| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Kanai, M, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2023
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
- Glasbey, JC, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 13. |
- Bravo, L, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 14. |
- Niemi, MEK, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 15. |
- Tabiri, S, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 16. |
|
|
| 17. |
|
|
| 18. |
|
|
| 19. |
|
|
| 20. |
|
|
| 21. |
|
|
| 22. |
|
|
| 23. |
- Menon, BK, et al.
(författare)
-
Imaging criteria across pivotal randomized controlled trials for late window thrombectomy patient selection
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of neurointerventional surgery. - : BMJ. - 1759-8486 .- 1759-8478. ; 13:11, s. 985-989
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The DAWN and DEFUSE-3 trials showed the benefit of endovascular treatment (EVT) in acute ischemic stroke patients presenting beyond 6 hours from last known well (LKW) and selected by perfusion imaging criteria. The ESCAPE NA1-trial selected patients based on non-contrast CT (NCCT) Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) and multiphase CT angiography (CTA) collateral status. This study compares baseline characteristics, workflow, and outcomes in the EVT arms of DAWN and DEFUSE-3 with late-window patients from the EVT-only arm of ESCAPE-NA1.MethodsAggregate data on baseline characteristics, workflow, reperfusion quality, final infarct volume, and clinical outcomes (modified Rankin Score [mRS] at 90 days) in subjects enrolled in the DAWN and DEFUSE-3 EVT arms were compared with similar data from the ESCAPE-NA1 control arm (EVT-only arm) presenting beyond 6 hours from LKW using descriptive statistics.ResultsBaseline characteristics among late-window patients in the ESCAPE NA1 trial were similar to those in the DAWN and DEFUSE-3 EVT arms. Median time from LKW-to-puncture in subjects enrolled in the ESCAPE NA1 trial was 9 hrs (IQR: 7.5–11 hours) when compared with DAWN (n=107; 12.8 hours, IQR: 10.6–16.7 hours) and DEFUSE-3 (n=92; 11.5 hours, IQR: 9.2–12.8 hours). Median post-treatment infarct-volume was largest in the ESCAPE NA1-patients (47 mL [IQR: 19–146] vs median 8 mL [IQR: 0–48] in the DAWN group and 35 mL [IQR: 18–82] in DEFUSE-3), while % mRS 0–2 at 90 days were similar across the three trials (ESCAPE NA1: 50/111 [45%], DAWN: 52/107 [49%], DEFUSE-3: 41/92 [45%]).ConclusionPatients enrolled beyond 6 hours from LKW in the ESCAPE-NA1 trial based on NCCT-ASPECTS and mCTA had similar clinical outcomes when compared with patients selected by perfusion imaging in the DAWN and DEFUSE-3 trials.
|
|
| 24. |
|
|
| 25. |
- Sen, P, et al.
(författare)
-
Vaccine hesitancy decreases in rheumatic diseases, long-term concerns remain in myositis: a comparative analysis of the COVAD surveys
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Rheumatology (Oxford, England). - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1462-0332 .- 1462-0324. ; 62:10, s. 3291-3301
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- ObjectiveCOVID-19 vaccines have a favorable safety profile in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) such as idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs); however, hesitancy continues to persist among these patients. Therefore, we studied the prevalence, predictors and reasons for hesitancy in patients with IIMs, other AIRDs, non-rheumatic autoimmune diseases (nrAIDs) and healthy controls (HCs), using data from the two international COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) e-surveys.MethodsThe first and second COVAD patient self-reported e-surveys were circulated from March to December 2021, and February to June 2022 (ongoing). We collected data on demographics, comorbidities, COVID-19 infection and vaccination history, reasons for hesitancy, and patient reported outcomes. Predictors of hesitancy were analysed using regression models in different groups.ResultsWe analysed data from 18 882 (COVAD-1) and 7666 (COVAD-2) respondents. Reassuringly, hesitancy decreased from 2021 (16.5%) to 2022 (5.1%) (OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.24, 0.30, P < 0.001). However, concerns/fear over long-term safety had increased (OR: 3.6; 95% CI: 2.9, 4.6, P < 0.01). We noted with concern greater skepticism over vaccine science among patients with IIMs than AIRDs (OR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.08, 3.2, P = 0.023) and HCs (OR: 4; 95% CI: 1.9, 8.1, P < 0.001), as well as more long-term safety concerns/fear (IIMs vs AIRDs – OR: 1.9; 95% CI: 1.2, 2.9, P = 0.001; IIMs vs HCs – OR: 5.4 95% CI: 3, 9.6, P < 0.001). Caucasians [OR 4.2 (1.7–10.3)] were likely to be more hesitant, while those with better PROMIS physical health score were less hesitant [OR 0.9 (0.8–0.97)].ConclusionVaccine hesitancy has decreased from 2021 to 2022, long-term safety concerns remain among patients with IIMs, particularly in Caucasians and those with poor physical function.
|
|
| 26. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(författare)
-
- 2012
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
