| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Alminger, Marie, 1957, et al.
(författare)
-
In Vitro Models for Studying Secondary Plant Metabolite Digestion and Bioaccessibility
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. - : Wiley. - 1541-4337. ; 13:4, s. 413-436
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- There is an increased interest in secondary plant metabolites, such as polyphenols and carotenoids, due to their proposed health benefits. Much attention has focused on their bioavailability, a prerequisite for further physiological functions. As human studies are time consuming, costly, and restricted by ethical concerns, in vitro models for investigating the effects of digestion on these compounds have been developed and employed to predict their release from the food matrix, bioaccessibility, and assess changes in their profiles prior to absorption. Most typically, models simulate digestion in the oral cavity, the stomach, the small intestine, and, occasionally, the large intestine. A plethora of models have been reported, the choice mostly driven by the type of phytochemical studied, whether the purpose is screening or studying under close physiological conditions, and the availability of the model systems. Unfortunately, the diversity of model conditions has hampered the ability to compare results across different studies. For example, there is substantial variability in the time of digestion, concentrations of salts, enzymes, and bile acids used, pH, the inclusion of various digestion stages; and whether chosen conditions are static (with fixed concentrations of enzymes, bile salts, digesta, and so on) or dynamic (varying concentrations of these constituents). This review presents an overview of models that have been employed to study the digestion of both lipophilic and hydrophilic phytochemicals, comparing digestive conditions in vitro and in vivo and, finally, suggests a set of parameters for static models that resemble physiological conditions.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Calderon, Moises A, et al.
(författare)
-
EAACI: A European Declaration on Immunotherapy. Designing the future of allergen specific immunotherapy.
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Clinical and translational allergy. - : Wiley. - 2045-7022. ; 2:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Allergy today is a public health concern of pandemic proportions, affecting more than 150 million people in Europe alone. In view of epidemiological trends, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) predicts that within the next few decades, more than half of the European population may at some point in their lives experience some type of allergy.Not only do allergic patients suffer from a debilitating disease, with the potential for major impact on their quality of life, career progression, personal development and lifestyle choices, but they also constitute a significant burden on health economics and macroeconomics due to the days of lost productivity and underperformance. Given that allergy triggers, including urbanization, industrialization, pollution and climate change, are not expected to change in the foreseeable future, it is imperative that steps are taken to develop, strengthen and optimize preventive and treatment strategies.Allergen specific immunotherapy is the only currently available medical intervention that has the potential to affect the natural course of the disease. Years of basic science research, clinical trials, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses have convincingly shown that allergen specific immunotherapy can achieve substantial results for patients, improving the allergic individuals' quality of life, reducing the long-term costs and burden of allergies, and changing the course of the disease. Allergen specific immunotherapy not only effectively alleviates allergy symptoms, but it has a long-term effect after conclusion of the treatment and can prevent the progression of allergic diseases.Unfortunately, allergen specific immunotherapy has not yet received adequate attention from European institutions, including research funding bodies, even though this could be a most rewarding field in terms of return on investments, translational value and European integration and, a field in which Europe is recognized as a worldwide leader. Evaluation and surveillance of the full cost of allergic diseases is still lacking and further progress is being stifled by the variety of health systems across Europe. This means that the general population remains unaware of the potential use of allergen specific immunotherapy and its potential benefits.We call upon Europe's policy-makers to coordinate actions and improve individual and public health in allergy by:Promoting awareness of the effectiveness of allergen specific immunotherapyUpdating national healthcare policies to support allergen specific immunotherapyPrioritising funding for allergen specific immunotherapy researchMonitoring the macroeconomic and health economic parameters of allergyReinforcing allergy teaching in medical disciplines and specialtiesThe effective implementation of the above policies has the potential for a major positive impact on European health and well-being in the next decade.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Siegel, R., et al.
(författare)
-
Laparoscopic extraperitoneal rectal cancer surgery : the clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES)
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Surgical Endoscopy. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0930-2794 .- 1432-2218. ; 25:8, s. 2423-2440
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The laparoscopic approach is increasingly applied in colorectal surgery. Although laparoscopic surgery in colon cancer has been proved to be safe and feasible with equivalent long-term oncological outcome compared to open surgery, safety and long-term oncological outcome of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remain controversial. Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery might be efficacious, but indications and limitations are not clearly defined. Therefore, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) has developed this clinical practice guideline. METHODS: An international expert panel was invited to appraise the current literature and to develop evidence-based recommendations. The expert panel constituted for a consensus development conference in May 2010. Thereafter, the recommendations were presented at the annual congress of the EAES in Geneva in June 2010 in a plenary session. A second consensus process (Delphi process) of the recommendations with the explanatory text was necessary due to the changes after the consensus conference. RESULTS: Laparoscopic surgery for extraperitoneal (mid- and low-) rectal cancer is feasible and widely accepted. The laparoscopic approach must offer the same quality of surgical specimen as in open surgery. Short-term outcomes such as bowel function, surgical-site infections, pain and hospital stay are slightly improved with the laparoscopic approach. Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer is not inferior to the open in terms of disease-free survival, overall survival or local recurrence. Laparoscopic pelvic dissection may impair genitourinary and sexual function after rectal resection, like in open surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic surgery for mid- and low-rectal cancer can be recommended under optimal conditions. Still, most level 1 evidence is for colon cancer surgery rather than rectal cancer. Upcoming results from large randomised trials are awaited to strengthen the evidence for improved short-term results and equal long-term results in comparison with the open approach.
|
|
