| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Norlund, L, et al.
(författare)
-
Reference intervals for the glomerular filtration rate and cell-proliferation markers : serum cystatin C and serum beta 2-microglobulin/cystatin C-ratio
- 1997
-
Ingår i: Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation. - : Informa UK Limited. - 0036-5513 .- 1502-7686. ; 57:6, s. 463-470
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Recent studies have indicated that serum and plasma cystatin C are better markers for glomerular filtration rate (GFR) than serum creatinine, ubiquitously used for this purpose. To fully exploit the value of serum and plasma cystatin C as GFR markers, reliable age and sex-correlated reference intervals are required. The present study comprised cystatin C determinations in plasma and sera from 259 individuals from a well-defined area in the southernmost part of Sweden. From demographic lists two men and two women were randomly selected from each one-year birth cohort above 20 years of age. No sex differences were found for plasma and serum cystatin C, whereas an increase in the cystatin C levels with age was noted, corresponding to the known age-related decrease in GFR. The following reference intervals are recommended for practical clinical use: S-Cystatin C (both sexes): 20-50 years, 0.70-1.21 mg l-1 and 50+ years, 0.84-1.55 mg l-1. The same samples were also used for determination of beta 2-microglobulin levels in order to calculate reference intervals for the beta 2-microglobulin/cystatin C-ratio, which is a more distinct marker for cell proliferation, particularly lymphoproliferation, than is the serum level of beta 2-microglobulin alone, since the ratio should be virtually uninfluenced by GFR. The beta 2-microglobulin/cystatin C-ratios were uninfluenced by sex and age and 1.45-2.43 is recommended as the serum reference interval for practical clinical use. Serum creatinine was determined in the same samples and the creatinine level was found to be strongly influenced by sex and weakly by age.
|
|
| 3. |
- Flodmark, Carl-Erik, et al.
(författare)
-
Laser beam measurement of abdominal sagittal diameter in obese children: a validation study.
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Pediatric obesity. - : Wiley. - 2047-6310 .- 2047-6302. ; 8:2, s. 112-117
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- What is already known about this subject Sagittal diameter (SAD), i.e. the mid height of the abdomen when lying down, has been reported to correlate to visceral fat, insulin resistance and cardiovascular risk factors in adults. SAD seems to be the best anthropometric predictor of cardiovascular risk, and also of more importance than waist circumference (WC) in adults. There has been no validation studies comparing SAD measured with anthropometric tools (e.g. ruler) to measurements made with more exact devices such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pediatric age. What this study adds This new reliable method is ideal for children due to limited body contact and no radiation. It is accurate, less expensive than MRI, and also easier to perform than measuring WC. It is easily available for screening purposes making future epidemiological studies possible evaluating health risks related to regional distribution of abdominal tissue. OBJECTIVES: Sagittal diameter (SAD) has been reported to correlate to visceral fat and cardiovascular risk factors. SAD is measured with the individual lying down, halfway between the lower rib margin and the iliac crest; it represents the mid-height of the abdomen. The aim of this study was to validate SAD measured using a recently-developed laser beam device (SAD(LDB) ) against SAD measured using MRI (SAD(MRI) ). METHODS: Of 48 obese children (25 boys, 23 girls) aged 9-11 years on the waiting list for obesity treatment, 34 agreed to a baseline measurement, which was followed by repeated measurements 6 and 12 months later in 31 and 22 children respectively. MRI was used to examine SAD(MRI) at 5 cm above (SAD(MRI) (,cra) ) and below (SAD(MRI) (,cau) ) the mid plane of the L4-5 intervertebral disc. RESULTS: Each of the differences SAD(LBD) - SAD(MRI) (,cau) and SAD(LBD) - SAD(MRI) (,cra) was subjected to a repeated-measurements ANOVA; the visit did not have a statistically significant effect in either case (p = 0.19 and p = 0.72, respectively). The difference SAD(LBD) - SAD(MRI) (,cau) was 1.50 on average (p < 0.0001; CI 1.26-1.74) while the corresponding figure for SAD(LBD) - SAD(MRI) (,cra) was 1.26 (p < 0.0001; CI 1.04-1.49). Regression of the difference on the mean gave slopes of -0.09 (p = 0.25) and -0.04 (p = 0.57) respectively. Prediction of SAD(MRI) from SAD(LDB) can be performed in different ways: by means of linear regression or by means of an additive correction. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, this laser device can be used instead of MRI to estimate SAD by using a simple correction.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Hansson, L, et al.
(författare)
-
Randomised trial of effects of calcium antagonists compared with diuretics and beta-blockers on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension : the Nordic Diltiazem (NORDIL) study
- 2000
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. - 0140-6736 .- 1474-547X. ; 356:9227, s. 359-365
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Calcium antagonists are a first-line treatment for hypertension. The effectiveness of diltiazem, a nondihydropyridine calcium antagonist, in reducing cardiovascular morbidity or mortality is unclear. We compared the effects of diltiazem with that of diuretics, beta-blockers, or both on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients. Methods In a prospective, randomised, open, blinded endpoint study, we enrolled 10 881 patients, aged 50-74 years, at health centres in Norway and Sweden, who had diastolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or more. We randomly assigned patients diltiazem, or diuretics, beta-blockers, or both. The combined primary endpoint was fatal and non-fatal stroke, myocardial infarction, and other cardiovascular death. Analysis was done by intention to treat. Findings Systolic and diastolic blood pressure were lowered effectively in the diltiazem and diuretic and beta-blocker groups (reduction 20.3/18.7 vs 23.3/18.7 mm Hg, difference in systolic reduction p<0.001). A primary endpoint occurred in 403 patients in the diltiazem group and in 400 in the diuretic and beta-blocker group (16.6 vs 16.2 events per 1000 patient-years, relative risk 1.00 [95% CI 0.87-1.15], p=0.97). Fatal and non-fatal stroke occurred in 159 patients in the diltiazem group and in 196 in the diuretic and beta-blocker group (6.4 vs 7.9 events per 1000 patient-years, 0.80 [0.65-0.99], p=0.04) and fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction in 183 and 157 patients (7.4 vs 6.3 events per 1000 patient-years, 1.16 [0.94-1.44], p=0.17). Interpretation Diltiazem was as effective as treatment based on diuretics, beta-blockers, or both in preventing the combined primary endpoint of all stroke, myocardial infarction, and other cardiovascular death.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
|
|
| 15. |
|
|
| 16. |
|
|
| 17. |
|
|
| 18. |
- Olsson, Anders, 1940-, et al.
(författare)
-
A 52-week, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, double-dummy study to assess the efficacy of atorvastatin and simvastatin in reaching low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride targets: The treat-to-target (3T) study
- 2003
-
Ingår i: Clinical Therapeutics. - 0149-2918 .- 1879-114X. ; 25:1, s. 119-138
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Guidelines for the prevention of coronary heart disease call for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction as the primary target of treatment and reduction of triglycerides (TG) as an additional target. Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the ability of atorvastatin and simvastatin to reduce LDL-C and TG concentrations and to meet 3 target lipid levels: LDL-C less than or equal to2.6 mmol/L; TG less than or equal to1.5 mmol/L; and both LDL-C less than or equal to2.6 mmol/L and TG less than or equal to1.5 mmol/L. Methods: The Treat-to-Target (3T) Study was a 52-week, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group study. Using the double-blind, double-dummy technique, adult patients aged 35 to 75 years with cardiovascular disease and dyslipidemia, defined as LDL-C concentration less than or equal to4.0 mmol/L (greater than or equal to155 mg/dL), were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive once-daily oral treatment with 20 mg atorvastatin or 20 mg simvastatin. Fasting (12-hour) blood samples for the estimation of lipid levels and clinical laboratory values were collected after 4, 8, 12, 26, and 52 weeks. The dose was doubled after 12 weeks if the target National Cholesterol Education Program level of LDL-C (less than or equal to2.6 mmol/L [100 mg/dL]) was not reached at 8 weeks. Results: The intent-to-treat analysis included 552 patients (418 men, 134 women) randomized to receive atorvastatin and 535 (404 men, 131 women) randomized to receive simvastatin. The number of patients enrolled in the study allowed the evaluation of the drugs' effects on TG. Patient demographic characteristics were similar for the 2 treatment groups, and there were no differences in baseline lipid values. Compared with simvastatin, atorvastatin produced significantly greater reductions in LDL-C (8 weeks: -46% vs -40%, P < 0.001; 52 weeks: -49% vs -44%, P < 0.001) and in TG (8 weeks: -23% vs -14%, P < 0.001; 52 weeks: -24% vs -16%, P < 0.001). Compared with simvastatin-treated patients, a significantly greater number of atorvastatin-treated patients reached the LDL-C target after 8 weeks (45% vs 24%; P < 0.001). Fewer atorvastatin patients needed to have their dose doubled; nevertheless more atorvastatin patients reached the LDL-C target after 52 weeks (61% vs 41%; P < 0.001). Both statins were well tolerated. Muscular symptoms occurred in 12 patients (2.2%) in the atorvastatin group and in 13 patients (2.4%) in the simvastatin group. Conclusions: Atorvastatin 20 or 40 mg/d for up to 1 year of treatment was significantly more effective than simvastatin 20 or 40 mg/d in reducing LDL-C and TG levels and at achieving recommended lipid targets in this selected patient population with cardiovascular disease and dyslipidemia. Both statins were well tolerated.
|
|
