| 1. |
- Tur, C, et al.
(författare)
-
The risk of infections for multiple sclerosis and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder disease-modifying treatments: Eighth European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis Focused Workshop Review. April 2021
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England). - : SAGE Publications. - 1477-0970 .- 1352-4585. ; 28:9, s. 1424-1456
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Over the recent years, the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) has evolved very rapidly and a large number of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) are now available. However, most DMTs are associated with adverse events, the most frequent of which being infections. Consideration of all DMT-associated risks facilitates development of risk mitigation strategies. An international focused workshop with expert-led discussions was sponsored by the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) and was held in April 2021 to review our current knowledge about the risk of infections associated with the use of DMTs for people with MS and NMOSD and corresponding risk mitigation strategies. The workshop addressed DMT-associated infections in specific populations, such as children and pregnant women with MS, or people with MS who have other comorbidities or live in regions with an exceptionally high infection burden. Finally, we reviewed the topic of DMT-associated infectious risks in the context of the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Herein, we summarize available evidence and identify gaps in knowledge which justify further research.
|
|
| 2. |
- Hayden, JA, et al.
(författare)
-
Exercise treatment effect modifiers in persistent low back pain: an individual participant data meta-analysis of 3514 participants from 27 randomised controlled trials
- 2020
-
Ingår i: British journal of sports medicine. - : BMJ. - 1473-0480 .- 0306-3674. ; 54:21, s. 1277-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Low back pain is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Exercise therapy is widely recommended to treat persistent non-specific low back pain. While evidence suggests exercise is, on average, moderately effective, there remains uncertainty about which individuals might benefit the most from exercise.MethodsIn parallel with a Cochrane review update, we requested individual participant data (IPD) from high-quality randomised clinical trials of adults with our two primary outcomes of interest, pain and functional limitations, and calculated global recovery. We compiled a master data set including baseline participant characteristics, exercise and comparison characteristics, and outcomes at short-term, moderate-term and long-term follow-up. We conducted descriptive analyses and one-stage IPD meta-analysis using multilevel mixed-effects regression of the overall treatment effect and prespecified potential treatment effect modifiers.ResultsWe received IPD for 27 trials (3514 participants). For studies included in this analysis, compared with no treatment/usual care, exercise therapy on average reduced pain (mean effect/100 (95% CI) −10.7 (−14.1 to –7.4)), a result compatible with a clinically important 20% smallest worthwhile effect. Exercise therapy reduced functional limitations with a clinically important 23% improvement (mean effect/100 (95% CI) −10.2 (−13.2 to –7.3)) at short-term follow-up. Not having heavy physical demands at work and medication use for low back pain were potential treatment effect modifiers—these were associated with superior exercise outcomes relative to non-exercise comparisons. Lower body mass index was also associated with better outcomes in exercise compared with no treatment/usual care. This study was limited by inconsistent availability and measurement of participant characteristics.ConclusionsThis study provides potentially useful information to help treat patients and design future studies of exercise interventions that are better matched to specific subgroups.Protocol publicationhttps://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-64
|
|
| 3. |
- Fischer, Carolyn, et al.
(författare)
-
The Legal and Economic Case for an Auction Reserve Price in the EU Emissions Trading System
- 2020
-
Ingår i: The Columbia journal of European law. - 1076-6715. ; 26:2, s. 1-28
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- When it first launched in 2005, the European Union emissions trading system (EU ETS) expected to see carbon dioxide prices of around €30/ton and be a cornerstone of the EU's climate policy. The reality was a cascade of falling prices, a ballooning privately held emissions bank, and a decade of muted incentives for investment in the technology and innovation necessary to achieve long-term climate goals. The European Commission responded with various administrative measures, including postponing the introduction of allowances (“backloading”) and using a quantity-based criterion for regulating future allowance sales (“the market stability reserve”). While prices have now begun to recover, it is far from clear whether these measures are sufficient to adequately support the price of carbon dioxide into the future. In the meantime, governments outside the EU ETS have begun turning away from carbon pricing and adopting overlapping regulatory measures that reinforce low prices. Unfortunately, however, this further undermines confidence in market-based mechanisms for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Other carbon markets have responded to such by introducing an auction reserve price that sets a minimum price in allowance auctions, thus avoiding the unexpectedly low price outcomes experienced in the EU ETS. Opponents of instituting such an auction reserve price in the EU ETS express two main concerns. First, they fear that a minimum auction price would interfere with the quantity-based nature of the market. Second, they argue that a reserve price would be tantamount to a tax, thus triggering a burdensome decision rule requiring unanimity among EU Member States that would be difficult to overcome. This Article reviews the economic and legal arguments for and against an auction reserve price. Our economic analysis concludes that an auction reserve price is necessary to accommodate overlapping policies and for the allowance market to operate efficiently. Our legal analysis concludes that, inasmuch as an auction reserve price is not a “provision primarily of a fiscal nature,” nor would it “significantly affect a Member State's choice between different energy sources,” no legal barriers stand in the way of the introduction of an auction reserve price into the EU ETS. We then describe two ways by which a reserve price could be introduced into this system.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
