| 1. |
- Chatzikonstantinou, T, et al.
(författare)
-
COVID-19 severity and mortality in patients with CLL: an update of the international ERIC and Campus CLL study
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Leukemia. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1476-5551 .- 0887-6924. ; 35:12, s. 3444-3454
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) may be more susceptible to Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to age, disease, and treatment-related immunosuppression. We aimed to assess risk factors of outcome and elucidate the impact of CLL-directed treatments on the course of COVID-19. We conducted a retrospective, international study, collectively including 941 patients with CLL and confirmed COVID-19. Data from the beginning of the pandemic until March 16, 2021, were collected from 91 centers. The risk factors of case fatality rate (CFR), disease severity, and overall survival (OS) were investigated. OS analysis was restricted to patients with severe COVID-19 (definition: hospitalization with need of oxygen or admission into an intensive care unit). CFR in patients with severe COVID-19 was 38.4%. OS was inferior for patients in all treatment categories compared to untreated (p < 0.001). Untreated patients had a lower risk of death (HR = 0.54, 95% CI:0.41–0.72). The risk of death was higher for older patients and those suffering from cardiac failure (HR = 1.03, 95% CI:1.02–1.04; HR = 1.79, 95% CI:1.04–3.07, respectively). Age, CLL-directed treatment, and cardiac failure were significant risk factors of OS. Untreated patients had a better chance of survival than those on treatment or recently treated.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Hrad, M., et al.
(författare)
-
Determination of methane emissions from biogas plants, using different quantification methods
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. - : Elsevier B.V.. - 0168-1923 .- 1873-2240. ; 326
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Reliable and comparable quantification methods are needed for assessing the effectiveness of the biogas production and utilisation process in mitigating methane (CH4) emissions as well as improving the database for emission inventories. The objective of this study was to compare and validate CH4 emissions quantified at two agricultural biogas plants, for up to three days, using diverse on-site (two teams) and off-site methods (three teams), including differential absorption lidar (DIAL), tracer gas dispersion (TDM) and inverse dispersion modelling (IDM). For plant 1, with a constant combined heat and power (CHP) load, the average emission factor varied from 0.3% CH4 (on-site approaches) to 1.2% CH4 (off-site approaches). On-site approaches underestimated overall emissions due to many small (unquantified) CH4 leakages. All methods observed comparable average emission factors for plant 2, ranging between 1.9 and 2.2% CH4. In this case, the majority of emissions emanated from just a few sources. However, correcting the significant influence of the varying CHP load during the measurement campaign revealed significant differences between TDM and IDM (DIAL did not participate). It was demonstrated that TDM and IDM could recover the emission rate from a known point source (controlled release of CH4 via a small diffuser) within an accuracy of 93 ± 15% (TDM) and 92 ± 17% (IDM) under favourable and similar conditions.
|
|
