| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Adlercreutz, Axel, et al.
(författare)
-
Labour law in Sweden
- 2015
-
Bok (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 3. |
- Adlercreutz, Axel, et al.
(författare)
-
Labour Law in Sweden
- 2021. - 3
-
Bok (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Baldeh, Tejan, et al.
(författare)
-
Development and use of health outcome descriptors : a guideline development case study
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. - : BioMed Central. - 1477-7525. ; 18:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: During healthcare guideline development, panel members often have implicit, different definitions of health outcomes that can lead to misunderstandings about how important these outcomes are and how to balance benefits and harms. McMaster GRADE Centre researchers developed ‘health outcome descriptors’ for standardizing descriptions of health outcomes and overcoming these problems to support the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC) Guideline Development Group (GDG). We aimed to determine which aspects of the development, content, and use of health outcome descriptors were valuable to guideline developers.Methods: We developed 24 health outcome descriptors related to breast cancer screening and diagnosis for the European Commission Breast Guideline Development Group (GDG). Eighteen GDG members provided feedback in written format or in interviews. We then evaluated the process and conducted two health utility rating surveys.Results: Feedback from GDG members revealed that health outcome descriptors are probably useful for developing recommendations and improving transparency of guideline methods. Time commitment, methodology training, and need for multidisciplinary expertise throughout development were considered important determinants of the process. Comparison of the two health utility surveys showed a decrease in standard deviation in the second survey across 21 (88%) of the outcomes.Conclusions: Health outcome descriptors are feasible and should be developed prior to the outcome prioritization step in the guideline development process. Guideline developers should involve a subgroup of multidisciplinary experts in all stages of development and ensure all guideline panel members are trained in guideline methodology that includes understanding the importance of defining and understanding the outcomes of interest.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Carlsson, Axel C., et al.
(författare)
-
Association of soluble tumor necrosis factor receptors 1 and 2 with nephropathy, cardiovascular events, and total mortality in type 2 diabetes
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Cardiovascular Diabetology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1475-2840. ; 15
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Soluble tumor necrosis factor receptors 1 and 2 (sTNFR1 and sTNFR2) contribute to experimental diabetic kidney disease, a condition with substantially increased cardiovascular risk when present in patients. Therefore, we aimed to explore the levels of sTNFRs, and their association with prevalent kidney disease, incident cardiovascular disease, and risk of mortality independently of baseline kidney function and microalbuminuria in a cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes. In pre-defined secondary analyses we also investigated whether the sTNFRs predict adverse outcome in the absence of diabetic kidney disease.METHODS: The CARDIPP study, a cohort study of 607 diabetes patients [mean age 61 years, 44 % women, 45 cardiovascular events (fatal/non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke) and 44 deaths during follow-up (mean 7.6 years)] was used.RESULTS: Higher sTNFR1 and sTNFR2 were associated with higher odds of prevalent kidney disease [odd ratio (OR) per standard deviation (SD) increase 1.60, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.32-1.93, p < 0.001 and OR 1.54, 95 % CI 1.21-1.97, p = 0.001, respectively]. In Cox regression models adjusting for age, sex, glomerular filtration rate and urinary albumin/creatinine ratio, higher sTNFR1 and sTNFR2 predicted incident cardiovascular events [hazard ratio (HR) per SD increase, 1.66, 95 % CI 1.29-2.174, p < 0.001 and HR 1.47, 95 % CI 1.13-1.91, p = 0.004, respectively]. Results were similar in separate models with adjustments for inflammatory markers, HbA1c, or established cardiovascular risk factors, or when participants with diabetic kidney disease at baseline were excluded (p < 0.01 for all). Both sTNFRs were associated with mortality.CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATIONS: Higher circulating sTNFR1 and sTNFR2 are associated with diabetic kidney disease, and predicts incident cardiovascular disease and mortality independently of microalbuminuria and kidney function, even in those without kidney disease. Our findings support the clinical utility of sTNFRs as prognostic markers in type 2 diabetes.
|
|
| 10. |
- Carlsson, Axel C, et al.
(författare)
-
Growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) is a potential biomarker of both diabetic kidney disease and future cardiovascular events in cohorts of individuals with type 2 diabetes : a proteomics approach
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences. - : Uppsala Medical Society. - 0300-9734 .- 2000-1967. ; 25:1, s. 37-43
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is a leading risk factor for end-stage renal disease and is one of the most important risk factors for cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes. It is possible that novel markers portraying the pathophysiological underpinning processes may be useful.Aim: To investigate the associations between 80 circulating proteins, measured by a proximity extension assay, and prevalent DKD and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in type 2 diabetes.Methods: We randomly divided individuals with type 2 diabetes from three cohorts into a two-thirds discovery and one-third replication set (total n = 813, of whom 231 had DKD defined by estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mg/mL/1.73 m2 and/or urinary albumin-creatinine ratio ≥3 g/mol). Proteins associated with DKD were also assessed as predictors for incident major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in persons with DKD at baseline.Results: Four proteins were positively associated with DKD in models adjusted for age, sex, cardiovascular risk factors, glucose control, and diabetes medication: kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1, odds ratio [OR] per standard deviation increment, 1.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-2.14); growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15, OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.16-1.69); myoglobin (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.30-1.91), and matrix metalloproteinase 10 (MMP-10, OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.17-1.74). In patients with DKD, GDF-15 was significantly associated with increased risk of MACE after adjustments for baseline age, sex, microalbuminuria, and kidney function and (59 MACE events during 7 years follow-up, hazard ratio per standard deviation increase 1.43 [95% CI 1.03-1.98]) but not after further adjustments for cardiovascular risk factors.Conclusion: Our proteomics approach confirms and extends previous associations of higher circulating levels of GDF-15 with both micro- and macrovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. Our data encourage additional studies evaluating the clinical utility of our findings.
|
|
