| 31. |
|
|
| 32. |
- Carlsson, Lena M S, 1957, et al.
(författare)
-
Bariatric surgery and prevention of type 2 diabetes in Swedish obese subjects.
- 2012
-
Ingår i: The New England journal of medicine. - : Massachusetts Medical Society. - 1533-4406 .- 0028-4793. ; 367:8, s. 695-704
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Weight loss protects against type 2 diabetes but is hard to maintain with behavioral modification alone. In an analysis of data from a nonrandomized, prospective, controlled study, we examined the effects of bariatric surgery on the prevention of type 2 diabetes.
|
|
| 33. |
- Carlsson, Lena M S, 1957, et al.
(författare)
-
Life expectancy after bariatric surgery or usual care in patients with or without baseline type 2 diabetes in Swedish Obese Subjects.
- 2023
-
Ingår i: International journal of obesity (2005). - 1476-5497. ; 47, s. 931-8
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To determine life expectancy and causes of death after bariatric surgery in relation to baseline type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the prospective, Swedish Obese Subjects study.The study included 2010 patients with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery and 2037 matched controls, eligible for surgery. The surgery group underwent gastric bypass (n=265), banding (n=376), or vertical banded gastroplasty (n=1369). The control group (n=2037) received usual obesity care. Causes of death were obtained from the Swedish Cause of Death Register, case sheets and autopsy reports, in patients with baseline T2D (n=392 surgery patients/n=305 controls) or non-T2D (n=1609 surgery patients/n=1726 controls) during a median follow-up 26 years.In T2D and non-T2D subgroups, bariatric surgery was associated with increased life expectancy (2.1, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.2-4.0; and 1.6, 0.5-2.7 years, respectively) and reduced overall mortality (adjusted hazard ratio (adjHR)=0.77, 95% CI: 0.61-0.97; and 0.82, 0.72-0.94, respectively), and the treatment benefit was similar (interaction p=0.615). Bariatric surgery was associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality in both subgroups (adjHR=0.65, 95% CI: 0.46-0.91; and 0.70, 0.55-0.88, respectively (interaction p=0.516)).Bariatric surgery is associated with similar reduction of overall and cardiovascular mortality and increased life expectancy regardless of baseline diabetes status.
|
|
| 34. |
- Carlsson, Lena M S, 1957, et al.
(författare)
-
Long-term incidence of microvascular disease after bariatric surgery or usual care in patients with obesity, stratified by baseline glycaemic status: a post-hoc analysis of participants from the Swedish Obese Subjects study.
- 2017
-
Ingår i: The lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology. - 2213-8595. ; 5:4, s. 271-279
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Bariatric surgery is associated with remission of diabetes and prevention of diabetic complications in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes. Long-term effects of bariatric surgery on microvascular complications in patients with prediabetes are unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of bariatric surgery on incidence of microvascular complications in patients with obesity stratified by baseline glycaemic status.Patients were recruited to the Swedish Obese Subjects (SOS) study between Sept 1, 1987, and Jan 31, 2001. Inclusion criteria were age 37-60 years and BMI of 34 kg/m(2) or greater in men and 38 kg/m(2) or greater in women. Exclusion criteria were identical in surgery and control groups and designed to exclude patients not suitable for surgery. The surgery group (n=2010) underwent gastric bypass (265 [13%]), gastric banding (376 [19%]), or vertical-banded gastroplasty (1369 [68%]). Participants in the control group (n=2037) received usual care. Bodyweight was measured and questionnaires were completed at baseline and at 0·5 years, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, 6 years, 8 years, 10 years, 15 years, and 20 years. Biochemical variables were measured at baseline and at 2 years, 10 years, and 15 years. We categorised participants into subgroups on the basis of baseline glycaemic status (normal [fasting blood glucose concentration <5·0 mmol/L], prediabetes [5·0-6·0 mmol/L], screen-detected diabetes [≥6·1 mmol/L at baseline visit without previous diagnosis], and established diabetes [diagnosis of diabetes before study inclusion]). We obtained data about first incidence of microvascular disease from nationwide registers and about diabetes incidence at study visits at 2 years, 10 years, and 15 years. We did the main analysis by intention to treat, and subgroup analyses after stratification by baseline glycaemic status and by diabetes status at the 15 year follow-up. The SOS study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01479452.4032 of the 4047 participants in the SOS study were included in this analysis. We excluded four patients with suspected type 1 diabetes, and 11 patients with unknown glycaemic status at baseline. At baseline, 2838 patients had normal blood glucose, 591 had prediabetes, 246 had screen-detected diabetes, and 357 had established diabetes. Median follow-up was 19 years (IQR 16-21). We identified 374 incident cases of microvascular disease in the control group and 224 in the surgery group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·56, 95% CI 0·48-0·66; p<0·0001). Interaction between baseline glycaemic status and effect of treatment on incidence of microvascular disease was significant (p=0·0003). Unadjusted HRs were lowest in the subgroup with prediabetes (0·18, 95% CI 0·11-0·30), followed by subgroups with screen-detected diabetes (0·39, 0·24-0·65), established diabetes (0·54, 0·40-0·72), and normoglycaemia (0·63, 0·48-0·81). Surgery was associated with reduced incidence of microvascular events in people with prediabetes regardless of whether they developed diabetes during follow-up.Bariatric surgery was associated with reduced risk of microvascular complications in all subgroups, but the greatest relative risk reduction was observed in patients with prediabetes at baseline. Our results suggest that prediabetes should be treated aggressively to prevent future microvascular events, and effective non-surgical treatments need to be developed for this purpose.US National Institutes of Health, Swedish Research Council, Sahlgrenska University Hospital Regional Agreement on Medical Education and Research, and Swedish Diabetes Foundation.
|
|
| 35. |
- Carlsson, Lena M S, 1957, et al.
(författare)
-
Long-term incidence of serious fall-related injuries after bariatric surgery in Swedish obese subjects.
- 2019
-
Ingår i: International journal of obesity (2005). - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1476-5497 .- 0307-0565. ; 43:4, s. 933-937
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Obesity increases risk of falling, but the effect of bariatric surgery on fall-related injuries is unknown. The aim of this study was therefore to study the association between bariatric surgery and long-term incidence of fall-related injuries in the prospective, controlled Swedish Obese Subjects study. At inclusion, body mass index was≥34kg/m2 in men and ≥38kg/m2 in women. The surgery per-protocol group (n=2007) underwent gastric bypass (n=266), banding (n=376), or vertical banded gastroplasty (n=1365), and controls (n=2040) received usual care. At the time of analysis (31 December 2013), median follow-up was 19 years (maximal 26 years). Fall-related injuries requiring hospital treatment were captured using data from the Swedish National Patient Register. During follow-up, there were 617 first-time fall-related injuries in the surgery group and 513 in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio 1.21, 95% CI, 1.07-1.36; P=0.002). The incidence differed between treatment groups (P<0.001, log-rank test) and was higher after gastric bypass than after usual care, banding and vertical banded gastroplasty (adjusted hazard ratio 0.50-0.52, P<0.001 for all three comparisons). In conclusion, gastric bypass surgery was associated with increased risk of serious fall-related injury requiring hospital treatment.
|
|
| 36. |
|
|
| 37. |
- Carlsson, Per, et al.
(författare)
-
High-speed imaging of biomass particles heated with a laser
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis. - : Elsevier BV. - 0165-2370 .- 1873-250X. ; 103, s. 278-286
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In this work two types of lignocellulosic biomass particles, European spruce and American hardwood (particle sizes from 100 μm to 500 μm) were pyrolysed with a continuous wave 2 W Nd:YAG laser. Simultaneously a high-speed camera was used to capture the behavior of the biomass particle as it was heated for about 0.1 s. Cover glasses were used as a sample holder which allowed for light microscope studies after the heating. Since the cover glasses are not initially heated by the laser, vapors from the biomass particle are quenched on the glass within about 1 particle diameter from the initial particle. Image processing was used to track the contour of the biomass particle and the enclosed area of the contour was calculated for each frame.The main observations are: There is a significant difference between how much surface energy is needed to pyrolyses the spruce (about 75% more) compared to the hardwood. The oil-like substance which appeared on the glass during the experiment is solid at room temperature and shows different levels of transparency. A fraction of this substance is water soluble. A brownish coat is seen on the unreacted biomass. The biomass showed insignificant swelling as it was heated. The biomass particle appears to melt and boil at the front that is formed between the laser beam and the biomass particle. The part of the particle that is not subjected to the laser beam seems to be unaffected.
|
|
| 38. |
- Carlsson, Per-Inge, 1959-, et al.
(författare)
-
GJB2 (Connexin 26) gene mutations among hearing-impaired persons in a Swedish cohort
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Acta Oto-Laryngologica. - London, United Kingdom : Informa Healthcare. - 0001-6489 .- 1651-2251. ; 132:12, s. 1301-1305
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Conclusion: The most common mutation in the Swedish population was Connexin 26 (C×26) 35delG, which indicates that the percentage of Swedish persons with C×26 mutations and polymorphisms in the GJB2 gene among non-syndromic hearing-impaired (HI) persons is comparable to the rest of Europe. The results strongly support a Swedish policy to offer all children with diagnosed hearing impairment genetic tests for the C×26 35delG mutation.Objectives: The aim of the present study was to search for mutations in the GBJ2 gene among Swedish persons with non-syndromic hearing impairment to further clarify how common these mutations are in Sweden, one of the northernmost countries in Europe.Methods: Seventy-nine patients with non-syndromic hearing impairment participated in the study. For 87% of the participants, a pure tone audiogram showed a severe or profound hearing impairment. Dried blood spots on filter paper, taken at 3-5 days of age in the Swedish nationwide neonatal screening programme for congenital disorders and saved in a biobank, were used for the molecular genetic analyses.Results: The total number of subjects with one or two pathologic mutations or a mutation of unknown consequence found in the GJB2 gene was 28 of 79 (35%). Nineteen (19) persons (24%) were homozygotes for the 35delG mutation.
|
|
| 39. |
|
|
| 40. |
- Carlsson, Per, 1951-, et al.
(författare)
-
National Model for Transparent Vertical Prioritisation in Swedish Health Care
- 2007
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The proposed national model described in this report has been developed by a working group comprised of staff from the National Board of Health and Welfare, the National Centre for Priority Setting in Health Care, and other organisations involved in vertical prioritisation – including the Östergötland County Council, Stockholm County Council, Västra Götaland, the Health Services Region of Southern Sweden, the Swedish Society of Medicine, the Swedish Society of Nursing, and the Swedish Association of Health Professionals. Throughout the process of designing the model, the Swedish Federation of Occupational Therapists and the Swedish Association of Registered Physiotherapists were regularly informed and given opportunities to review and comment on the proposal. Furthermore, the report was reviewed and discussed at a meeting with invited representatives from the other county councils, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Board, and several professional interest groups. Viewpoints were also obtained at a seminar arranged by PrioNet, a network of individuals interested in prioritisation.Potentially, the working model described in Chapter 4 could be used in any context where vertical prioritisation takes place, e.g. activities arranged by the state, county councils, municipalities, hospital departments, and professional groups.This report is designed to be a useful tool for those working on development projects in priority setting. We believe that the contents must be adapted, with the help of relevant examples and some simplifications; to fit the specific needs of different projects or groups. The text must also be adapted to a target group’s knowledge and previous experience in dealing with transparent priority setting. It must be the responsibility of each provider and other affected organisation to adapt the material to the given situation and project. The National Centre for Priority Setting in Health Care, the National Board of Health and Welfare, and others who have participated actively in this effort can be helpful to various target groups in adapting this report.When and how to engage in practically implementing vertical prioritisation are questions that need to be answered at the local level. Primarily, it is the duty of the local authorities/providers to take responsibility for implementation. Professional organisations also play an important role. Public agencies, universities, and knowledge centres should be sources of support for the local authorities/providers.The Riksdag’s resolution on prioritisation served as the foundation for developing the model.Where there are areas of uncertainty in how to translate these guidelines in practice, or where practical implementation might conflict with the principles, we have pointed this out.Our conclusions and proposals are the following:When facing a choice – regardless of whether it involves allocating new resources for different purposes, or to implement cutbacks – it can be advantageous to rank the possible choices in order of priority. In our model, only the relevant options can be ranked by priority. The consequences of this ranking are not obvious at the outset, but can serve as a basis either to allocate more resources or ration by some means.In vertical prioritisation, it is advantageous to organise the prioritization process starting from a general categorisation of health problems/disease groups. As a rule, these categories cover many organisational units/clinical departments, specialties, or professional groups, thus providing a more multidimensional view of the problem. Furthermore, this allows the process to start from a patient/population perspective, which appears to be more goal-oriented than an organisational/staff perspective.That which is ranked, i.e. one of the choices, we refer to as a prioritization object. We suggest that prioritisation objects consist of different combinations of health conditions and interventions.1 When deciding on the appropriate level of detail, the decision must be based on the context in which prioritisation is carried out. A starting point would be to focus on typical cases, large-volumes services, and controversial care.All forms of vertical prioritisation should be based on the ethical principles that the Riksdag decided should apply in prioritising health services. However, these ethical principles must be made known, clarified, and perhaps complemented before they can be applied to practical priority setting. Furthermore, we believe that the Riksdag’s four so-called priority groups should not be part of the model.The human dignity principle, i.e. that all people should have equal value and equal rights to care irrespective of their personal characteristics and function in society, is the undisputed cornerstone in priority setting. When personal characteristics such as age, gender, lifestyle, or function of a group are expressions of the presence of special needs, so that benefits of the interventions are different, these personal characteristics could be addressed in a priority at the group level. Further discussion is needed regarding the question of how external effects (i.e. the effects of an intervention on families and groups other than the individual directly affected by the intervention) should be valued in priority setting.The concept of need in health care includes both the severity level of the condition and the expected benefits of intervention. As a patient, one needs only those interventions that can be expected to yield benefits. Based on this definition of need, a person does not need an intervention that does not improve health and quality of life, i.e. an intervention with no benefit. In such cases, health services have a responsibility to refer people who seek care for some type of problem, to other appropriate services.The Riksdag’s guidelines regarding the cost-effectiveness principle (applied to individual patients) are too limited to provide guidance for vertical prioritisation at the group level. From the outset, the Government’s bill (Priority Setting in Health Care) highlighted the importance of differentiating a cost-effectiveness principle that applied to choices among various interventions for the individual patient (where the principle can be applied as the Commission of Inquiry proposed) and the aim of health services to achieve high cost-effectiveness in health care generally. Here we also refer to the Riksdag’s directive to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Board. In its decisions on subsidising (prioritising) a drug, the Board should determine, e.g. whether the drug is cost effective from a societal perspective, which requires comparing the patient benefits of the drug to its cost. In such decisions, the cost effectiveness should be considered along with the needs and solidarity principle and the human dignity principle.The proposed working model essentially concurs with the working model used by the National Board of Health and Welfare in developing national guidelines. In describing a national working model, it is not possible to include every aspect that might be considered. Hence, one must start from the model and decide which other relevant aspects should be included. For instance, the International Classification on Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) can be used as guidance to describe the severity of health conditions.Due to the wealth of variety in outcome measures for different activities, and the limited experience in working with explicit threshold values, we believe would be premature to recommend standardised categories, e.g. risk levels. However, it is important that those working with prioritization describe their reasoning. Primarily, the categories applied by the Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU) to grade the scientific evidence of an intervention’s effects should be used. Local prioritisation projects with limited resources at their disposal should describe (text) their appraisal of the scientific evidence and reference the scientific sources used. The strength of evidence should be expressed in numbers only when supporting a conclusion of a systematic review by SBU, or other literature reviews of good quality.Prioritisation projects having access to health economic evaluation should, until further notice, adhere to the approach used by the National Board of Health and Welfare and present cost-effectiveness on a scale from low to very high cost per life-year gained or cost per quality-adjusted life-year. Economic evidence should be presented according to the principles applied by the National Board of Health and Welfare. In local projects with limited resources, or problems in consistently acquiring information on cost effectiveness, we recommend that the authors at least discuss cost effectiveness in cases where the priority ranking would be decisively affected when costs are weighed in.A 10-level ranking list should be used. The ranking list should be complemented by a “don’t do” list for methods that should not be used at all, or not used routinely, and a research and development (R&D) list for methods where the evidence still insufficient to motivate their use in standard practice. In the absence of an objective quantitative/mathematical method, a qualitative method should be used in the appraisal. Here too, we believe that it is not yet possible to establish standard criteria to determine within which ranking level a prioritisation object should fall.Results should be presented as a ranking list. The parameters used as a basis for prioritisation should also be presented in a uniform manner in ranking lists that are shared with other parties. For pedagogic reasons, details concerning language and format need to be adapted to the respective target groups.Thresholds for what constitutes an acceptable coverage of need (care quality, volume, and percentage of the patient group with access to services) a
|
|
