Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Rheumatoid Arthritis: HELP
Articles by Seth Ginsberg
Based on 7 articles published since 2009
(Why 7 articles?)
||||

Between 2009 and 2019, Seth Ginsberg wrote the following 7 articles about Arthritis, Rheumatoid.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
1 Guideline 2015 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis. 2016

Singh, Jasvinder A / Saag, Kenneth G / Bridges, S Louis / Akl, Elie A / Bannuru, Raveendhara R / Sullivan, Matthew C / Vaysbrot, Elizaveta / McNaughton, Christine / Osani, Mikala / Shmerling, Robert H / Curtis, Jeffrey R / Furst, Daniel E / Parks, Deborah / Kavanaugh, Arthur / O'Dell, James / King, Charles / Leong, Amye / Matteson, Eric L / Schousboe, John T / Drevlow, Barbara / Ginsberg, Seth / Grober, James / St Clair, E William / Tindall, Elizabeth / Miller, Amy S / McAlindon, Timothy. ·University of Alabama at Birmingham. · American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon, and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. · Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. · Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. · University of California, Los Angeles. · Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. · University of California, San Diego. · University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. · North Mississippi Medical Center, Tupelo. · Healthy Motivation, Santa Barbara, California. · Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. · University of Minnesota and Park Nicollet Clinic, St. Louis Park. · NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, Illinois. · Global Healthy Living Foundation, New York, New York. · Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. · Rheumatology Consultants of Oregon, West Linn. · American College of Rheumatology, Atlanta, Georgia. ·Arthritis Rheumatol · Pubmed #26545940.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To develop a new evidence-based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We conducted systematic reviews to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatment options. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence. We employed a group consensus process to grade the strength of recommendations (either strong or conditional). A strong recommendation indicates that clinicians are certain that the benefits of an intervention far outweigh the harms (or vice versa). A conditional recommendation denotes uncertainty over the balance of benefits and harms and/or more significant variability in patient values and preferences. RESULTS: The guideline covers the use of traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in early (<6 months) and established (≥6 months) RA. In addition, it provides recommendations on using a treat-to-target approach, tapering and discontinuing medications, and the use of biologic agents and DMARDs in patients with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, malignancy, and serious infections. The guideline addresses the use of vaccines in patients starting/receiving DMARDs or biologic agents, screening for tuberculosis in patients starting/receiving biologic agents or tofacitinib, and laboratory monitoring for traditional DMARDs. The guideline includes 74 recommendations: 23% are strong and 77% are conditional. CONCLUSION: This RA guideline should serve as a tool for clinicians and patients (our two target audiences) for pharmacologic treatment decisions in commonly encountered clinical situations. These recommendations are not prescriptive, and the treatment decisions should be made by physicians and patients through a shared decision-making process taking into account patients' values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

2 Guideline 2015 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis. 2016

Singh, Jasvinder A / Saag, Kenneth G / Bridges, S Louis / Akl, Elie A / Bannuru, Raveendhara R / Sullivan, Matthew C / Vaysbrot, Elizaveta / McNaughton, Christine / Osani, Mikala / Shmerling, Robert H / Curtis, Jeffrey R / Furst, Daniel E / Parks, Deborah / Kavanaugh, Arthur / O'Dell, James / King, Charles / Leong, Amye / Matteson, Eric L / Schousboe, John T / Drevlow, Barbara / Ginsberg, Seth / Grober, James / St Clair, E William / Tindall, Elizabeth / Miller, Amy S / McAlindon, Timothy / Anonymous1780848. ·University of Alabama at Birmingham. · American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon, and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. · Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. · Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. · University of California, Los Angeles. · Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. · University of California, San Diego. · University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. · North Mississippi Medical Center, Tupelo. · Healthy Motivation, Santa Barbara, California. · Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. · University of Minnesota and Park Nicollet Clinic, St. Louis Park. · NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, Illinois. · Global Healthy Living Foundation, New York, New York. · Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. · Rheumatology Consultants of Oregon, West Linn. · American College of Rheumatology, Atlanta, Georgia. ·Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) · Pubmed #26545825.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To develop a new evidence-based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We conducted systematic reviews to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatment options. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence. We employed a group consensus process to grade the strength of recommendations (either strong or conditional). A strong recommendation indicates that clinicians are certain that the benefits of an intervention far outweigh the harms (or vice versa). A conditional recommendation denotes uncertainty over the balance of benefits and harms and/or more significant variability in patient values and preferences. RESULTS: The guideline covers the use of traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in early (<6 months) and established (≥6 months) RA. In addition, it provides recommendations on using a treat-to-target approach, tapering and discontinuing medications, and the use of biologic agents and DMARDs in patients with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, malignancy, and serious infections. The guideline addresses the use of vaccines in patients starting/receiving DMARDs or biologic agents, screening for tuberculosis in patients starting/receiving biologic agents or tofacitinib, and laboratory monitoring for traditional DMARDs. The guideline includes 74 recommendations: 23% are strong and 77% are conditional. CONCLUSION: This RA guideline should serve as a tool for clinicians and patients (our two target audiences) for pharmacologic treatment decisions in commonly encountered clinical situations. These recommendations are not prescriptive, and the treatment decisions should be made by physicians and patients through a shared decision-making process taking into account patients' values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

3 Review Digital Interventions to Build a Patient Registry for Rheumatology Research. 2019

Nowell, William Benjamin / Curtis, David / Thai, Michelle / Wiedmeyer, Carole / Gavigan, Kelly / Venkatachalam, Shilpa / Ginsberg, Seth / Curtis, Jeffrey R. ·Global Healthy Living Foundation, 515 North Midland Avenue, Upper Nyack, NY 10960, USA. Electronic address: bnowell@ghlf.org. · Global Healthy Living Foundation, 515 North Midland Avenue, Upper Nyack, NY 10960, USA. · Media Cause, 147 Natoma Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, USA. · Division of Clinical Immunology & Rheumatology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Faculty Office Tower, 510 20th Street South #834, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA. ·Rheum Dis Clin North Am · Pubmed #30952391.

ABSTRACT: This article aims to describe key issues, processes, and outcomes related to development of a patient registry for rheumatology research using a digital platform where patients track useful data about their condition for their own use while contributing to research. Digital interventions are effective to build a patient research registry for people with rheumatoid arthritis and other rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. ArthritisPower provides evidence of the value of digital interventions to build community support for research and to transform patient engagement and patient-generated data capture.

4 Article Pregnancy, Periods, and "The Pill": Exploring the Reproductive Experiences of Women with Inflammatory Arthritis. 2019

Birru Talabi, Mehret / Eudy, Amanda M / Jayasundara, Malithi / Haroun, Tayseer / Nowell, W Benjamin / Curtis, Jeffrey R / Crow-Hercher, Rachelle / White, C Whitney / Ginsberg, Seth / Clowse, Megan E B. ·University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Pennsylvania. · Duke University Medical Center Durham North Carolina. · Global Healthy Living Foundation Upper Nyack New York. · The University of Alabama at Birmingham Birmingham Alabama. ·ACR Open Rheumatol · Pubmed #31777789.

ABSTRACT: Objective: Women with inflammatory arthritis appear to have fewer children as compared with healthy women, but few studies have assessed how patients' attitudes and decision making influence their family sizes. Little is also known about how patients experience other aspects of their reproductive lives, such as menstruation and contraception. Methods: We partnered with ArthritisPower, a patient-powered research network, and its associated online patient community, CreakyJoints, to create and disseminate a survey among female members aged 18-50 years with inflammatory arthritis. Results: Women in the final sample (n = 267) were 40 years old on average; most had rheumatoid arthritis (79%) and were predominantly white and college educated. Many women chose to limit childbearing because of their arthritis (58%); they feared that their arthritis was heritable, their diseases and medications could directly harm a fetus, they would be incapable of physically caring for a child, and arthritis could cause premature death, preventing them from raising their children. Infertility affected 40% of the sample. Half of women experienced subjective arthritis flares around the time of menstruation. Oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) did not worsen disease activity for most women and even prevented menstrual-associated arthritis flares for a subset of women. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that infertility, but also potentially outsized fear and anxiety related to their diagnoses, may affect the family sizes of women with inflammatory arthritis. The observation that menstruation worsens disease activity for some women requires additional study, and OCP use should be explored as a possible treatment for menstrual-associated arthritis. Clinicians may wish to consider how they communicate patients' individual pregnancy-associated risks, reassure patients when appropriate, and help to guide and support patients to make well-informed reproductive decisions.

5 Article Contraception methods used by women with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis. 2019

Leverenz, David L / Eudy, Amanda M / Jayasundara, Malithi / Haroun, Tayseer / McDaniel, Gary / Benjamin Nowell, W / Curtis, Jeffrey R / Crow-Hercher, Rachelle / White, Whitney / Ginsberg, Seth / Clowse, Megan E B. ·Division of Rheumatology & Immunology, Duke University Medical Center (DUMC), Box 2918, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. David.Leverenz@Duke.edu. · Division of Rheumatology & Immunology, Duke University Medical Center (DUMC), Box 2918, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. · Global Healthy Living Foundation, CreakyJoints, Upper Nyack, NY, USA. · Division of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. · Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, USA. ·Clin Rheumatol · Pubmed #30649682.

ABSTRACT: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are common in women of childbearing age and are often treated with teratogenic medications. In this study, we assessed contraceptive methods in young women with RA or PsA and correlated contraceptive method efficacy with use of concomitant rheumatic medications. We combined the data from several cross-sectional surveys of women under the age of 40 with RA or PsA. Two surveys recruited participants from a clinic setting (RA and PsA Clinic Surveys), and the third survey recruited participants from CreakyJoints.org , an online forum for patients with inflammatory arthritis (CreakyJoints Survey). Of the 164 women included, 138 had RA (67 in RA Clinic Survey, 71 in CreakyJoints Survey) and 26 had PsA (19 in PsA Clinic Survey, 7 in CreakyJoints Survey). Use of specific contraceptive and rheumatic medications were similar between the clinic and online surveys. In the pooled analysis of the Clinic and CreakyJoints survey data, women with RA and PsA reported similar utilization of highly effective contraception methods (31.9% RA, 34.6% PsA) and effective methods (31.2% RA, 30.8% PsA), but different utilization of ineffective methods (35.5% RA, 11.5% PsA) and no methods (1.5% RA, 23.1% PsA), p = 0.0002. These proportions remained similar across subgroups taking methotrexate, anti-TNF biologics, and novel medications. Approximately two thirds of women with RA and PsA reported using effective or highly effective methods of contraception, though women with PsA were more likely to report no methods of contraception.

6 Article Openness to and preference for attributes of biologic therapy prior to initiation among patients with rheumatoid arthritis: patient and rheumatologist perspectives and implications for decision making. 2016

Bolge, Susan C / Goren, Amir / Brown, Duncan / Ginsberg, Seth / Allen, Isabel. ·Health Economics & Outcomes Research, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Raritan, NJ, USA. · Health Outcomes Practice, Kantar Health, New York, USA. · Global Healthy Living Foundation, Upper Nyack, NY, USA. · Department of Biostatistics & Epidemiology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. ·Patient Prefer Adherence · Pubmed #27390518.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Despite American College of Rheumatology recommendations, appropriate and timely initiation of biologic therapies does not always occur. This study examined openness to and preference for attributes of biologic therapies among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), differences in patients' and rheumatologists' perceptions, and discussions around biologic therapy initiation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A self-administered online survey was completed by 243 adult patients with RA in the US who were taking disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and had never taken, but had discussed biologic therapy with a rheumatologist. Patients were recruited from a consumer panel (n=142) and patient advocacy organization (n=101). A separate survey was completed by 103 rheumatologists who treated at least 25 patients with RA per month with biologic therapy. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were conducted separately for patients and rheumatologists. Attributes of biologic therapy included route of administration (intravenous infusion or subcutaneous injection), frequency of injections/infusions, and duration of infusion. RESULTS: Over half of patients (53.1%) were open to both intravenous infusion and subcutaneous injection, whereas rheumatologists reported 40.7% of patients would be open to both. Only 26.3% of patients strongly preferred subcutaneous injection, whereas rheumatologists reported 35.2%. Discrepancies were even more pronounced among specific patient types (eg, older vs younger patients and Medicare recipients). Among patients, 23% reported initiating discussion about biologics and 54% reported their rheumatologist initiated the discussion. A majority of rheumatologists reported discussing in detail several key aspects of biologics, whereas a minority of patients reported the same. CONCLUSION: Preferences differed among patients with RA from rheumatologists' perceptions of these preferences for biologic therapy, including greater openness to intravenous infusion among patients than assumed by rheumatologists and relative lack of discussion about key aspects of biologic therapy perceived by patients. There is a need for more open communication about treatment options, which may encourage more appropriate, timely transition to biologic therapy.

7 Article Use of oral and subcutaneous methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis patients in the United States. 2014

Curtis, Jeffrey R / Zhang, Jie / Xie, Fenglong / Beukelman, Tim / Chen, Lang / Fernandes, Joaquim / Ginsberg, Seth / Spettell, Claire / Yun, Huifeng / Saag, Kenneth G / Schiff, Michael. ·University of Alabama, Birmingham. ·Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) · Pubmed #24942466.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To examine the patterns of methotrexate (MTX) use among rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. METHODS: Using data from RA patients enrolled in a US commercial health plan and the US Medicare program, we identified RA patients initiating oral MTX. Persistence with MTX (oral or subcutaneous [SC]) was defined as no gap for ≥90 days. RESULTS: New oral MTX users in Medicare (n = 20,431) were 76.9% women, had a mean ± SD age of 69.7 ± 11.7 years, and contributed a median followup of 2.6 years (interquartile range 1.7-3.5 years). Only 38% received dosages ≥20 mg/week at any time. Approximately 50% of patients discontinued MTX at 1 year, although more than one-third of patients subsequently restarted. New commercially insured oral MTX users (n = 4,048) were similar to Medicare patients, except for age. Among Medicare patients, 19% starting oral MTX subsequently initiated a biologic agent, mostly anti-tumor necrosis factor (85%). Of these, only 50% received MTX at a dosage of ≥20 mg/week, and only 21% of individuals switched to SC MTX (4%) or received hydroxychloroquine (8%), sulfasalazine (5%), or leflunomide (8%) prior to biologic agents. In commercially insured patients, 35% initiated a biologic agent, mostly anti-tumor necrosis factor therapies (90%). Of these, 43% never received MTX ≥20 mg/week. CONCLUSION: Titration to a higher-dose oral MTX and use of SC MTX among RA patients were infrequent and may have been underutilized. Further work to optimize MTX dosing before patients are switched to a biologic agent may be warranted.