Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Maureen McMahon is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Maureen McMahon.


Arthritis Care and Research | 2012

American College of Rheumatology guidelines for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis

Bevra H. Hahn; Maureen McMahon; Alan H. Wilkinson; W. Dean Wallace; David I. Daikh; John FitzGerald; George Karpouzas; Joan T. Merrill; Daniel J. Wallace; Jinoos Yazdany; Rosalind Ramsey-Goldman; Karandeep Singh; Mazdak A. Khalighi; Soo I. Choi; Maneesh Gogia; Suzanne Kafaja; Mohammad Kamgar; Christine Lau; William J. Martin; Sefali Parikh; Justin Peng; Anjay Rastogi; Weiling Chen; Jennifer M. Grossman

In the United States, approximately 35% of adults with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) have clinical evidence of nephritis at the time of diagnosis; with an estimated total of 50–60% developing nephritis during the first 10 years of disease [1–4]. The prevalence of nephritis is significantly higher in African Americans and Hispanics than in Caucasians, and is higher in men than in women. Renal damage is more likely to develop in non-Caucasian groups [2–4]. Overall survival in patients with SLE is approximately 95% at 5 years after diagnosis and 92% at 10 years [5, 6]. The presence of lupus nephritis significantly reduces survival, to approximately 88% at 10 years, with even lower survival in African Americans [5, 6]. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) last published guidelines for management of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in 1999 [7]. That publication was designed primarily for education of primary care physicians and recommended therapeutic and management approaches for many manifestations of SLE. Recommendations for management of lupus nephritis (LN) consisted of pulse glucocorticoids followed by high dose daily glucocorticoids in addition to an immunosuppressive medication, with cyclophosphamide viewed as the most effective immunosuppressive medication for diffuse proliferative glomerulonephritis. Mycophenolate mofetil was not yet in use for lupus nephritis and was not mentioned. Since that time, many clinical trials of glucocorticoids-plus-immunosuppressive interventions have been published, some of which are high quality prospective trials, and some not only prospective but also randomized. Thus, the ACR determined that a new set of management recommendations was in order. A combination of extensive literature review and the opinions of highly qualified experts, including rheumatologists, nephrologists and pathologists, has been used to reach the recommendations. The management strategies discussed here apply to lupus nephritis in adults, particularly to those receiving care in the United States of America, and include interventions that were available in the United States as of April 2011. While these recommendations were developed using rigorous methodology, guidelines do have inherent limitations in informing individual patient care; hence the selection of the term “recommendations.” While they should not supplant clinical judgment or limit clinical judgment, they do provide expert advice to the practicing physician managing patients with lupus nephritis.


Arthritis Care and Research | 2010

American College of Rheumatology 2010 recommendations for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid‐induced osteoporosis

Jennifer M. Grossman; Rebecca Gordon; Veena K. Ranganath; Chad Deal; Liron Caplan; Weiling Chen; Jeffrey R. Curtis; Daniel E. Furst; Maureen McMahon; Nivedita M. Patkar; Elizabeth R. Volkmann; Kenneth G. Saag

Guidelines and recommendations developed and/or endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) are intended to provide guidance for particular patterns of practice and not to dictate the care of a particular patient. The ACR considers adherence to these guidelines and recommendations to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in light of each patient’s individual circumstances. Guidelines and recommendations are intended to promote beneficial or desirable outcomes but cannot guarantee any specific outcome. Guidelines and recommendations developed or endorsed by the ACR are subject to periodic revision as warranted by the evolution of medical knowledge, technology, and practice.


Annals of Internal Medicine | 2008

Systematic Review: Comparative Effectiveness of Treatments to Prevent Fractures in Men and Women with Low Bone Density or Osteoporosis

Catherine H. MacLean; Sydne Newberry; Margaret Maglione; Maureen McMahon; Veena K. Ranganath; Marika J Suttorp; Walter Mojica; Martha Timmer; Alicia Alexander; Melissa McNamara; Sheetal B. Desai; Annie Zhou; Susan Chen; Jason Carter; Carlo Tringale; Di Valentine; Breanne Johnsen; Jennifer M. Grossman

Context Sorting through the proven benefits and harms of the agents available for treating osteoporosis is difficult. Contribution This systematic review of 76 randomized trials and 24 meta-analyses found good evidence that multiple agents, including alendronate, zoledronic acid, and estrogen, prevented vertebral and hip fractures more than placebo. Harms included increased risk for thromboembolic events with raloxifene, estrogen, and estrogenprogestin and increased gastrointestinal symptoms with bisphosphonates. No large trials directly compared 2 or more agents and established superiority of any agent. Implication Available data insufficiently characterize the benefits and harms of various therapies for osteoporosis relative to one another. The Editors Osteoporosis is a systemic skeletal disease characterized by low bone mass and microarchitectural deterioration of bone tissue, with a consequent increase in bone fragility and susceptibility to fracture (1). Approximately 44 million people in the United States are affected by osteoporosis and low bone mass (2). The clinical complications include fractures, disability, and chronic pain. About 54% of women age 50 years or older will have an osteoporotic fracture during their lifetime (3). Furthermore, approximately 4% of patients older than 50 years of age who have a hip fracture die while in the hospital and 24% die within 1 year after the hip fracture (4). The economic burden of osteoporosis is large and growing. Most estimates are based on the cost of fracture alone: A 1995 estimate of costs incurred by osteoporotic fractures in the United States was


Drug Safety | 2004

Safety of Tumour Necrosis Factor-α Antagonists

Dinesh Khanna; Maureen McMahon; Daniel E. Furst

13.8 billion (5). A 2003 review estimated the total costs in the United States at


Arthritis & Rheumatism | 2009

Dysfunctional Proinflammatory High-Density Lipoproteins Confer Increased Risk of Atherosclerosis in Women With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Maureen McMahon; Jennifer M. Grossman; Brian J. Skaggs; John FitzGerald; Lori Sahakian; Nagesh Ragavendra; Christina Charles-Schoeman; Karol E. Watson; Weng Kee Wong; Elizabeth R. Volkmann; Weiling Chen; Alan Gorn; George Karpouzas; Michael H. Weisman; Daniel J. Wallace; Bevra H. Hahn

17 billion (6). Although the bulk of these costs were incurred by retired individuals older than age 65 years, direct costs and work loss are significant among employed postmenopausal women (7). The increasing prevalence and cost of osteoporosis have heightened interest in the efficacy and safety of the many agents available to treat the loss of bone mineral associated with osteoporosis. This systematic review, developed under the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Effective Health Care Program, describes the benefits in fracture reduction and the harms from adverse events among and within the various classes of pharmacotherapies for osteoporosis. The agents evaluated were bisphosphonates (alendronate, etidronate, ibandronate, pamidronate, risedronate, and zoledronic acid), calcitonin, estrogen, teriparatide, selective estrogen receptor modulators (raloxifene and tamoxifen), testosterone, and vitamins (vitamin D) and minerals (calcium). Methods We followed a standardized protocol for the review. The full technical report (8) provides detailed methods, evidence tables, and risk estimates for individual studies. The full report also enumerates studies included in the meta-analyses described in this review. Data Sources and Study Selection We searched MEDLINE (1966 to December 2006), the ACP Journal Club database, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (no date limits), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (no date limits), and the Web sites of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (no date limits) and Health Technology Assessment Programme (January 1998 to December 2006) for materials pertaining to the specified agents, limiting our searches to English-language publications and human studies. We first identified systematic reviews and meta-analyses of trials that reported pooled estimates of the effect of the agents on fracture risk. When such reviews were identified for specific agents, we truncated our searches for randomized trials to include only those published after the last search date used in the review or meta-analysis. We manually searched reference lists of all review articles obtained for any reports of original research not already identified, and we reviewed U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) medical and statistical reviews, scientific information packets from pharmaceutical companies, and additional studies recommended by our technical expert panel and by stakeholders during a public review period. To supplement the information in systematic reviews on estrogen, we reviewed the Womens Health Initiative and Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study trials, as suggested by our technical expert panel. Finally, we conducted an additional search for large observational studies that reported any of the following adverse events: 1) cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction and stroke); 2) thromboembolic events (pulmonary embolism and venous thromboembolic events); 3) malignant conditions (breast cancer, colon cancer, lung cancer, and osteosarcoma); 4) upper gastrointestinal events (perforations, ulcers, bleeding, and esophageal ulcerations); and 5) osteonecrosis. The search was updated for this paper, but not for the full report, by searching MEDLINE (1 January 2007 to 10 November 2007) for large clinical trials that reported fracture outcomes for the specified agents. For information on efficacy, we selected meta-analyses that reported pooled risk estimates for fracture and randomized trials that compared any of the agents with placebo or with each other and reported fracture outcomes. For information on harms, we selected systematic reviews, randomized trials, and large casecontrol or cohort studies with more than 1000 participants. We also reviewed cases of osteonecrosis at AHRQs request. Data Extraction and Study Quality Two physicians independently abstracted data about study populations, interventions, follow-up, and outcome ascertainment by using a structured form. For each group in a randomized trial, a statistician extracted the sample size and number of persons who reported fractures. Two reviewers, under the supervision of the statistician, independently abstracted information about adverse events. Disagreements were resolved by the statistician or the principal investigator. Adverse events were recorded onto a spreadsheet that identified numbers of participants in each trial group and the description of the adverse event as listed in the original article. Each event was counted as if it represented a unique individual. Because an individual may have experienced more than 1 event within a category of adverse events (for example, both stroke and myocardial infarction), this assumption may have overestimated the number of people who had an adverse event in that category. If a trial report mentioned a particular type of adverse event but did not report data on it, we did not include the trial in that particular events analysis. In other words, we did not assume an occurrence of zero events unless it was specifically reported as such. By taking this approach, we may have overestimated the number of patients for whom a particular adverse event was observed. We used predefined criteria to assess the quality of systematic reviews and randomized trials, based on internal and external validity assessment detailed in the QUOROM (Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses) statement (9), and items related to randomization, blinding, and accounting for withdrawals and dropouts (10, 11). Each element is detailed in appendices to the full report (8). For this review, we characterized the overall strength of evidence for estimating fracture risk as good, fair, or weak on the basis of the characteristics previously described, as well as the number of studies, total number of participants across studies, whether fractures were a primary outcome, reproducibility of results across studies, and precision of the CIs surrounding the point estimates. Evidence was classified as good if the total sample size was greater than 1000, the results across all studies were consistent, and the studies were of high methodological quality. Evidence was classified as fair if results were inconsistent across the studies. The evidence was classified as weak if no studies assessed fracture as a primary outcome, the total sample size across studies was less than 500, and the CIs around the point estimates were wide and crossed null. Data Synthesis and Statistical Analysis Comparisons of interest were single agent versus placebo and single agent versus another agent for agents within the same class and across classes. We also compared estrogenprogestin versus placebo or single drugs. Studies that included either calcium or vitamin D in all study groups were classified as comparisons between the other agents in each group; for example, alendronate plus calcium versus risedronate plus calcium would be classified as alendronate versus risedronate. In this review, we summarize data on vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures; data on total, wrist, and humerus fractures are included in the full report (8). The number of people with at least 1 fracture was our primary outcome of interest. Because fractures rarely occurred and zero events were often observed in at least 1 treatment group, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) by using the Peto method (12). Trials with zero events in both groups have an undefined OR. Because fractures are rare events, the OR approximates the relative risk (RR) for fracture. We combined data from multiple study groups in an individual study to calculate a single OR for comparisons of interest. In these instances, the same outcome had been reported for each group, and the individuals in each group were unique. For example, to develop an OR for the risk for vertebral fractures regardless of dose, we combined the participants in the various dose groups and compared them with those in the placebo group. We conducted the meta-analysis by using StatXact PROCs (Cytel, Cambridge, Massachusetts) for SAS software (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina). Recognizing that characteristics of the study population may affect risk for fracture, we defined risk groups to categorize the


Nature Reviews Rheumatology | 2012

Accelerated atherosclerosis in patients with SLE—mechanisms and management

Brian J. Skaggs; Bevra H. Hahn; Maureen McMahon

Tumour necrosis factor-α (TNFα) is a proinflammatory cytokine that is synthesised by a variety of cell types in response to infectious or inflammatory stimuli. Although TNFα plays an adaptive role in immune protection and wound healing at ‘physiological’ levels, excess TNFα production can lead to adverse consequences. TNFα is a pivotal cytokine involved in the pathogenesis and progression of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). TNFα antagonists have been shown to be effective in the treatment of signs and symptoms of RA and the US FDA has approved three TNFα antagonists, etanercept, infliximab, and most recently, adalimumab, for the treatment of RA. However, differences have emerged, with respect to their demonstrated efficacy in other diseases (e.g. Crohn’s disease). Worldwide, over half a million patients have been treated with TNFα antagonists and concerns regarding their safety have been raised.There is a risk of reactivation of granulomatous diseases, especially tuberculosis, with all three agents and appropriate measures should be taken for detection and treatment of latent infections. An association between non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and treatment with TNFα antagonists has been reported, although patients with active, long-standing RA are already known to have an increased incidence of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. No associations with solid tumours have been found to date. The biological plausibility of lymphomas associated with immunomodulatory agents raises concern and vigilance is appropriate until the relationship is fully characterised. Large phase II and III trials have shown a detrimental effect of TNFα antagonists in advanced heart failure and these agents should be avoided in this population. Rare case reports of drug-induced lupus, seizure disorder, pancytopenia and demyelinating diseases have been noted after TNFα antagonists and continued vigilance is warranted in patients on TNFα antagonists for the development of these diseases. At present there is no evidence implicating TNFα antagonists with embryotoxicity, teratogenicity or increased pregnancy loss.


Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases | 2012

Cholesterol efflux by high density lipoproteins is impaired in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis

Christina Charles-Schoeman; Yuen Yin Lee; Victor Grijalva; Sogol Amjadi; John FitzGerald; Veena K. Ranganath; Mihaela Taylor; Maureen McMahon; Harold E. Paulus; Srinivasa T. Reddy

OBJECTIVE Women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have an increased risk of atherosclerosis. Identification of at-risk patients and the etiology underlying atherosclerosis in SLE remain elusive. The antioxidant capacity of normal high-density lipoproteins (HDLs) is lost during inflammation, and these dysfunctional HDLs might predispose individuals to atherosclerosis. The aim of this study was to determine whether dysfunctional proinflammatory HDL (piHDL) is associated with subclinical atherosclerosis in SLE. METHODS Carotid artery ultrasound was performed in 276 women with SLE to identify carotid plaques and measure intima-media thickness (IMT). The antioxidant function of HDL was measured as the change in oxidation of low-density lipoprotein after the addition of HDL cholesterol. Two antiinflammatory HDL components, paraoxonase 1 and apolipoprotein A-I, were also measured. RESULTS Among the SLE patients, 48.2% were determined to have piHDL on carotid ultrasound, while 86.7% of patients with plaque had piHDL compared with 40.7% of those without plaque (P<0.001). Patients with piHDL also had a higher IMT (P<0.001). After multivariate analysis, the only factors found to be significantly associated with plaque were the presence of piHDL (odds ratio [OR] 16.1, P<0.001), older age (OR 1.2, P<0.001), hypertension (OR 3.0, P=0.04), dyslipidemia (OR 3.4, P=0.04), and mixed racial background (OR 8.3, P=0.04). Factors associated with IMT measurements in the highest quartile were the presence of piHDL (OR 2.5, P=0.02), older age (OR 1.1, P<0.001), a higher body mass index (OR 1.07, P=0.04), a cumulative lifetime prednisone dose>or=20 gm (OR 2.9, P=0.04), and African American race (OR 8.3, P=0.001). CONCLUSION Dysfunctional piHDL greatly increases the risk of developing subclinical atherosclerosis in SLE. The presence of piHDL was associated with an increased prevalence of carotid plaque and with a higher IMT. Therefore, determination of piHDL may help identify patients at risk for atherosclerosis.


Arthritis & Rheumatism | 2011

Atherosclerosis in systemic sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Karen Au; Manjit K. Singh; Vijay Bodukam; Sangmee Bae; Paul Maranian; Rikke Ogawa; Brennan M. Spiegel; Maureen McMahon; Bevra H. Hahn; Dinesh Khanna

Rapid-onset cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major concern for many patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Cardiovascular events occur more frequently and with earlier onset in patients with SLE compared with healthy individuals. Traditional risk factors, such as altered lipid levels, aging and smoking, do not fully explain this increased risk of CVD, strongly suggesting that autoimmunity contributes to accelerated atherosclerosis. Altered immune system function is recognized as the primary contributor to both the initiation and progression of atherosclerosis. Multiple manifestations of autoimmunity, including changes in cytokine levels and innate immune responses, autoantibodies, adipokines, dysfunctional lipids, and oxidative stress, could heighten atherosclerotic risk. In addition, multiple SLE therapeutics seem to affect the development and progression of atherosclerosis both positively and negatively. SLE-specific cardiovascular risk factors are beginning to be discovered by several groups, and development of a comprehensive, clinically feasible biomarker panel could be invaluable for identification and treatment of patients at risk of developing accelerated atherosclerosis. Here, we discuss the epidemiology of CVD in SLE and the implications of immune system dysfunction on the development and progression, monitoring and treatment of atherosclerosis in individuals with this disease.


Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases | 2011

High plasma leptin levels confer increased risk of atherosclerosis in women with systemic lupus erythematosus, and are associated with inflammatory oxidised lipids

Maureen McMahon; Brian J. Skaggs; Lori Sahakian; Jennifer Grossman; John P. Fitzgerald; Nagesh Ragavendra; Christina Charles-Schoeman; Marissa Chernishof; Alan Gorn; Joseph L. Witztum; Weng Kee Wong; Michael H. Weisman; Daniel J. Wallace; Antonio La Cava; Bevra H. Hahn

Objectives Reverse cholesterol transport (RCT) is a major antiatherogenic function of high density lipoprotein (HDL). In the current work, the authors evaluated whether the RCT capacity of HDL from rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients is impaired when compared to healthy controls. Methods HDL was isolated from 40 patients with RA and 40 age and sex matched healthy controls. Assays of cholesterol efflux, HDLs antioxidant function and paraoxanase-1 (PON-1) activity were performed as described previously. Plasma myeloperoxidase (MPO) activity was assessed by a commercially available assay. Results Mean cholesterol efflux capacity of HDL was not significantly different between RA patients (40.2%±11.1%) and controls (39.5%±8.9%); p=0.75. However, HDL from RA patients with high disease activity measured by a disease activity score using 28 joint count (DAS28>5.1), had significantly decreased ability to promote cholesterol efflux compared to HDL from patients with very low disease activity/clinical remission (DAS28<2.6). Significant correlations were noted between cholesterol efflux and the DAS28 (r=−0.39, p=0.01) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate, (r=−0.41, p=0.0009). Higher plasma MPO activity was associated with worse HDL function (r=0.41/p=0.009 (antioxidant capacity); r=0.35, p=0.03 (efflux)). HDLs ability to promote cholesterol efflux was modestly but significantly correlated with its antioxidant function (r=−0.34, p=0.03). Conclusions The cholesterol efflux capacity of HDL is impaired in RA patients with high disease activity and is correlated with systemic inflammation and HDLs antioxidant capacity. Attenuation of HDL function, independent of HDL cholesterol levels, may suggest a mechanism by which active RA contributes to increased cardiovascular (CV) risk.


Arthritis & Rheumatism | 2009

Abnormal function of high-density lipoprotein is associated with poor disease control and an altered protein cargo in rheumatoid arthritis.

Christina Charles-Schoeman; Junji Watanabe; Yuen Yin Lee; Daniel E. Furst; Sogol Amjadi; David Elashoff; Grace S. Park; Maureen McMahon; Harold E. Paulus; Alan M. Fogelman; Srinivasa T. Reddy

OBJECTIVE Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is characterized by calcification, vasculopathy, and endothelial wall damage, all of which can increase the risk of developing atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether the risk of atherosclerosis is increased in SSc patients compared to healthy individuals. METHODS A systematic search was performed to identify studies published in PubMed and the Cochrane database up to May 2010, and recently published abstracts were also reviewed. Two reviewers independently screened articles to identify studies comparing the rate of atherosclerosis in SSc patients to that in healthy controls. The studies utilized one of the following methods: angiography, Doppler ultrasound to assess plaque and carotid intima-media thickness (IMT), computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, flow-mediated vasodilation (assessed as the FMD%), the ankle-brachial index, or autopsy. For carotid IMT and FMD% values, we computed a pooled estimate of the summary mean difference and explored predictors of carotid IMT using random-effects meta-regression. RESULTS Of the 3,156 articles initially identified, 31 were selected for systematic review. The meta-analysis included 14 studies assessing carotid IMT and 7 assessing brachial artery FMD%. Compared to healthy controls, SSc patients had a higher prevalence of coronary atherosclerosis, peripheral vascular disease, and cerebrovascular calcification. Meta-analysis showed that SSc patients had increased carotid IMT (summary mean difference 0.11 mm, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.05 mm, 0.17 mm; P = 0.0006) and lower FMD% (summary mean difference -3.07%, 95% CI -5.44%, -0.69%; P = 0.01) compared to controls. There was marked heterogeneity between the studies, which was mainly attributable to variations in disease duration and differences in the mean/median age between SSc patients and controls. CONCLUSION Patients with SSc have an increased risk of atherosclerosis compared to healthy subjects. Further studies should elucidate the mechanism of this increased risk.

Collaboration


Dive into the Maureen McMahon's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Bevra H. Hahn

University of California

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Daniel J. Wallace

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Lori Sahakian

University of California

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Alan Gorn

University of California

View shared research outputs
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge