20 research outputs found

    Juvenīla idiopātiska artrīta klīniskās vadlīnijas

    Get PDF
    A.Vētra, D.Bērtule, I.Tāse - consultantspublishersversionPeer reviewe

    HLA II class alleles in juvenile idiopathic arthritis patients with and without temporomandibular joint arthritis

    Get PDF
    Publisher Copyright: © 2016 Davidsone et al. Copyright: Copyright 2017 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.Background: Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthritis is seen very often (38-87 %) in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). With contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) we can detect more cases of TMJ arthritis than ever before. Previous studies show that HLA II class alleles may have protective or risk importance in JIA subtypes. Our objective is to identify HLA II class alleles of risk and protection in JIA patients with TMJ arthritis. Methods: During the period from 2010 to 2015 MRI for TMJ was performed in 85 JIA patients who were genotyped for HLA- DRB1; DQB1 and DQA1 using RT-PCR with sequence-specific primers. As a control group, data of 100 individuals were taken from the genetic bank of RSU Joint Laboratory of Clinical Immunology and Immunogenetics. Associations of DRB1; DQB1; DQA1 alleles in patients were examined individually using the χ 2 test. P-value (<0.05) and odds ratio were calculated using EPI INFO 6.0 software. Results: Out of 85 JIA patients with mean age of 13.7 ± 3.0 years (range 6.9-17.9 years), 59 (69 %) were girls and 26 (31 %) were boys. The mean duration of the disease was 3.07 ± 2.35 years (range 0.2-11.0 year). JIA subtypes were as follows: seronegative polyarthritis 51 (60 %), seropositive polyarthritis 6(7 %), oligoarthritis extended 7(8 %), oligoarthritis persistent 2 (2 %) arthritis with enthesitis 14 (17 %), undifferentiated 3 (4 %) and 2 (2 %) systemic arthritis. Two groups where separated after TMJ MRI exam: first with at least two signs of active inflammation and/or any structural damage (n = 62); second with no pathologic signs or with slight contrast enhancement (n = 23). We discovered that there are risk alleles that are found in all JIA patient's groups (MRI positive and negative groups) versus controls such as DRB1*07:01, DQB1*03:03; DQB1*05:01. Also some protective alleles as DRB1*18:01, DQB1*06:02-8 were found in overall JIA group. Alleles DRB1*12:01, DQB1*03:01; DQA1*05:01 were found to be protective for TMJ arthrits. Conclusion: In our study there were no convincing risk alleles, but there are alleles that probably are protective for TMJ arthritis like DRB1*12:01, DQB1*03:01; DQA1*05:01.publishersversionPeer reviewe

    L'effet de la Russie sur le Conseil de l'Europe

    No full text
    En 1998, la Fédération de Russie, l'État qui a succédé à l'URSS, est devenue un État membre du Conseil de l'Europe. L'adhésion au Conseil de l'Europe implique un processus de socialisation/européanisation, c'est-à-dire un processus de transition démocratique. Il existe suffisamment d'études sur la manière dont ce processus a été couronné de succès ou non. Cependant, moins d'attention a été accordée à l'étude de l'effet inverse de ce processus, c'est-à-dire la manière dont un État membre influence l'agence de socialisation. Cet effet peut s’appuyer sur les manquements aux obligations de l'État membre.Au cours des deux décennies de son adhésion, la Russie a été impliquée dans trois conflits militaires, annexant illégalement le territoire d'un autre État souverain ; la Russie est le seul État membre qui n'a pas ratifié le protocole n° 6 sur l'abolition de la peine de mort ; la Russie est l'État qui, pendant six ans, a bloqué l'entrée en vigueur du protocole n° 14 visant à accroître l'efficacité de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme. La Cour a fait l'objet d'une forte résistance de la part de la Russie, qui a fortement critiqué la Cour pour avoir rendu des décisions qu’elle qualifie de politisées et pour avoir perdu son rôle subsidiaire. Ces critiques ont conduit à la modification de la Constitution russe en 2020, qui stipule désormais la suprématie de la Constitution russe sur la décision de la Cour. Ainsi, la Russie a tenté de réduire le pouvoir de la Cour.Par conséquent, l'adhésion de la Russie a montré à quel point il est primordial d'accepter un État membre partageant les mêmes idées et remplissant les conditions d'adhésion, car l'adhésion au Conseil de l'Europe ne garantit pas que l'État renoncera à ses intérêts au nom de la démocratie, de l'État de droit et des droits de l'homme. L'etude permet d'élaborer un modèle de conception de l'effet d'un État membre sur le Conseil de l'Europe.In 1998, the Russian Federation, the successor state of the USSR, became the member state of the Council of Europe. The membership in the Council of Europe represents the process of socialization/Europeanization, which means the process of democratic transition. There are enough studies on how this process was successful or not. However, less attention was paid to the study of the opposite effect of this process, which means how the member state influences the socializing agency. This effect can be evaluated through the non-commitments with the obligations of the member state.During two decades of its membership Russia was involved in three military conflicts, illegally annexed the territory of another sovereign state; Russia is the only member state that did not ratify Protocol No 6 on the abolition of the death penalty; Russia was the state that during six years was blocking the entering into force Protocol 14 that aimed to increase the effectiveness of the European Court of Human Rights. The Court has been strongly resisted by Russia, which heavily criticized the Court for delivering politicized decisions and losing its subsidiary role. This criticism led to the amendments to the Russian Constitution in 2020, which now stipulate the supremacy of the Russian Constitution over the Court’s decision. Thus Russia tried to reduce the power of the Court.Consequently, Russia’s membership has shown how paramount for the creditability of the Council of Europe is to accept the like-minded member state that meets the conditions of the membership because the membership in the Council of Europe is not a guarantee that the state would renounce its interests for the sake of democracy, rule of law, and human rights. The conducted examination enables to elaborate design model of the effect of a member state on the Council of Europe
    corecore