| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Cossarizza, A., et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines for the use of flow cytometry and cell sorting in immunological studies (second edition)
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Immunology. - : Wiley. - 0014-2980 .- 1521-4141. ; 49:10, s. 1457-1973
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- These guidelines are a consensus work of a considerable number of members of the immunology and flow cytometry community. They provide the theory and key practical aspects of flow cytometry enabling immunologists to avoid the common errors that often undermine immunological data. Notably, there are comprehensive sections of all major immune cell types with helpful Tables detailing phenotypes in murine and human cells. The latest flow cytometry techniques and applications are also described, featuring examples of the data that can be generated and, importantly, how the data can be analysed. Furthermore, there are sections detailing tips, tricks and pitfalls to avoid, all written and peer-reviewed by leading experts in the field, making this an essential research companion.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- van Bragt, JJMH, et al.
(författare)
-
Characteristics and treatment regimens across ERS SHARP severe asthma registries
- 2020
-
Ingår i: The European respiratory journal. - : European Respiratory Society (ERS). - 1399-3003 .- 0903-1936. ; 55:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Little is known about the characteristics and treatments of patients with severe asthma across Europe, but both are likely to vary. This is the first study in the European Respiratory Society Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Research collaboration, Patient-centred (SHARP) Clinical Research Collaboration and it is designed to explore these variations. Therefore, we aimed to compare characteristics of patients in European severe asthma registries and treatments before starting biologicals.This was a cross-sectional retrospective analysis of aggregated data from 11 national severe asthma registries that joined SHARP with established patient databases.Analysis of data from 3236 patients showed many differences in characteristics and lifestyle factors. Current smokers ranged from 0% (Poland and Sweden) to 9.5% (Belgium), mean body mass index ranged from 26.2 (Italy) to 30.6 kg·m−2 (the UK) and the largest difference in mean pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s % predicted was 20.9% (the Netherlands versus Hungary). Before starting biologicals patients were treated differently between countries: mean inhaled corticosteroid dose ranged from 700 to 1335 µg·day−1 between those from Slovenia versus Poland when starting anti-interleukin (IL)-5 antibody and from 772 to 1344 µg·day−1 in those starting anti-IgE (Slovenia versus Spain). Maintenance oral corticosteroid use ranged from 21.0% (Belgium) to 63.0% (Sweden) and from 9.1% (Denmark) to 56.1% (the UK) in patients starting anti-IL-5 and anti-IgE, respectively.The severe asthmatic population in Europe is heterogeneous and differs in both clinical characteristics and treatment, often appearing not to comply with the current European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society guidelines definition of severe asthma. Treatment regimens before starting biologicals were different from inclusion criteria in clinical trials and varied between countries.
|
|
| 5. |
- Cosmi, F., et al.
(författare)
-
Treatment with insulin is associated with worse outcome in patients with chronic heart failure and diabetes
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Heart Failure. - : Wiley. - 1388-9842. ; 20:5, s. 888-895
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims Up to one-third of patients with diabetes mellitus and heart failure (HF) are treated with insulin. As insulin causes sodium retention and hypoglycaemia, its use might be associated with worse outcomes. Methods and results We examined two datasets: 24 012 patients with HF from four large randomized trials and an administrative database of 4 million individuals, 103 857 of whom with HF. In the former, survival was examined using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for baseline variables and separately for propensity scores. Fine-Gray competing risk regression models were used to assess the risk of hospitalization for HF. For the latter, a case-control nested within a population-based cohort study was conducted with propensity score. Prevalence of diabetes mellitus at study entry ranged from 25.5% to 29.5% across trials. Insulin alone or in combination with oral hypoglycaemic drugs was prescribed at randomization to 24.4% to 34.5% of the patients with diabetes. The rates of death from any cause and hospitalization for HF were higher in patients with vs. without diabetes, and highest of all in patients prescribed insulin [propensity score pooled hazard ratio for all-cause mortality 1.27 (1.16-1.38), for HF hospitalization 1.23 (1.13-1.33)]. In the administrative registry, insulin prescription was associated with a higher risk of all-cause death [odds ratio (OR) 2.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.87-2.19] and rehospitalization for HF (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.32-1.53). Conclusions Whether insulin use is associated with poor outcomes in HF should be investigated further with controlled trials, as should the possibility that there may be safer alternative glucose-lowering treatments for patients with HF and type 2 diabetes mellitus.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Shen, L., et al.
(författare)
-
Insulin treatment and clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Heart Failure. - : Wiley. - 1388-9842 .- 1879-0844. ; 21:8, s. 974-984
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims Insulin causes sodium retention and hypoglycaemia and its use is associated with worse outcomes in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. We have investigated whether this is also the case in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods and results We examined the association between diabetes/diabetes treatments and the risk of the primary composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization, as well as other outcomes in adjusted analyses in CHARM-Preserved (left ventricular ejection fraction >= 45%), I-Preserve and TOPCAT (Americas) pooled. Of 8466 patients, 2653 (31%) had diabetes, including 979 (37%) receiving insulin. Patients receiving insulin were younger, had a higher body mass index, prevalence of ischaemic aetiology, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and use of diuretics, worse New York Heart Association class and signs and symptoms, and worse quality of life and renal function, compared to patients with diabetes not on insulin. Among the 1398 patients with echocardiographic data, insulin use was associated with higher left ventricular end-diastolic pressure and more diastolic dysfunction than in other participants. The primary outcome occurred at a rate of 6.3 per 100 patient-years in patients without diabetes, and 10.2 and 17.1 per 100 patient-years in diabetes patients without and with insulin use, respectively [fully adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) insulin-treated diabetes vs. other diabetes: 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23-1.63, P < 0.001]. The adjusted HR is 1.67 (95% CI 1.20-2.32, p = 0.002) for sudden death (insulin-treated diabetes vs. other diabetes). Conclusions Insulin use is associated with poor outcomes in HFpEF. Although we cannot conclude a causal association, the safety of insulin and alternative glucose-lowering treatments in HF needs to be evaluated in clinical trials.
|
|
| 8. |
- Gerotziafas, GT, et al.
(författare)
-
Guidance for the Management of Patients with Vascular Disease or Cardiovascular Risk Factors and COVID-19: Position Paper from VAS-European Independent Foundation in Angiology/Vascular Medicine
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Thrombosis and haemostasis. - : Georg Thieme Verlag KG. - 2567-689X .- 0340-6245. ; 120:12, s. 1597-1628
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- COVID-19 is also manifested with hypercoagulability, pulmonary intravascular coagulation, microangiopathy, and venous thromboembolism (VTE) or arterial thrombosis. Predisposing risk factors to severe COVID-19 are male sex, underlying cardiovascular disease, or cardiovascular risk factors including noncontrolled diabetes mellitus or arterial hypertension, obesity, and advanced age. The VAS-European Independent Foundation in Angiology/Vascular Medicine draws attention to patients with vascular disease (VD) and presents an integral strategy for the management of patients with VD or cardiovascular risk factors (VD-CVR) and COVID-19. VAS recommends (1) a COVID-19-oriented primary health care network for patients with VD-CVR for identification of patients with VD-CVR in the community and patients' education for disease symptoms, use of eHealth technology, adherence to the antithrombotic and vascular regulating treatments, and (2) close medical follow-up for efficacious control of VD progression and prompt application of physical and social distancing measures in case of new epidemic waves. For patients with VD-CVR who receive home treatment for COVID-19, VAS recommends assessment for (1) disease worsening risk and prioritized hospitalization of those at high risk and (2) VTE risk assessment and thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban, betrixaban, or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for those at high risk. For hospitalized patients with VD-CVR and COVID-19, VAS recommends (1) routine thromboprophylaxis with weight-adjusted intermediate doses of LMWH (unless contraindication); (2) LMWH as the drug of choice over unfractionated heparin or direct oral anticoagulants for the treatment of VTE or hypercoagulability; (3) careful evaluation of the risk for disease worsening and prompt application of targeted antiviral or convalescence treatments; (4) monitoring of D-dimer for optimization of the antithrombotic treatment; and (5) evaluation of the risk of VTE before hospital discharge using the IMPROVE-D-dimer score and prolonged post-discharge thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban, betrixaban, or LMWH.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Smith, ER, et al.
(författare)
-
Adverse maternal, fetal, and newborn outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection: an individual participant data meta-analysis
- 2023
-
Ingår i: BMJ global health. - : BMJ. - 2059-7908. ; 8:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Despite a growing body of research on the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy, there is continued controversy given heterogeneity in the quality and design of published studies.MethodsWe screened ongoing studies in our sequential, prospective meta-analysis. We pooled individual participant data to estimate the absolute and relative risk (RR) of adverse outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with confirmed negative pregnancies. We evaluated the risk of bias using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.ResultsWe screened 137 studies and included 12 studies in 12 countries involving 13 136 pregnant women.Pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection—as compared with uninfected pregnant women—were at significantly increased risk of maternal mortality (10 studies; n=1490; RR 7.68, 95% CI 1.70 to 34.61); admission to intensive care unit (8 studies; n=6660; RR 3.81, 95% CI 2.03 to 7.17); receiving mechanical ventilation (7 studies; n=4887; RR 15.23, 95% CI 4.32 to 53.71); receiving any critical care (7 studies; n=4735; RR 5.48, 95% CI 2.57 to 11.72); and being diagnosed with pneumonia (6 studies; n=4573; RR 23.46, 95% CI 3.03 to 181.39) and thromboembolic disease (8 studies; n=5146; RR 5.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 27.12).Neonates born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to be admitted to a neonatal care unit after birth (7 studies; n=7637; RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.08); be born preterm (7 studies; n=6233; RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.29) or moderately preterm (7 studies; n=6071; RR 2.92, 95% CI 1.88 to 4.54); and to be born low birth weight (12 studies; n=11 930; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.40). Infection was not linked to stillbirth. Studies were generally at low or moderate risk of bias.ConclusionsThis analysis indicates that SARS-CoV-2 infection at any time during pregnancy increases the risk of maternal death, severe maternal morbidities and neonatal morbidity, but not stillbirth or intrauterine growth restriction. As more data become available, we will update these findings per the published protocol.
|
|
