39 resultados para incidences
em Université de Lausanne, Switzerland
Resumo:
Malgré la place toujours plus importante qu'occupent les obligations positives au sein de l'économie de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme, cette notion jurisprudentielle trop peu connue est présentée dans cet ouvrage sous la forme d'un triptyque. La première partie dresse un portrait complet de la dogmatique des obligations positives dans le cadre de la CEDH et offre une vue d'ensemble des développements issus de la jurisprudence et de la doctrine sur cette notion. La deuxième partie, consacrée à l'étude de la casuistique des obligations positives matérielles déduites de la CEDH par les juges de Strasbourg, met un accent particulier sur les obligations positives à incidences législatives. Le respect de ces dernières par le droit suisse est étudié dans la dernière partie. Prix 2015 de la Société Académique Vaudoise, mention «Lauréat de l'Université»
Resumo:
La réforme de la péréquation financière et de la répartition des tâches entre la Confédération et les cantons (RPT) entrera en vigueur le 1er janvier 2008. Elle prévoit notamment le transfert de la responsabilité des institutions pour personnes handicapées de la Confédération aux cantons. Ce mémoire se concentre sur ce domaine particulier en décrivant de quelle manière les cantons se préparent pour assumer leurs nouvelles responsabilités et comment ils envisagent de redéfinir leurs relations avec les institutions spécialisées et les personnes handicapées. Par une analyse comparative menée dans les cantons de Neuchâtel, Vaud, Valais, Bâle-Ville et Bâle-Campagne des différences intercantonales importantes sont mise en évidence et permettent d'aborder la problématique générale de la mise en oeuvre d'une politique sociale dans un Etat fédéral.
Resumo:
AIMS: Published incidences of acute mountain sickness (AMS) vary widely. Reasons for this variation, and predictive factors of AMS, are not well understood. We aimed to identify predictive factors that are associated with the occurrence of AMS, and to test the hypothesis that study design is an independent predictive factor of AMS incidence. We did a systematic search (Medline, bibliographies) for relevant articles in English or French, up to April 28, 2013. Studies of any design reporting on AMS incidence in humans without prophylaxis were selected. Data on incidence and potential predictive factors were extracted by two reviewers and crosschecked by four reviewers. Associations between predictive factors and AMS incidence were sought through bivariate and multivariate analyses for different study designs separately. Association between AMS incidence and study design was assessed using multiple linear regression. RESULTS: We extracted data from 53,603 subjects from 34 randomized controlled trials, 44 cohort studies, and 33 cross-sectional studies. In randomized trials, the median of AMS incidences without prophylaxis was 60% (range, 16%-100%); mode of ascent and population were significantly associated with AMS incidence. In cohort studies, the median of AMS incidences was 51% (0%-100%); geographical location was significantly associated with AMS incidence. In cross-sectional studies, the median of AMS incidences was 32% (0%-68%); mode of ascent and maximum altitude were significantly associated with AMS incidence. In a multivariate analysis, study design (p=0.012), mode of ascent (p=0.003), maximum altitude (p<0.001), population (p=0.002), and geographical location (p<0.001) were significantly associated with AMS incidence. Age, sex, speed of ascent, duration of exposure, or history of AMS were inconsistently reported and therefore not further analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Reported incidences and identifiable predictive factors of AMS depend on study design.
Resumo:
Background/Purpose: Denosumab (DMAb) is an approved therapy for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at increased risk for fracture. A favorable risk/benefit profile was demonstrated in the pivotal, 3-year FREEDOM trial (Cummings et al NEJM 2009). The open-label, active-treatment FREEDOM Extension study is investigating the efficacy and safety of DMAb for up to 10 years. The Extension trial enrolled women who had received DMAb or placebo in FREEDOM and provides an opportunity to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of continuous DMAb treatment (long-term group), and to replicate the DMAb findings observed in FREEDOM (cross-over group). Here, we report the results from the first 3 years of the Extension, representing up to 6 continuous years of DMAb exposure.Methods: During the Extension, each woman is scheduled to receive 60 mg DMAb every 6 months and supplemental calcium and vitamin D daily. For the analyses reported here, women from the FREEDOM DMAb group received 3 more years of DMAb for a total of 6 years of exposure (long-term group) and women from the FREEDOM placebo group received 3 years of DMAb exposure (cross-over group).Results: Of the 5928 women eligible for the Extension, 4550 (77%) enrolled (N_2343 long-term; N_2207 cross-over). In the long-term group, further significant mean increases in bone mineral density (BMD) occurred 4044 for cumulative 6-year gains of 15.2% at the lumbar spine and 7.5% at the total hip (Figure). During the first 3 years of DMAb treatment during the Extension, the cross-over group had significant mean gains in BMD at the lumbar spine (9.4%) and total hip (4.8%), similar to those observed in the long-term DMAb group during the first 3 years of FREEDOM (lumbar spine, 10.1%; total hip, 5.7%). Serum CTX was rapidly and similarly reduced after the 1st (cross-over) or 7th (long-term) DMAb dose with the characteristic attenuation observed at the end of the dosing period. In the cross-over group, yearly incidences of new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures were lower than in the FREEDOM placebo group. Fracture incidence remained low in the long-term group. Incidences of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs did not increase over time with DMAb treatment. There were 2 subjects with AEs adjudicated to ONJ in the cross-over group and 2 in the long-term group. Both cases in the cross-over group healed completely and without further complications; 1 of these subjects continues to receive DMAb. Both women in the long-term group continue to be followed. No atypical femur fractures have been observed to date. Figure. Percent changes in bone mineral density during FREEDOM and the Extension Conclusion: DMAb treatment for 6 continuous years (long-term group) remained well tolerated, maintained reduced bone turnover, and continued to significantly increase BMD. Fracture incidence remained low. DMAb treatment for 3 years in the cross-over group reproduced the original observations in FREEDOM.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Angiogenesis inhibitors have been developed to block tumour angiogenesis and target vascular endothelial cells. While some of them have already been approved by the health authorities and are successfully integrated into patient care, many others are still under development, and the clinical value of this approach has to be established. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and toxicity of targeted anti-angiogenic therapies, in addition to chemotherapy, in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Primary endpoints are both progression-free and overall survival. Response rates, toxicity and secondary resectability were secondary endpoints. Comparisons were first-line chemotherapy in combination with angiogenesis inhibitor, to the same chemotherapy without angiogenesis inhibitor; and second-line chemotherapy, to the same chemotherapy without angiogenesis inhibitor. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, as well as proceedings from ECCO, ESMO and ASCO until November 2008. In addition, reference lists from trials were scanned, experts in the field and drug manufacturers were contacted to obtain further information. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials on targeted anti-angiogenic drugs in metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data collection and analysis was performed, according to a previously published protocol. Because individual patient data was not provided, aggregate data had to be used for the analysis. Summary statistics for the primary endpoints were hazard ratios (HR's) and their 95% confidence intervals. MAIN RESULTS: At present, eligible first line trials for this meta-analysis were available for bevacizumab (5 trials including 3101 patients) and vatalanib (1 trial which included 1168 patients). The overall HR s for PFS (0.61, 95% CI 0.45 - 0.83) and OS (0.81, 95% 0.73 - 0.90) for the comparison of first-line chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab, confirms significant benefits in favour of the patients treated with bevacizumab. However, the effect on PFS shows significant heterogeneity. For second-line chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab, a benefit in both PFS (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.51 - 0.73) and OS (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63-0.89) was demonstrated in a single, randomized trial. While differences in treatment-related deaths and 60-day mortality were not significant, higher incidences in grade III/IV hypertension, arterial thrombembolic events and gastrointestinal perforations were observed in the patients treated with bevacizumab. For valatanib, currently available data showed a non-significant benefit in PFS and OS. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy of metastatic colorectal cancer prolongs both PFS and OS in first-and second-line therapy.
Resumo:
Estimates have recently been made of the incidence of cancers in the countries of the European Community. Similar estimates are given for Switzerland, based on data from the six Swiss cantonal cancer registries, all of which have been operating for at least 12 years. These registries cover Basel, Geneva, Neuchatel, St Gall and Appenzell, Vaud and Zurich, which account for about 50% of the Swiss population as a whole. Two different methods were used to extrapolate from the incidences observed in the regions covered by cancer registration to the entire country. The first method is based solely on the distribution of populations according to the country's main linguistic groups, whereas the second relies on mortality data. Estimates obtained by the second approach are presented and their reliability is discussed. Comparison of the age incidence curve with that of Denmark tends to confirm the validity of the estimations. Estimated standardised rates (world population) for all sites except nonmelanomatous skin cancer are 294.3 for males and 214.2 for females. Comparisons with other European countries show that in males, lung cancer is relatively less common in Switzerland, whereas in females, breast cancer is relatively more frequent.
Resumo:
Background: Despite the increasing incidences of the publication of assessment frameworks intending to establish the "standards" of the quality of qualitative research, the research conducted using such empirical methods are still facing difficulties in being published or recognised by funding agencies. Methods: We conducted a thematic content analysis of eight frameworks from psychology/psychiatry and general medicine. The frameworks and their criteria are then compared against each other. Findings: The results illustrated the difficulties in reaching consensus on the definition of quality criteria. This showed the differences between the frameworks from the point of views of the underlying epistemology and the criteria suggested. Discussion: The aforementioned differences reflect the diversity of paradigms implicitly referred to by the authors of the frameworks, although rarely explicitly mentioned in text. We conclude that the increase in qualitative research and publications has failed to overcome the difficulties in establishing shared criteria and the great heterogeneity of concepts raises methodological and epistemological problems.
Resumo:
The incidence of second non-breast primary cancer following adjuvant treatment was evaluated using data from patients enrolled from 1978 to 1999 in four International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) trials. The occurrence of these tumours as sites of the first failure was assessed separately for two treatment comparisons: toremifene versus tamoxifen for 5 years in 1035 patients in IBCSG Trials 12-93 and 14-93 with a median follow-up of 8 years and endocrine therapy (toremifene or tamoxifen) versus chemo-endocrine therapy (CMF or AC plus toremifene or tamoxifen) in 1731 patients from IBCSG Trials III, VII and 12-93, with a combined median follow-up of 14 years. No significant differences in second non-breast primary tumours were observed in either comparison. In particular, the incidences of second primary uterine tumours with toremifene and tamoxifen were similar and no significant increase of secondary leukaemias was observed with chemo-endocrine therapy compared with endocrine therapy.
Resumo:
Objectives : The FREEDOM trial1 open-label extension is designed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of denosumab for up to 10 years. We report the results from the first 2 years of the extension, representing up to 5 years of denosumab exposure.Materials/Methods : Postmenopausal women enrolled in the extension previously completed FREEDOM. During the extension, all women receive denosumab (60 mg) every 6 months and calcium and vitamin D daily. For the FREEDOM denosumab group, the data reflect 5 years of denosumab treatment (long-term group). For the FREEDOM placebo group, the data reflect 2 years of denosumab treatment (de novo group). P-values are descriptive.Results : There were 4550 (70.2%) FREEDOM women enrolled in the extension (2343 long-term; 2207 de novo). During the 4th and 5th years of denosumab treatment, the long-term group had further 1.9% and 1.7% increases in lumbar spine BMD and further 0.7% and 0.6% increases in total hip BMD (all P<0.0001 compared with extension baseline). Total BMD increases with 5-year denosumab treatment were 13.7% (lumbar spine) and 7.0% (total hip). In the de novo group, BMD increased during the first 2 years of denosumab treatment by 7.9% (lumbar spine) and 4.1% (total hip) (all P<0.0001 compared with extension baseline). After denosumab administration, serum CTX was rapidly and maximally reduced in both groups with the characteristic attenuation observed at the end of the dosing interval, as previously reported.2 Incidences of new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures were low and below rates observed in the FREEDOM placebo group. Adverse event reports were similar for both groups: in the long-term group, 83.4% reported AEs and 18.9% were serious. In the de novo group, the percentages were 82.8% and 19.4%, respectively. In FREEDOM, the respective percentages were 92.8% and 25.8% in the denosumab group and 93.1% and 25.1% in the placebo group. Two subjects in the de novo group had AEs adjudicated to ONJ which healed without further complications ; one resolved within the 6-month dosing interval and denosumab was continued. There were no atypical femoral fractures.Conclusions : Denosumab treatment for 5 years was well-tolerated and continued to significantly reduce CTX and significantly increase BMD. Reference: 1)Cummings;NEJM;2009;361:756, 2)Eastell;JBMR;2010; doi-10.1002/jbmr.251 Disclosure of Interest: This study was funded by Amgen; S Papapoulos: Consulting fees from Amgen, Merck, Novartis, Procter & Gamble, GSK, and Wyeth; R Chapurlat: Research grants and/or consulting fees from Amgen, Merck, Novartis, sanofi-aventis, Roche, Servier, and Warner Chilcott;ML Brandi: Research grants and/or consulting fees from Amgen, Eli Lily, GSK, MSD, NPS, Nycomed, Roche, Servier, and Stroder; JP Brown: Research grants and/or consulting or speaking fees from Abott, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, Merck, and Warner Chilcott; E Czerwinski: Research grants from Amgen, Astrazeneca, Danone Research, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SantoSolve AS, and Servier; N Daizadeh, A Grauer, C Libanati: Employed by Amgen and own Amgen stocks or stock options; M-A Krieg, D Mellstrom, H Resch: None; S Radominski: Research grants from Amgen, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, and Aventis; Z Man: Lecture fees and/or consulting fees from Merck, Novartis, Roche, and sanofi-aventis. Novartis steering committee member; JA Roman: Research grants from Roche; J-Y Reginster: Research grants, consulting fees, and/or lecture fees from Amgen, Analis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ebewee Pharma, Genevrier, GSK, IBSA, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dhome, Negma, Novartis, Novo-Nordisk, Nycomed, NPS, Roche, Rottapharm, Servier, Teijin, Teva, Theramex, UCB, Wyeth, and Zodiac; C Roux: Research grants and/or consulting fees from Amgen, MSD, Novartis, Servier, and Roche; SR Cummings: Research grants and/or consulting fees from Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Merck; HG Bone: Research grants and/or consulting or speaking fees from Amgen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Nordic Bioscience, Novartis, Takeda, and Zelos