| 1. |
- Bäckman, Karin, et al.
(författare)
-
Vårdens alltför svåra val? : kartläggning av prioriteringsarbete och analys av riksdagens principer och riktlinjer för prioriteringar i hälso- och sjukvården
- 2007
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- PrioriteringsCentrum har på uppdrag av Socialstyrelsen genomfört en kartläggning av på vilket sätt hälso- och sjukvårdens huvudmän och andra centrala aktörer arbetar med prioriteringar och har utvärderat hur detta arbete överensstämmer med intentionerna i riksdagens beslut om prioriteringar. Vi har även analyserat innehållet i och tillämpningen av riksdagens riktlinjer för prioriteringar i hälso- och sjukvården. Det har skett genom en etisk analys och mot bakgrund av ett stort antal intervjuer i landsting och kommuner samt med representanter för statliga myndigheter och yrkesorganisationer och med ledning av vad som framkommit i tidigare uppföljningar. Vi föreslår i rapporten ett anta förändringar och förtydliganden av riktlinjerna.Vi kan konstatera att sättet att arbeta med prioriteringar i landsting och kommuner inte är helt olikt det som gällde när Prioriteringsdelegationen redovisade en motsvarande uppföljning år 2001. Fortfarande finns knappast några öppna beslut om fördelning och prioritering av resurser om man med öppenhet avser att beslutsfattaren medvetet överväger flera alternativ och att grunderna för besluten är kända för dem som önskar ta del av dem.I situationer då tillgängliga resurser inte befinner sig i paritet med önskvärda ambitioner får sjukvårdspersonalen ta det största ansvaret för att besluta om och genomföra ransonering av vården. Förutom på chefsnivå tycks dock sjukvårdpersonal fortfarande i liten utsträckning vara medveten om de etiska principer som enligt riksdagsbeslutet ska styra prioriteringar i vården. Få känner till den etiska plattformen med de tre etiska principerna. Lokala mallar eller styrdokument för prioriteringar är ovanliga. Det saknas nödvändiga förutsättningar för att tillämpa riksdagens prioriteringsbeslut och det finns inte heller några tydliga strategier för hur man vill skapa sådana förutsättningar inom landstingen.Den kommunala vård- och omsorgsverksamheten upplever sig fortfarande i ringa utsträckning berörd av den etiska plattformen och prioriteringsprinciperna. Någon gemensam prioritering mellan huvudmännen sker knappast alls.Medborgarna är i mycket liten utsträckning involverade i prioriteringsarbetet. Den ökade öppenheten gentemot brukare innebär oftast att viss information om prioriteringar sker genom traditionella kanaler som patientorganisationer, pensionärsråd och handikappråd och synpunkter inhämtas via allmänna patientenkäter medan klagomål hanteras genom patientnämnder.Vi har också funnit tydliga skillnader när det gäller hur arbetet med prioriteringar bedrivs idag jämfört med för sex år sedan. Genom Socialstyrelsen och Läkemedelsförmånsnämnden har staten tagit ledningen när det gäller att visa hur prioriteringar kan göras på ett systematiskt och öppet sätt. Detta arbete har resulterat i en tydlig metodutveckling. Idag finns det dessutom flera exempel på konkret utvecklingsarbete och samverkan mellan huvudmän kring det vidare begreppet kunskapsstyrd vård till vilket systematiska prioriteringar är starkt relaterat. Vi kan också notera olika initiativ till vertikala prioriteringar i verksamheten där det framförallt är läkarkåren som engagerat sig; men också enstaka försök med systematiska politiska prioriteringar. Det finns dessutom flera lovande utvecklingsprojekt rörande prioriteringar som initierats av och drivs av sjukvårdspersonal både lokalt och nationellt. Yrkesförbunden är också mer aktiva idag när det gäller att sprida kunskap om prioriteringar....
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Margolin, Sara, et al.
(författare)
-
A randomised feasibility/phase II study (SBG 2004-1) with dose-dense/tailored epirubicin, cyclophoshamide (EC) followed by docetaxel (T) or fixed dosed dose-dense EC/T versus T, doxorubicin and C (TAC) in node-positive breast cancer.
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Acta Oncologica. - : Informa Healthcare. - 0284-186X .- 1651-226X. ; 50:1, s. 35-41
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The aim of the study was to evaluate the feasibility of tailored and dose-dense epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel as adjuvant breast cancer therapy. Material and methods. Patients with node-positive breast cancer received either four cycles of biweekly and tailored EC (epirubicin 38-60-75-90-105-120 mg/m(2), cyclophosphamide 450-600-900-1200 mg/m(2)) followed by four cycles of docetaxel (60-75-85-100 mg/m(2)) (arm A) or the same regimen with fixed doses (E(90)C(600) + 4 → T(75) + 4) (arm B) or docetaxel, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (T(75)A(50)C(500)) every three weeks for six cycles (arm C). All patients received G-CSF support and prophylactic ciprofloxacin. Results. One-hundred and twenty-four patients were randomised in the study. In the A, B and C arm, 17% 19% and 3% of the patients had one or more cycles delayed due to side-effects whereas 24%, 5% and 15% experienced a grade 3 infection or febrile neutropenia. After the introduction of an extra week between the EC and T parts in the A and B arms, grade 3 hand-foot-skin reactions were reduced from 5 to 0.2%. Twenty-nine percent (A and B) and 20% (C) of the patients were hospitalised due to side-effects. Discussion. Dose-dense and tailored EC/T can be given with manageable toxicity and is after adjustment presently studied in the phase III Panther trial.
|
|
| 4. |
- Almstedt, Karin, 1980-, et al.
(författare)
-
Unfolding a folding disease: folding, misfolding and aggregation of the marble brain syndrome-associated mutant H107Y of human carbonic anhydrase II
- 2004
-
Ingår i: Journal of Molecular Biology. - Oxford : Elsevier. - 0022-2836 .- 1089-8638. ; 342:2, s. 619-633
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Most loss-of-function diseases are caused by aberrant folding of important proteins. These proteins often misfold due to mutations. The disease marble brain syndrome (MBS), known also as carbonic anhydrase II deficiency syndrome (CADS), can manifest in carriers of point mutations in the human carbonic anhydrase II (HCA II) gene. One mutation associated with MBS entails the His107Tyr substitution. Here, we demonstrate that this mutation is a remarkably destabilizing folding mutation. The loss-of-function is clearly a folding defect, since the mutant shows 64% of CO2 hydration activity compared to that of the wild-type at low temperature where the mutant is folded. On the contrary, its stability towards thermal and guanidine hydrochloride (GuHCl) denaturation is highly compromised. Using activity assays, CD, fluorescence, NMR, cross-linking, aggregation measurements and molecular modeling, we have mapped the properties of this remarkable mutant. Loss of enzymatic activity had a midpoint temperature of denaturation (Tm) of 16 °C for the mutant compared to 55 °C for the wild-type protein. GuHCl-denaturation (at 4 °C) showed that the native state of the mutant was destabilized by 9.2 kcal/mol. The mutant unfolds through at least two equilibrium intermediates; one novel intermediate that we have termed the molten globule light state and, after further denaturation, the classical molten globule state is populated. Under physiological conditions (neutral pH; 37 °C), the His107Tyr mutant will populate the molten globule light state, likely due to novel interactions between Tyr107 and the surroundings of the critical residue Ser29 that destabilize the native conformation. This intermediate binds the hydrophobic dye 8-anilino-1-naphthalene sulfonic acid (ANS) but not as strong as the molten globule state, and near-UV CD reveals the presence of significant tertiary structure. Notably, this intermediate is not as prone to aggregation as the classical molten globule. As a proof of concept for an intervention strategy with small molecules, we showed that binding of the CA inhibitor acetazolamide increases the stability of the native state of the mutant by 2.9 kcal/mol in accordance with its strong affinity. Acetazolamide shifts the Tm to 34 °C that protects from misfolding and will enable a substantial fraction of the enzyme pool to survive physiological conditions.
|
|
| 5. |
- Bartha, Erzsebet, et al.
(författare)
-
Could benefits of epidural analgesia following oesophagectomy be measured by perceived perioperative patient workload?
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. - : Wiley. - 0001-5172 .- 1399-6576. ; 52:10, s. 1313-1318
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: A controversy exists whether beneficial analgesic effects of epidural analgesia over intravenous analgesia influence the rate of post-operative complications and the length of hospital stay. There is some evidence that favours epidural analgesia following major surgery in high-risk patients. However, there is a controversy as to whether epidural analgesia reduces the intensive care resources following major surgery. In this study, we aimed at comparing the post-operative costs of intensive care in patients receiving epidural or intravenous analgesia.Methods: Clinical data and rates of post-operative complications were extracted from a previously reported trial following thoraco-abdominal oesophagectomy. Cost data for individual patients included in that trial were retrospectively obtained from administrative records. Two separate phases were defined: costs of pain treatment and the direct cost of intensive care.Results: Higher calculated costs of epidural vs. intravenous pain treatment, 1,037 vs. 410 Euros/patient, were outweighed by lower post-operative costs of intensive care 5,571 vs. 7,921 Euros/patient (NS).Conclusion: Higher costs and better analgesic effects of epidural analgesia compared with intravenous analgesia do not reduce total costs for post-operative care following major surgery.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Benson, Mikael, 1954, et al.
(författare)
-
DNA microarrays to study gene expression in allergic airways.
- 2002
-
Ingår i: Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology. - : Wiley. - 0954-7894 .- 1365-2222. ; 32:2, s. 301-8
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Allergic rhinitis results from interactions between a large number of cells and mediators in different compartments of the body. DNA microarrays allow simultaneous measurement of expression of thousands of genes in the same tissue sample.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- 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
|
|
