1. |
|
|
2. |
- Jansson, Hanna, 1975, et al.
(author)
-
Impact of Abdominal Aortic Calcification on Central Haemodynamics and Decline of Glomerular Filtration Rate in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease Stages 3 and 4
- 2019
-
In: Kidney and Blood Pressure Research. - : KARGER. - 1420-4096 .- 1423-0143. ; 44:5, s. 950-960
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background/Aim: Calcifications of large arteries are frequent in chronic kidney disease (CKD) and may contribute to the high cardiovascular risk in this population. The aim of this study was to examine whether abdominal aortic calcification volume (AACV) was a predictor of the rate of decline in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in a cohort of patients with CKD stages 3 and 4. Methods: Eighty-four patients with CKD stages 3 and 4 were enrolled in this prospective observational study. At study entry, and annually, GFR was measured by plasma Cr-51-EDTA clearance. At baseline, haemodynamics was assessed and AACV was determined by computer tomography. Results: The mean follow-up time was 3.4 years and mean decline in GFR was -2.69 mL/min/1.73 m(2) per year. At baseline, abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) was detected in 66 patients (79%). A binary logistic regression analysis revealed that age was the only statistically significant independent predictor of AAC. In patients with AAC, male gender (B = 0.413, p = 0.030), aortic diastolic blood pressure (B = -0.025, p = 0.001) and ankle-brachial index (B = -1.666, p = 0.002) were independently associated with AACV using a multiple linear regression analysis. Neither the presence nor the extent of AAC was significantly associated with the rate of change in GFR during follow-up. Conclusion: In this cohort of patients with CKD stages 3 and 4, only age was an independent predictor of the presence of AAC. AACV was not associated with the rate of decline in GFR. (c) 2019 The Author(s)
|
|
3. |
|
|
4. |
- Jansson, Hanna, 1975, et al.
(author)
-
The crystal structure of the spinach plastocyanin double mutant G8D/L12E gives insight into its low reactivity towards photosystem 1 and cytochrome f
- 2003
-
In: Biochimica et Biophysica Acta. - : Elsevier BV. - 0005-2728 .- 1879-2650. ; 1607:2-3, s. 203-210
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Plastocyanin (Pc) is a copper-containing protein, which functions as an electron carrier between the cytochrome b6f and photosystem 1 (PS1) complexes in the photosynthetic electron transfer (ET) chain. The ET is mediated by His87 situated in the hydrophobic surface in the north region of Pc. Also situated in this region is Leu12, which mutated to other amino acids severely disturbs the ET from cytochrome f and to PS1, indicating the importance of the hydrophobic surface. The crystal structure of the Pc double mutant G8D/L12E has been determined to 2.0 Å resolution, with a crystallographic R-factor of 18.3% (Rfree=23.2%). A comparison with the wild-type structure reveals that structural differences are limited to the sites of the mutations. In particular, there is a small but significant change in the hydrophobic surface close to His87. Evidently, this leads to a mismatch in the reactive complex with the redox partners. For PS1 this results in a 20 times weaker binding and an eightfold slower ET as determined by kinetic measurements. The mutations that have been introduced do not affect the optical absorption spectrum. However, there is a small change in the EPR spectrum, which can be related to changes in the copper coordination geometry.
|
|
5. |
- Reinius, Maria, et al.
(author)
-
Patient-driven innovations reported in peer-reviewed journals : a scoping review
- 2022
-
In: BMJ Open. - London : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 2044-6055. ; 12:1
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BackgroundAwareness of patients' innovative capabilities is increasing, but there is limited knowledge regarding the extent and nature of patient-driven innovations in the peer-reviewed literature.ObjectivesThe objective of the review was to answer the question: what is the nature and extent of patient-driven innovations published in peer-reviewed scientific journals?Eligibility criteriaWe used a broad definition of innovation to allow for a comprehensive review of different types of innovations and a narrow definition of 'patient driven' to focus on the role of patients and/or family caregivers. The search was limited to years 2008-2020.Sources of evidenceFour electronic databases (Medline (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection, PsycINFO (Ovid) and Cinahl (Ebsco)) were searched in December 2020 for publications describing patient-driven innovations and complemented with snowball strategies.Charting methodsData from the included articles were extracted and categorised inductively.ResultsA total of 96 articles on 20 patient-driven innovations were included. The number of publications increased over time, with 69% of the articles published between 2016 and 2020. Author affiliations were exclusively in high income countries with 56% of first authors in North America and 36% in European countries. Among the 20 innovations reported, 'Do-It-Yourself Artificial Pancreas System' and the online health network 'PatientsLikeMe', were the subject of half of the articles.ConclusionsPeer-reviewed publications on patient-driven innovations are increasing and we see an important opportunity for researchers and clinicians to support patient innovators' research while being mindful of taking over the work of the innovators themselves.
|
|
6. |
- Wannheden, Carolina, et al.
(author)
-
A rocky road but worth the drive : A longitudinal qualitative study of patient innovators and researchers cocreating research
- 2023
-
In: Health Expectations. - West Sussex : Wiley-Blackwell. - 1369-6513 .- 1369-7625. ; 26:4, s. 1757-1767
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Partnership research practices involving various stakeholder groups are gaining ground. Yet, the research community is still exploring how to effectively coproduce research together. This study describes (a) key programme developments in the creation of a 6-year partnership research programme in Sweden, and (b) explores the hopes, expectations, and experiences of patient innovators (i.e., individuals with lived experience as patients or caregivers who drive health innovations) and researchers involved in the programme during the first years. Methods: We conducted a prospective longitudinal qualitative study spanning the first 2 years of the programme. Data consisted of meeting protocols and interviews with 14 researchers and 6 patient innovators; 39 interviews were carried out in three evenly-spaced rounds. We identified significant events and discussion themes in the meeting protocols and analyzed the interviews using thematic analysis, applying a cross-sectional recurrent approach to track changes over time. Findings: Meeting protocols revealed how several partnership practices (e.g., programme management team, task forces, role description document) were cocreated, supporting the sharing of power and responsibilities among programme members. Based on the analysis of interviews, we created three themes: (1) paving the path to a better tomorrow, reflecting programme members' high expectations; (2) going on a road trip together, reflecting experiences of finding new roles and learning how to cocreate; (3) finding the tempo: from talking to doing, reflecting experiences of managing challenges and becoming productive as a team. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that sharing, respecting, and acknowledging each other's experiences and concerns helps build mutual trust and shape partnership practices. High expectations beyond research productivity suggest that we need to consider outcomes at different levels, from the individual to society, when evaluating the impact of partnership research. Patient or Public Contribution: The research team included members with formal experiences as researchers and members with lived experiences of being a patient or informal caregiver. One patient innovator coauthored this paper and contributed to all aspects of the research, including the design of the study; production of data (as interviewee); interpretation of findings; and drafting the manuscript. © 2023 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
|
|