite Sulfasalazine treatment. Methods: A double-blind, randomised study in adult patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite stable Sulfasalazine (2–3 g/day) treatment. The primary end point was a 20% response by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria at 24 weeks. Results: At baseline, the three treatment groups (Sulfasalazine, n = 50; etanercept, n = 103; etanercept and Sulfasalazine, n = 101) were comparable for demographic variables and disease activity. Lack of efficacy was the primary reason for discontinuation (Sulfasalazine, n = 12; etanercept, n = 1; etanercept and Sulfasalazine, n = 4; p Conclusions: For all efficacy variables assessed, etanercept alone or in combination with Sulfasalazine resulted in substantial and similar improvement in disease activity from baseline to week 24 compared with Sulfasalazine alone in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite their Sulfasalazine treatment. All three treatments were generally well tolerated.
R Khandker - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
efficacy safety and patient reported outcomes of combination etanercept and Sulfasalazine versus etanercept alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis a double blind randomised 2 year study
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 2009Co-Authors: B Combe, C Codreanu, U Fiocco, M Gaubitz, Piet Geusens, T K Kvien, K Pavelka, Philip N Sambrook, J S Smolen, R KhandkerAbstract:Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety of etanercept and etanercept plus Sulfasalazine versus Sulfasalazine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite Sulfasalazine therapy. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to etanercept (25 mg twice weekly; Sulfasalazine was discontinued at baseline), etanercept plus Sulfasalazine (unchanged regimen of 2–3 g/day) or Sulfasalazine in a double-blind, randomised, 2-year study in adult patients with active RA despite Sulfasalazine therapy. Efficacy was assessed using the American College of Rheumatology criteria, disease activity scores (DAS) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO). Results: Demographic variables and baseline disease characteristics were comparable among treatment groups; mean DAS 5.1, 5.2 and 5.1 for etanercept (n = 103), etanercept plus Sulfasalazine (n = 101) and Sulfasalazine (n = 50), respectively. Withdrawal due to lack of efficacy was highest with Sulfasalazine (26 (52%) vs 6 (6%) for either etanercept group, p Conclusion: Etanercept and etanercept plus Sulfasalazine are efficacious for the long-term management of patients with RA. The addition of etanercept or substitution with etanercept should be considered as treatment options for patients not adequately responding to Sulfasalazine.
Edward V Loftus - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
systematic review short term adverse effects of 5 aminosalicylic acid agents in the treatment of ulcerative colitis
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 2004Co-Authors: Edward V Loftus, Sunanda V Kane, David J BjorkmanAbstract:AIM To determine whether there is a difference in short-term adverse events in patients with ulcerative colitis treated with mesalazine, olsalazine or balsalazide. METHODS MEDLINE was searched for articles published until 2002. Randomized trials of oral mesalazine, olsalazine or balsalazide for the treatment of active disease or the maintenance of remission were included. Outcomes of interest were the frequencies of patients experiencing adverse events and those withdrawn due to adverse events. RESULTS Forty-six trials were included. One study of mesalazine vs. Sulfasalazine for active colitis showed significantly fewer patients with adverse events with mesalazine. Both balsalazide vs. Sulfasalazine studies for active disease showed significantly fewer withdrawals with balsalazide. One trial of balsalazide vs. Sulfasalazine for maintenance showed significantly fewer patients with adverse events with balsalazide. Otherwise, no significant differences in safety outcomes were noted. CONCLUSION All three 5-aminosalicylic acid agents are safe in the short term. In mesalazine-treated patients, the frequencies of adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events were comparable with those in placebo-treated patients and lower than those in Sulfasalazine-treated patients. Overall, adverse events or withdrawals were not significantly more frequent with olsalazine than with placebo or Sulfasalazine. Adverse events and study withdrawals on balsalazide were less frequent than those on Sulfasalazine.
-
short term adverse effects of 5 aminosalicylic acid agents in the treatment of ulcerative colitis
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 2004Co-Authors: Edward V Loftus, Sunanda V Kane, David J BjorkmanAbstract:Summary Aim : To determine whether there is a difference in short-term adverse events in patients with ulcerative colitis treated with mesalazine, olsalazine or balsalazide. Methods : MEDLINE was searched for articles published until 2002. Randomized trials of oral mesalazine, olsalazine or balsalazide for the treatment of active disease or the maintenance of remission were included. Outcomes of interest were the frequencies of patients experiencing adverse events and those withdrawn due to adverse events. Results : Forty-six trials were included. One study of mesalazine vs. Sulfasalazine for active colitis showed significantly fewer patients with adverse events with mesalazine. Both balsalazide vs. Sulfasalazine studies for active disease showed significantly fewer withdrawals with balsalazide. One trial of balsalazide vs. Sulfasalazine for maintenance showed significantly fewer patients with adverse events with balsalazide. Otherwise, no significant differences in safety outcomes were noted. Conclusion : All three 5-aminosalicylic acid agents are safe in the short term. In mesalazine-treated patients, the frequencies of adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events were comparable with those in placebo-treated patients and lower than those in Sulfasalazine-treated patients. Overall, adverse events or withdrawals were not significantly more frequent with olsalazine than with placebo or Sulfasalazine. Adverse events and study withdrawals on balsalazide were less frequent than those on Sulfasalazine.
K Pavelka - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
efficacy safety and patient reported outcomes of combination etanercept and Sulfasalazine versus etanercept alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis a double blind randomised 2 year study
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 2009Co-Authors: B Combe, C Codreanu, U Fiocco, M Gaubitz, Piet Geusens, T K Kvien, K Pavelka, Philip N Sambrook, J S Smolen, R KhandkerAbstract:Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety of etanercept and etanercept plus Sulfasalazine versus Sulfasalazine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite Sulfasalazine therapy. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to etanercept (25 mg twice weekly; Sulfasalazine was discontinued at baseline), etanercept plus Sulfasalazine (unchanged regimen of 2–3 g/day) or Sulfasalazine in a double-blind, randomised, 2-year study in adult patients with active RA despite Sulfasalazine therapy. Efficacy was assessed using the American College of Rheumatology criteria, disease activity scores (DAS) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO). Results: Demographic variables and baseline disease characteristics were comparable among treatment groups; mean DAS 5.1, 5.2 and 5.1 for etanercept (n = 103), etanercept plus Sulfasalazine (n = 101) and Sulfasalazine (n = 50), respectively. Withdrawal due to lack of efficacy was highest with Sulfasalazine (26 (52%) vs 6 (6%) for either etanercept group, p Conclusion: Etanercept and etanercept plus Sulfasalazine are efficacious for the long-term management of patients with RA. The addition of etanercept or substitution with etanercept should be considered as treatment options for patients not adequately responding to Sulfasalazine.
-
etanercept and Sulfasalazine alone and combined in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite receiving Sulfasalazine a double blind comparison
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 2006Co-Authors: B Combe, C Codreanu, U Fiocco, M Gaubitz, Piet Geusens, T K Kvien, K Pavelka, Philip N Sambrook, J S Smolen, Joseph WajdulaAbstract:Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of etanercept and Sulfasalazine, alone and in combination, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite Sulfasalazine treatment. Methods: A double-blind, randomised study in adult patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite stable Sulfasalazine (2–3 g/day) treatment. The primary end point was a 20% response by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria at 24 weeks. Results: At baseline, the three treatment groups (Sulfasalazine, n = 50; etanercept, n = 103; etanercept and Sulfasalazine, n = 101) were comparable for demographic variables and disease activity. Lack of efficacy was the primary reason for discontinuation (Sulfasalazine, n = 12; etanercept, n = 1; etanercept and Sulfasalazine, n = 4; p Conclusions: For all efficacy variables assessed, etanercept alone or in combination with Sulfasalazine resulted in substantial and similar improvement in disease activity from baseline to week 24 compared with Sulfasalazine alone in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite their Sulfasalazine treatment. All three treatments were generally well tolerated.
