| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Biermann, F., et al.
(författare)
-
Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving Earth System Governance
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Science. - : American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). - 1095-9203 .- 0036-8075. ; 335:6074, s. 1306-1307
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The United Nations conference in Rio de Janeiro in June is an important opportunity to improve the institutional framework for sustainable development.
|
|
| 5. |
- Munch, Marie W., et al.
(författare)
-
Effect of 12 mg vs 6 mg of Dexamethasone on the Number of Days Alive Without Life Support in Adults With COVID-19 and Severe Hypoxemia The COVID STEROID 2 Randomized Trial
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). - : AMER MEDICAL ASSOC. - 0098-7484 .- 1538-3598. ; 326:18, s. 1807-1817
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Question What is the effect of 12 mg vs 6 mg of dexamethasone on the number of days alive without life support at 28 days in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia? Findings In this randomized trial that included 1000 patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, treatment with 12 mg/d of dexamethasone resulted in 22.0 days alive without life support at 28 days compared with 20.5 days in those receiving 6 mg/d of dexamethasone. This difference was not statistically significant. Meaning Compared with 6 mg of dexamethasone, 12 mg of dexamethasone did not statistically significantly reduce the number of days alive without life support at 28 days. This multicenter randomized clinical trial compares the effects of 12 mg/d vs 6 mg/d of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia. IMPORTANCE A daily dose with 6 mg of dexamethasone is recommended for up to 10 days in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, but a higher dose may benefit those with more severe disease. OBJECTIVE To assess the effects of 12 mg/d vs 6 mg/d of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A multicenter, randomized clinical trial was conducted between August 2020 and May 2021 at 26 hospitals in Europe and India and included 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 requiring at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation. End of 90-day follow-up was on August 19, 2021. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized 1:1 to 12 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 503) or 6 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 497) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 28 days and was adjusted for stratification variables. Of the 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, 5 are included in this analysis (the number of days alive without life support at 90 days, the number of days alive out of the hospital at 90 days, mortality at 28 days and at 90 days, and >= 1 serious adverse reactions at 28 days). RESULTS Of the 1000 randomized patients, 982 were included (median age, 65 [IQR, 55-73] years; 305 [31%] women) and primary outcome data were available for 971 (491 in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 480 in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group). The median number of days alive without life support was 22.0 days (IQR, 6.0-28.0 days) in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 20.5 days (IQR, 4.0-28.0 days) in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted mean difference, 1.3 days [95% CI, 0-2.6 days]; P = .07). Mortality at 28 days was 27.1% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 32.3% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.86 [99% CI, 0.68-1.08]). Mortality at 90 days was 32.0% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 37.7% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.87 [99% CI, 0.70-1.07]). Serious adverse reactions, including septic shock and invasive fungal infections, occurred in 11.3% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 13.4% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.83 [99% CI, 0.54-1.29]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, 12 mg/d of dexamethasone compared with 6 mg/d of dexamethasone did not result in statistically significantly more days alive without life support at 28 days. However, the trial may have been underpowered to identify a significant difference.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Alexander, Stephen P. H., et al.
(författare)
-
The Concise Guide to PHARMACOLOGY 2023/24: G protein-coupled receptors
- 2023
-
Ingår i: BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY. - : British pharmacological society. - 0007-1188 .- 1476-5381. ; 180, s. S23-S144
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Concise Guide to PHARMACOLOGY 2023/24 is the sixth in this series of biennial publications. The Concise Guide provides concise overviews, mostly in tabular format, of the key properties of approximately 1800 drug targets, and about 6000 interactions with about 3900 ligands. There is an emphasis on selective pharmacology (where available), plus links to the open access knowledgebase source of drug targets and their ligands (), which provides more detailed views of target and ligand properties. Although the Concise Guide constitutes almost 500 pages, the material presented is substantially reduced compared to information and links presented on the website. It provides a permanent, citable, point-in-time record that will survive database updates. The full contents of this section can be found at . G protein-coupled receptors are one of the six major pharmacological targets into which the Guide is divided, with the others being: ion channels, nuclear hormone receptors, catalytic receptors, enzymes and transporters. These are presented with nomenclature guidance and summary information on the best available pharmacological tools, alongside key references and suggestions for further reading. The landscape format of the Concise Guide is designed to facilitate comparison of related targets from material contemporary to mid-2023, and supersedes data presented in the 2021/22, 2019/20, 2017/18, 2015/16 and 2013/14 Concise Guides and previous Guides to Receptors and Channels. It is produced in close conjunction with the Nomenclature and Standards Committee of the International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology (NC-IUPHAR), therefore, providing official IUPHAR classification and nomenclature for human drug targets, where appropriate.
|
|
| 8. |
- Christopoulos, Arthur, et al.
(författare)
-
THE CONCISE GUIDE TO PHARMACOLOGY 2021/22: G protein-coupled receptors.
- 2021
-
Ingår i: British journal of pharmacology. - : Wiley. - 1476-5381 .- 0007-1188. ; 178 Suppl 1, s. S27-S156
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Concise Guide to PHARMACOLOGY 2021/22 is the fifth in this series of biennial publications. The Concise Guide provides concise overviews, mostly in tabular format, of the key properties of nearly 1900 human drug targets with an emphasis on selective pharmacology (where available), plus links to the open access knowledgebase source of drug targets and their ligands (www.guidetopharmacology.org), which provides more detailed views of target and ligand properties. Although the Concise Guide constitutes over 500 pages, the material presented is substantially reduced compared to information and links presented on the website. It provides a permanent, citable, point-in-time record that will survive database updates. The full contents of this section can be found at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/bph.15538. G protein-coupled receptors are one of the six major pharmacological targets into which the Guide is divided, with the others being: ion channels, nuclear hormone receptors, catalytic receptors, enzymes and transporters. These are presented with nomenclature guidance and summary information on the best available pharmacological tools, alongside key references and suggestions for further reading. The landscape format of the Concise Guide is designed to facilitate comparison of related targets from material contemporary to mid-2021, and supersedes data presented in the 2019/20, 2017/18, 2015/16 and 2013/14 Concise Guides and previous Guides to Receptors and Channels. It is produced in close conjunction with the Nomenclature and Standards Committee of the International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology (NC-IUPHAR), therefore, providing official IUPHAR classification and nomenclature for human drug targets, where appropriate.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Belpomme, D., et al.
(författare)
-
The growing incidence of cancer : Role of lifestyle and screening detection (Review)
- 2007
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Oncology. - : Spandidos Publications. - 1019-6439 .- 1791-2423. ; 30:5, s. 1037-1049
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- The increasing incidence of a variety of cancers after the Second World War confronts scientists with the question of their origin. In Western countries, expansion and ageing of the population, as well as progress in cancer detection using new diagnostic and screening tests cannot fully account for the observed growing incidence of cancer. Our hypothesis is that environmental factors play a more important role in cancer genesis than it is usually agreed: i) over the last 2-3 decades, alcohol consumption and tobacco smoking in men have significantly decreased; ii) obesity is increasing in many countries, but the growing incidence of cancer also concerns cancers not related to obesity nor to other lifestyle-related factors; iii) there is evidence that the environment has changed over the same time scale as the recent rise in cancer incidence, and that this change included the accumulation of many new carcinogenic factors in the environment; iv) genetic susceptibility to cancer due to genetic polymorphism cannot have changed over one generation and actually favours the role of exogenous factors through gene-environment interactions; v) age is not the unique factor to be considered since the rising incidence of cancers is seen across all age categories, including children; vi) the fetus is specifically vulnerable to exogenous factors. A fetal exposure during a critical window period may explain why current epidemiological studies may be negative in adults. We therefore propose that the involuntary exposure to many carcinogens in the environment contributes to the rising trend in cancer incidence.
|
|
