1. |
- Biró, Péter, et al.
(författare)
-
Building Kindey Exchange Programmes in Europe - An Overview of Exchange Practice and Activities
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Transplantation. - 1534-6080. ; 103:7, s. 1514-1522
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Bakgrund: Considerable differences exist among the living donor Kidney Exchange Programmes (KEPs) that are in use and being built in Europe, contributing to a variation in the number of living donor transplants [6]. Efforts of European KEPs to exchange (best) practices and share approaches to address challenges have, however, been limited.Methods: Experts from 23 European countries, collaborating on the ENCKEP COST Action, developed a questionnaire to collect detailed information on the functioning of all existing KEPs in Europe, as well as their opportunities and challenges. Following a comparative analysis, results were synthesised and interpreted by the same experts.Results: The practices, opportunities and challenges reported by 17 European countries reveal that some of the 10 operating programmes are mature, while others are in earlier stages of development. Over 1300 transplants were performed through existing KEPs up to the end of 2016, providing approximately 8% of their countries’ living kidney donations in 2015. All countries report challenges to either initiating KEPs or increasing volumes. Some challenges are shared, whilst others differ because of differences in context (eg, country size, effectiveness of deceased donor programme) and ethical and legal considerations (eg, regarding living donation as such, nonrelated donors, and altruistic donation). Transnational initiatives have started in Central Europe, Scandinavia, and Southern Europe.Conclusions: Exchange of best practices and shared advancement of national programmes to address existing challenges, aided by transnational exchanges, may substantially improve access to the most (cost) effective treatment for the increasing number of patients suffering from kidney disease.
|
|
2. |
- Fanouriakis, Antonis, et al.
(författare)
-
EULAR recommendations for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus : 2023 update
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. - : HighWire Press. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 83:1, s. 15-29
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: To update the EULAR recommendations for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) based on emerging new evidence.METHODS: An international Task Force formed the questions for the systematic literature reviews (January 2018-December 2022), followed by formulation and finalisation of the statements after a series of meetings. A predefined voting process was applied to each overarching principle and recommendation. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned, and participants finally provided their level of agreement with each item.RESULTS: The Task Force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 13 recommendations, concerning the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), glucocorticoids (GC), immunosuppressive drugs (ISDs) (including methotrexate, mycophenolate, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide (CYC)), calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs, cyclosporine, tacrolimus, voclosporin) and biologics (belimumab, anifrolumab, rituximab). Advice is also provided on treatment strategies and targets of therapy, assessment of response, combination and sequential therapies, and tapering of therapy. HCQ is recommended for all patients with lupus at a target dose 5 mg/kg real body weight/day, considering the individual's risk for flares and retinal toxicity. GC are used as 'bridging therapy' during periods of disease activity; for maintenance treatment, they should be minimised to equal or less than 5 mg/day (prednisone equivalent) and, when possible, withdrawn. Prompt initiation of ISDs (methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate) and/or biological agents (anifrolumab, belimumab) should be considered to control the disease and facilitate GC tapering/discontinuation. CYC and rituximab should be considered in organ-threatening and refractory disease, respectively. For active lupus nephritis, GC, mycophenolate or low-dose intravenous CYC are recommended as anchor drugs, and add-on therapy with belimumab or CNIs (voclosporin or tacrolimus) should be considered. Updated specific recommendations are also provided for cutaneous, neuropsychiatric and haematological disease, SLE-associated antiphospholipid syndrome, kidney protection, as well as preventative measures for infections, osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease.CONCLUSION: The updated recommendations provide consensus guidance on the management of SLE, combining evidence and expert opinion.
|
|
3. |
- Farmakis, Dimitrios, et al.
(författare)
-
Impact of left ventricular ejection fraction phenotypes on healthcare resource utilization in hospitalized heart failure: a secondary analysis of REPORT-HF
- 2023
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Heart Failure. - : WILEY. - 1388-9842 .- 1879-0844. ; 25:6, s. 818-828
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aim Evidence on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) for hospitalized patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced (HFrEF), mildly reduced (HFmrEF) and preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction is limited.Methods and results We analysed HCRU in relation to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) phenotypes, clinical features and in-hospital and 12-month outcomes in 16 943 patients hospitalized for HF in a worldwide registry. HFrEF was more prevalent (53%) than HFmrEF (17%) or HFpEF (30%). Patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF were older, more often women, with milder symptoms and more comorbidities, but differences were not pronounced. HCRU was high in all three groups; two or more in- and out-of-hospital services were required by 51%, 49% and 52% of patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF and HFpEF, respectively, and intensive care unit by 41%, 41% and 37%, respectively. Hospitalization length was similar (median, 8 days). Discharge prescription of neurohormonal inhibitors was <80% for each agent in HFrEF and only slightly lower in HFmrEF and HFpEF (74% and 67%, respectively, for beta-blockers). Compared to HFrEF, 12-month all-cause and cardiovascular mortality were lower for HFmrEF (adjusted hazard ratios 0.78 [95% confidence interval 0.59-0.71] and 0.80 [0.70-0.92]) and HFpEF (0.64 [0.59-0.87] and 0.63 [0.56-0.71]); 12-month HF hospitalization was also lower for HFpEF and HFmrEF (21% and 20% vs. 25% for HFrEF). In-hospital mortality, 12-month non-cardiovascular mortality and 12-month all-cause hospitalization were similar among groups.Conclusions In patients hospitalized for HF, overall HCRU was similarly high across LVEF spectrum, reflecting the subtle clinical differences among LVEF phenotypes during hospitalization. Discharge prescription of neurohormonal inhibitors was suboptimal in HFrEF and lower but significant in patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF, who had better long-term cardiovascular outcomes than HFrEF, but similar risk for non-cardiovascular events.
|
|