| 1. |
- 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
|
|
| 2. |
- Carlsson, Per, 1951-, et al.
(författare)
-
Nationell modell för öppna vertikala prioriteringar inom svensk hälso- och sjukvård
- 2007
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- En arbetsgrupp med personer från Socialstyrelsen och PrioriteringsCentrum, andra organisationer som arbetat med vertikala prioriteringar såsom Landstinget i Östergötland, Stockholms läns landsting, Västra Götaland, Södra sjukvårdsregionen, Svenska Läkaresällskapet, Svensk sjuksköterskeförening och Vårdförbundet har tagit fram detta förslag. Förslaget har fortlöpande förankrats hos Förbundet Sveriges Arbetsterapeuter och Legitimerade Sjukgymnasters Riksförbund som kunnat lämna synpunkter på utformningen av odellen.Dessutom har rapporten varit föremål för granskning och diskussion vid ett möte med inbjudna representanter från övriga landsting, Läkemedelsförmånsnämnden och flera yrkesorganisationer. Synpunkter har också inkommit från ett seminarium som arrangerades av PrioNet, ett nätverk av personer med intresse för prioriteringar.Den arbetsmodell som beskrivs i kapitel 4 ska kunna användas i alla sammanhang där vertikala prioriteringar sker såsom aktiviteter som arrangeras av staten, landsting, kommuner, kliniker, professionella grupper eller motsvarande.Rapporten är skriven på ett sådant sätt att den ska kunna användas i första hand som ett stöd till dem som bedriver utvecklingsarbete rörande prioriteringar. Vi tror att innehållet måste anpassas till olika verksamheter eller personalgruppers specifika behov med hjälp av kompletterande exempel och vissa förenklingar. Texten måste givetvis också anpassas till de kunskaper och tidigare erfarenheter som den aktuella målgruppen har när det gäller arbete med öppna prioriteringar. Sådana situations- och verksamhetsanpassade versioner måste det åligga varje sjukvårdshuvudman och andra berörda organisationer att utarbeta. PrioriteringsCentrum, Socialstyrelsen och andra parter som deltagit aktivt i detta arbete kan givetvis vara behjälpliga i arbetet med att bearbeta denna rapport för olika målgrupper.Frågan om när och hur arbetet med vertikala prioriteringar ska bedrivas i praktiken kan också endast besvaras lokalt. Det är i första hand ett nsvar för huvudmännen att ta ansvar för implementeringen. Professionella organisationer har också en viktig roll. Myndigheter, universitet och kunskapscentra ska vara ett stöd till huvudmännen.Utgångspunkten i modellutvecklingen är Riksdagens beslut om prioriteringar. När det finns oklarheter om hur dessa riktlinjer ska omsättas i praktiken eller att praktiken kan förefalla i konflikt med principerna har vi påpekat detta.När man står inför ett val - oavsett om det handlar om att fördela nya resurser till olika ändamål eller att genomföra besparingar - kan det vara en fördel att kunna rangordna tänkbara valmöjligheter i enprioriteringsordning. I vår modell innebär prioritering enbart att de relevanta alternativen rangordnas. Konsekvenserna av denna rangordning är inte på förhand given utan kan ligga till grund såväl för tillskott av resurser som för ransonering av något slag.Vid en vertikal prioritering är det en fördel att organisera prioriteringsarbetet så att det utgår från en grov uppdelning i hälsoproblem/sjukdomsgrupper. En sådan uppdelning innebär i regel att flera organisationsenheter/kliniker, specialiteter eller yrkesgrupper berörs och man får en mer allsidig belysning av problemet. Dessutom utgår man från ett patient/befolkningsperspektiv vilket förefaller mer ändamålsenligt än ett organisatoriskt/personalperspektiv.Det som rangordnas och som någon väljer mellan benämner vi prioriteringsobjekt. Vi föreslår att prioriteringsobjektet utgörs av olika kombinationer av hälsotillstånd och åtgärder1. När det gäller att bestämma en lämplig detaljeringsgrad måste det avgöras utifrån sammanhanget prioriteringar ska göras i. En utgångspunkt är att fokusera på typfall, vård som representerar stor volym och kontroversiell vård.Alla former av vertikala prioriteringar ska baseras på de etiska principer som riksdagen beslutat ska gälla vid prioriteringar inom hälso- och sjukvården. De etiska principerna behöver dock göras kända, förtydligas och eventuellt kompletteras för att kunna omsättas i praktiska prioriteringar. Vidare anser vi att riksdagens fyra så kallade prioriteringsgrupper inte ska ingå i modellen.Människovärdesprincipen, som innebär att alla människor bör ha lika värde och samma rätt till vård oberoende av personliga egenskaper och funktioner i samhället, är den självklara utgångspunkten vid prioriteringar. När personliga egenskaper såsom ålder, kön, livsstil eller funktion hos en grupp är ett uttryck för att speciella behov föreligger så att nytta med insatserna blir olika ska de personliga egenskaperna kunna beaktas i en prioritering på gruppnivå. Frågan om hur externa effekter, d v s effekten av en insats för närstående och andra grupper än den individ som är direkt berörd av insatsen, ska värderas vid en prioritering behöver diskuteras ytterligare.Med behov av hälso- och sjukvård menas både tillståndets svårighetsgrad och den förväntade nyttan av en åtgärd. Som patient har man endast behov av sådana vårdåtgärder som man förväntas ha nytta av. Motsatt gäller att en människa enligt detta sätt att definiera behov inte behöver åtgärder som inte förbättrar hälsan och livskvaliteten, sådana som hon inte har nytta av. Här har givetvis hälso- och sjukvården ett ansvar att lotsa människor de kommer i kontakt med, och som far illa på något sätt, till andra lämpliga aktörer.Riksdagens riktlinjer, när det gäller kostnadseffektivitetsprincipen (tillämpad för enskilda patienter), är för begränsad för att vägleda vid vertikala prioriteringar som gäller prioritering på gruppnivå. Regeringen konstaterade redan i prioriteringspropositionen att det är angeläget att skilja på en kostnadseffektivitetsprincip som gäller val mellan olika åtgärder för den enskilde patienten (där principen kan tillämpas som utredningen föreslår) och på hälso- och sjukvårdens strävan efter en hög kostnadseffektivitet när det gäller vårdens verksamhet i allmänhet. Här stödjer vi oss på Riksdagens direktiv till Läkemedelsförmånsnämnden. Nämnden ska vid beslut om subvention (prioriteringar) av ett läkemedel bl a bedöma om det är kostnadseffektivt i ett samhälleligt perspektiv, vilket innebär att man ställer patientnyttan av läkemedlet mot kostnaden. I bedömningen ska kostnadseffektiviteten vägas samman med behovs- och solidaritetsprincipen och människovärdesprincipen.Den föreslagna arbetsmodellen överensstämmer i allt väsentligt med den arbetsmodell som används av Socialstyrelsens vid framtagning av nationella riktlinjer. Det är inte möjligt att rymma alla aspekter som kan vara aktuella att beakta vid beskrivning av en nationell arbetsmodell. Man måste därför utgå från modellen och fundera på vilka andra relevanta aspekter som dessutom bör vägas in. T ex kan den internationella klassifikationen för funktionsförmåga (ICF) användas som vägledning.På grund av den stora variationsrikedomen av effektmått i olika verksamheter och de begränsade erfarenheter som finns att arbeta med sådana explicita gränsvärden anser vi att det är för tidigt att rekommendera en enhetlig indelning i t ex risknivåer. Det är dock viktigt att de som arbetar med prioriteringar redovisar hur de har resonerat.SBU:s klassifikation för att gradera den vetenskapliga evidensen för en åtgärds effekt bör användas i första hand. Lokala prioriteringsprojekt med begränsade resurser till sitt förfogande föreslås redovisa bedömningen av det vetenskapliga underlaget med ord och referera till det kunskapsunderlag som använts. Evidensstyrkan bör endast uttryckas med siffror då man stöder en slutsats på en systematisk kunskapsöversikt från SBU eller en annan översikt av god kvalitet.Prioriteringsarbeten där hälsoekonomiska data finns tillgängliga bör tills vidare ansluta till Socialstyrelsens arbetssätt och ange kostnadseffektivitet i en skala från låg till mycket hög kostnad per vunnet levnadsår eller kostnad per kvalitetsjusterat levnadsår. Den hälsoekonomiska evidensen bör redovisas i enlighet med de principer som Socialstyrelsen tillämpar. I lokala projekt med små resurser eller svårigheter att konsekvent få fram uppgifter om kostnadseffektivitet rekommenderar vi att man åtminstone resonerar om kostnadseffektivitet i de fall prioriteringsordningen på ett avgörande sätt påverkas när kostnaderna vägs in.Tio nivåer bör användas för rangordning samt att rangordningslistan kompletteras med en ”icke-göra-lista” för metoder som inte bör utföras alls eller rutinmässigt samt en FoU-lista för metoder där det fortfarande saknas tillräcklig evidens för att kunna motivera ett införande i rutinsjukvården. Sammanvägningen sker företrädesvis med en kvalitativ metod i avsaknad av en invändningsfri kvantitativ/matematisk metod. Likaså tror vi att det för närvarade inte är möjligt att fastställa entydiga kriterier som avgör inom vilken rangordningsnivå ett prioriteringsobjekt ska hamna.Resultatet bör presenteras i form av en rangordningslista. De parametrar som ligger till grund för prioriteringen bör också på ett enhetligt sätt redovisas i sådana rangordningslistor som visas för andra. I detalj kan språket och utseendet av pedagogiska skäl behöva anpassas för respektive målgrupp.Gränser för vad som är acceptabel behovstäckning (vårdkvalitet, mängd liksom andel av de i patientgrupp som får tillgång till insatsen) är en regional och lokal fråga och ingår därför inte i den nationella modellen.
|
|
| 3. |
- Haahr, Thor, et al.
(författare)
-
Vaginal dysbiosis in pregnancy associates with risk of emergency caesarean section: a prospective cohort study
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Clinical Microbiology and Infection. - Oxford, United Kingdom : Elsevier. - 1198-743X .- 1469-0691. ; 28:4, s. 588-595
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: To investigate changes in vaginal microbiota during pregnancy, and the association between vaginal dysbiosis and reproductive outcomes.Methods: A total of 730 (week 24) and 666 (week 36) vaginal samples from 738 unselected pregnant women were studied by microscopy (Nugent score) and characterized by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. A novel continuous vaginal dysbiosis score was developed based on these methods using a supervised partial least squares model.Results: Among women with bacterial vaginosis in week 24 (n = 53), 47% (n = 25) also had bacterial vaginosis in week 36. In contrast, among women without bacterial vaginosis in week 24, only 3% (n = 18) developed bacterial vaginosis in week 36. Vaginal samples dominated by Lactobacillus crispatus (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20–0.60) and Lactobacillus iners (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23–0.68) in week 24 were significantly more stable by week 36 when compared with other vaginal community state types. Vaginal dysbiosis score at week 24 was associated with a significant increased risk of emergency, but not elective, caesarean section (OR 1.37, 955 CI 1.15–1.64, p < 0.001), suggesting a 37% increased risk per standard deviation increase in vaginal dysbiosis score.Conclusions: Changes in vaginal microbiota from week 24 to week 36 of pregnancy correlated with bacterial vaginosis status and vaginal community state type. A novel vaginal dysbiosis score was associated with a significantly increased risk of emergency, but not elective, caesarean section. This was not found for bacterial vaginosis or any vaginal community state type and could point to the importance of investigating vaginal dysbiosis as a nuanced continuum instead of crude clusters.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Franks, P. W., et al.
(författare)
-
Technological readiness and implementation of genomic-driven precision medicine for complex diseases
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of Internal Medicine. - : Wiley. - 0954-6820 .- 1365-2796. ; 290:3, s. 602-620
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- The fields of human genetics and genomics have generated considerable knowledge about the mechanistic basis of many diseases. Genomic approaches to diagnosis, prognostication, prevention and treatment - genomic-driven precision medicine (GDPM) - may help optimize medical practice. Here, we provide a comprehensive review of GDPM of complex diseases across major medical specialties. We focus on technological readiness: how rapidly a test can be implemented into health care. Although these areas of medicine are diverse, key similarities exist across almost all areas. Many medical areas have, within their standards of care, at least one GDPM test for a genetic variant of strong effect that aids the identification/diagnosis of a more homogeneous subset within a larger disease group or identifies a subset with different therapeutic requirements. However, for almost all complex diseases, the majority of patients do not carry established single-gene mutations with large effects. Thus, research is underway that seeks to determine the polygenic basis of many complex diseases. Nevertheless, most complex diseases are caused by the interplay of genetic, behavioural and environmental risk factors, which will likely necessitate models for prediction and diagnosis that incorporate genetic and non-genetic data.
|
|
| 6. |
- Gauffin, Håkan, et al.
(författare)
-
Maintaining motivation and health among recreational runners: Panel study of factors associated with self-rated performance outcomes at competitions
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. - : ELSEVIER SCI LTD. - 1440-2440 .- 1878-1861. ; 22:12, s. 1319-1323
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: To investigate health-related factors associated with self-rated race performance outcomes among recreational long-distance runners. Design: Panel study. Methods: Data were collected from runners one month before and after a community-level race event including distances from 8 to 42.2 km. The primary outcome measure was self-rated race performance outcome. The explanatory variables represented health complaints suffered during the build-up year, the pre-race month, and the race and among full marathon runners predicted objective performance outcome (mean pace equal to training pace or faster). Multiple logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with the self-rated performance outcome. Results: Two-hundred forty-five runners (29%) provided complete data sets. Seventy-four percent of the runners reached their desired race performance outcome. Achievement of the performance outcome was more likely when having avoided illness during the build-up and pre-race periods (OR = 3.8; 95% CI:1.8-8.0, p amp;lt; 0.001), having avoided per-race injury (OR=3.0; 95% CI:1.2-7.4, p = 0.02) and avoided perrace illness (OR= 4.1; 95% CI:1.3-15, p = 0.020). Having obtained the self-rated performance outcome was also associated with running a shorter distance (OR=3.6; 95% CI: 1.7-8.0,p = 0.001) and being younger than 50 years of age (OR= 2.4; 95% CI:1.1-5.3-8.3, p = 0.03). Having met the predicted objective performance outcome predisposed marathon runners to also obtain the self-rated performance outcome (OR= 4.7, 95% CI: 1.5-16, p amp;lt; 0.01). Conclusions: Having avoided illness during build-up and pre-race was positively associated with self-rated race performance outcome among recreational runners. Adjusting the desired performance outcomes with regard to recent illness and age may help recreational runners to more often achieve their goals and thereby prevent them from leaving the sport. (C) 2019 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 7. |
- Gawel, Danuta, 1988-, et al.
(författare)
-
Stor potential när genomikdatakan implementeras i klinisk rutin : [Clinical translation of genomic medicine]
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Läkartidningen. - : Sveriges Läkarförbund. - 0023-7205 .- 1652-7518. ; 118
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Recent technical developments and early clinical examples support that precision medicine has potential to provide novel diagnostic and therapeutic solutions for patients with complex diseases, who are not responding to existing therapies. Those solutions will require integration of genomic data with routine clinical, imaging, sensor, biobank and registry data. Moreover, user-friendly tools for informed decision support for both patients and clinicians will be needed. While this will entail huge technical, ethical, societal and regulatory challenges, it may contribute to transforming and improving health care towards becoming predictive, preventive, personalised and participatory (4P-medicine).
|
|
| 8. |
- Iwarsson, Erik, et al.
(författare)
-
Analysis of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal blood for detection of trisomy 21, 18 and 13 in a general pregnant population and in a high risk population - a systematic review and meta-analysis
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. - : WILEY-BLACKWELL. - 0001-6349 .- 1600-0412. ; 96:1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- IntroductionThe aim of this study was to review the performance of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for detection of trisomy 21, 18 and 13 (T21, T18 and T13) in a general pregnant population as well as to update the data on high-risk pregnancies. Material and methodsSystematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched. Methodological quality was rated using QUADAS and scientific evidence using GRADE. Summary measures of diagnostic accuracy were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model. ResultsIn a general pregnant population, there is moderate evidence that the pooled sensitivity is 0.993 (95% CI 0.955-0.999) and specificity was 0.999 (95% CI 0.998-0.999) for the analysis of T21. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for T13 and T18 was not calculated in this population due to the low number of studies. In a high-risk pregnant population, there is moderate evidence that the pooled sensitivities for T21 and T18 are 0.998 (95% CI 0.981-0.999) and 0.977 (95% CI 0.958-0.987) respectively, and low evidence that the pooled sensitivity for T13 is 0.975 (95% CI 0.819-0.997). The pooled specificity for all three trisomies is 0.999 (95% CI 0.998-0.999). ConclusionsThis is the first meta-analysis using GRADE that shows that NIPT performs well as a screen for trisomy 21 in a general pregnant population. Although the false positive rate is low compared with first trimester combined screening, women should still be advised to confirm a positive result by invasive testing if termination of pregnancy is under consideration.
|
|
| 9. |
- Jacobsson, Bo, et al.
(författare)
-
Förtidsbörd största perinatala problemet [Preterm delivery an overview on epidemiology, pathophysiology and consequences for the individual and the society]
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Läkartidningen. - : Läkartidningen Förlag AB. - 0023-7205 .- 1652-7518. ; 116
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Preterm delivery in Sweden constitutes 5.7 % of all deliveries, which is among the lowest rates in the world. There has not been any increase in the proportion of iatrogenic preterm deliveries during the last decades.The main hypothesis concerning the causality of preterm delivery is still that of the ascending infection from the vagina to the uterus and inflammation resulting in contractions, rupture of membranes and delivery. The mechanisms behind parturition at term are still elusive and this is also true for preterm delivery. The genetic contribution to preterm delivery is about 25-30 %. The first genes that are associated with preterm delivery and gestational duration have recently been published. Huge progress has been made in care of preterm born infants. Sweden has among the lowest rates of mortality and morbidity in the world, especially in the lowest gestational weeks. New modes of care, family-centered care and hospital-assisted home care, have empowered the parents and reduced the cost for care.
|
|
| 10. |
- Jacobsson, Leif, 1945-, et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of α-tocopherol and astaxanthin on LDL oxidation and atherosclerosis in WHHL rabbits
- 2004
-
Ingår i: Atherosclerosis. - : Elsevier BV. - 0021-9150 .- 1879-1484. ; 173:2, s. 231-237
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of α-tocopherol and astaxanthin on low-density lipoprotein (LDL) oxidation lag time and atherosclerotic lesion formation in Watanabe heritable hyperlipidemic (WHHL) rabbits. Thirty-one, 3-month-old WHHL rabbits were divided into three experimental groups. One group (n=10) was fed standard rabbit feed alone and served as a control, a second group (n=11) was supplied with the same feed containing 500mg α-tocopherol/kg and a third group (n=10) was given a feed containing 100mg astaxanthin/kg. Plasma lipids, lipoproteins and LDL oxidation lag time were followed for 24 weeks. At the end of the treatment period, the animals were killed and the thoracic aorta was used for evaluation of the degree of atherosclerosis. Colour photographs of the intimal surface of the vessel were taken for determination of the atherosclerotic area. Cross-sections of the thoracic aorta were used for histological examination and for determination of intimal thickening. Specimens of the vessel were used for determination of the tissue cholesterol content. Plasma cholesterol remained at a high level during the time of the experiment and there were no differences between the experimental groups. After 24 weeks, the LDL oxidation lag time was 53.7±1.7min, 109±4min (P<0.001) and 56.4±3.4min (P=0.47) in the control, α-tocopherol and astaxanthin groups, respectively. In the thoracic aorta, the atherosclerotic area was 80.7±5.1%, 67.1±6.7% (P=0.13) and 75.2±5.7% (P=0.49) in the control, α-tocopherol and astaxanthin groups, respectively. The intimal thickening was 45.6±3.2%, 44.0±4.1% (P=0.89) and 40.0±4.5% (P=0.33) in the control, α-tocopherol and astaxanthin groups, respectively. Finally, the cholesterol content was 107±9μmol/g, 95.7±11. 5μmol/g (P=0.31) and 101±5μmol/g (P=0.33) in the control, α-tocopherol and astaxanthin groups, respectively. It can be concluded that α-tocopherol but not astaxanthin prolonged the LDL oxidation lag time. The two antioxidative substances did not prevent atherogenesis in WHHL rabbits in this setting.
|
|
