98 research outputs found

    Mucosal Immune Regulation in Early Infancy: Monitoring and Intervention

    Get PDF
    The mucosal immune system of infants is dependent on the maintenance of mucosal homeostasis. Homeostasis results from the interaction between the mucosa and exogenous factors such as dietar and microbial agents. Induction and maintenance of homeostasis is a highly regluated system that involves different cell types. If homeostasis is lost this may lead to disease, including allergy and chronic intestinal inflammation. In this thesis we observed whether loss of homeostasis leading to cow's milk allergy could be influenced by the supplementation of probiotic bacteria. Next to that the thesis focuses on a (buccal) epithelial cells and their role in mucosal homeostasis

    Mucosal immune regulation in early infancy: motinoring and intervention

    Get PDF

    Mucosal immune regulation in early infancy: motinoring and intervention

    Get PDF

    Композиционные материалы на основе низкоплавких полиэфирных смол

    Get PDF
    Тез. докл. VIII Междунар. науч.-техн. конф. (науч. чтения, посвящ. П. О. Сухому), Гомель, 28–29 окт. 2010 г

    Indoor Positioning Using Ultrawideband and Inertial Measurements

    Full text link

    Reactions to peanut at first introduction in infancy are associated with age ≥8 months and severity of eczema

    Get PDF
    Background: Previous studies have shown the efficacy of the early introduction of peanut to prevent peanut allergy. Due to the exclusion of infants with sensitization to peanut, it remains unclear what the optimal timing of introduction is. Methods: The PeanutNL study was performed in 6 pediatric allergology centers in the Netherlands. Infants referred for the clinical early introduction of peanut to prevent peanut allergy underwent skin prick tests for peanut and an oral peanut challenge at a median age of 6 months. Results: One hundred sixty two of 707 infants (23%) who had never eaten peanut before were sensitized to peanut, of which 80 (49%) had wheals of &gt;4 mm. Sixty seven of 707 infants (9.5%) had a positive oral challenge to peanut at first introduction. Multivariate analysis revealed that age (p &lt;.001) and SCORAD eczema severity scores (p =.001) were significant risk factors. Introduction of peanut at ≥8 months in infants with moderate and severe eczema resulted in an increased risk (odds ratio 5.24 (p =.013) and 3.61 (p =.019), respectively) of having reactions to peanut as compared to introduction before 8 months. A family history of peanut allergy and previous reactions to egg were not identified as independent risk factors. Conclusion: These results suggest that peanut should be introduced before the age of 8 months to reduce the risk of reactions at first exposure in infants with moderate and severe eczema. Furthermore, since children with severe eczema have the highest risk of reactions, the clinical introduction of peanut should be considered, at the latest at the age of 7 months.</p

    Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of the Early-Onset Sepsis Calculator:A Multicenter Survey Study

    Get PDF
    Prior studies demonstrated the neonatal early-onset sepsis (EOS) calculator’s potential in drastically reducing antibiotic prescriptions, and its international adoption is increasing rapidly. To optimize the EOS calculator’s impact, successful implementation is crucial. This study aimed to identify key barriers and facilitators to inform an implementation strategy. A multicenter cross-sectional survey was carried out among physicians, residents, nurses and clinical obstetricians of thirteen Dutch hospitals. Survey development was prepared through a literature search and stakeholder interviews. Data collection and analysis were based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). A total of 465 stakeholders completed the survey. The main barriers concerned the expectance of the department’s capacity problems and the issues with maternal information transfer between departments. Facilitators concerned multiple relative advantages of the EOS calculator, including stakeholder education, EOS calculator integration in the electronic health record and existing positive expectations about the safety and effectivity of the calculator. Based on these findings, tailored implementation interventions can be developed, such as identifying early adopters and champions, conducting educational meetings tailored to the target group, creating ready-to-use educational materials, integrating the EOS calculator into electronic health records, creating a culture of collective responsibility among departments and collecting data to evaluate implementation success and innovation results.</p

    Comparison of three-year oncological results after restorative low anterior resection, non-restorative low anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer

    Get PDF
    Introduction: Oncological outcome might be influenced by the type of resection in total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. The aim was to see if non-restorative LAR would have worse oncological outcome. A comparison was made between non-restorative low anterior resection (NRLAR), restorative low anterior resection (RLAR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR). Materials and methods: This retrospective cohort included data from patients undergoing TME for rectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 in eleven Dutch hospitals. A comparison was made for each different type of procedure (APR, NRLAR or RLAR). Primary outcome was 3-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year local recurrence (LR) rate. Results: Of 998 patients 363 underwent APR, 132 NRLAR and 503 RLAR. Three-year OS was worse after NRLAR (78.2%) compared to APR (86.3%) and RLAR (92.2%, p < 0.001). This was confirmed in a multivariable Cox regression analysis (HR 1.85 (1.07, 3.19), p = 0.03). The 3-year DFS was also worse after NRLAR (60.3%), compared to APR (70.5%) and RLAR (80.1%, p < 0.001), HR 2.05 (1.42, 2.97), p < 0.001. The LR rate was 14.6% after NRLAR, 5.2% after APR and 4.8% after RLAR (p = 0.005), HR 3.22 (1.61, 6.47), p < 0.001. Conclusion: NRLAR might be associated with worse 3-year OS, DFS and LR rate compared to RLAR and APR
    corecore