Author
Bengt Jönsson
Other affiliations: Lund University, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
Bio: Bengt Jönsson is an academic researcher from Stockholm School of Economics. The author has contributed to research in topics: Cost effectiveness & Indirect costs. The author has an hindex of 81, co-authored 365 publications receiving 33623 citations. Previous affiliations of Bengt Jönsson include Lund University & École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
Dresden University of Technology1, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health2, Karlstad University3, Stockholm School of Economics4, University of Copenhagen5, Karolinska Institutet6, University of Florence7, University of Basel8, University of Zurich9, Maastricht University10, University of Lausanne11, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction12, Aarhus University Hospital13
TL;DR: The true size and burden of disorders of the brain in the EU was significantly underestimated in the past, and Concerted priority action is needed at all levels, including substantially increased funding for basic, clinical and public health research and policy decisions.
3,079 citations
••
TL;DR: In spite of the high social and economic cost of osteoporosis, a substantial treatment gap and projected increase of the economic burden driven by the aging populations, the use of pharmacological interventions to prevent fractures has decreased in recent years, suggesting that a change in healthcare policy is warranted.
Abstract: Summary
This report describes the epidemiology, burden, and treatment of osteoporosis in the 27 countries of the European Union (EU27).
2,016 citations
••
TL;DR: Guidelines and Expert Consensus documents aim to present management and recommendations based on all of the relevant evidence on a particular subject in order to help physicians to select the best possible management strategies for the individual patient, suffering from a specific condition, taking into account not only the impact on outcome, but also the risk benefit ratio of a particular diagnostic or therapeutic procedure.
Abstract: Guidelines and Expert Consensus documents aim to present management and recommendations based on all of the relevant evidence on a particular subject in order to help physicians to select the best possible management strategies for the individual patient, suffering from a specific condition, taking into account not only the impact on outcome, but also the risk benefit ratio of a particular diagnostic or therapeutic procedure. The ESC recommendations for guidelines production can be found on the ESC website†.
In brief, the ESC appoints experts in the field to carry out a comprehensive and critical evaluation of the use of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and to assess the risk–benefit ratio of the therapies recommended for management and/or prevention of a given condition. The strength of evidence for or against particular procedures or treatments is weighed according to predefined scales for grading recommendations and levels of evidence, as outlined below. Once the document has been finalized and approved by all the experts involved in the Task Force, it is submitted to outside specialists for review. If necessary, the document is revised once more to be finally approved by the Committee for Practice Guidelines and selected members of the Board of the ESC.
The ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines ( CPG ) supervises and coordinates the preparation of new Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents produced by Task Forces, expert groups, or consensus panels. The chosen experts in these writing panels are asked to provide disclosure statements of all relationships they may have, which might be perceived as real or potential conflicts of interest. These disclosure forms are kept on file at the European Heart House, headquarters of the ESC. The Committee is also responsible for the endorsement of these Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents or statements.
| Classes of recommendations |
|:-------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| Class I | Evidence and/or general agreement that a given diagnostic procedure/treatment is beneficial, useful, and effective |
| Class II | Conflicting evidence and/or a divergence of opinion about the usefulness/efficacy of the treatment or procedure |
| Class IIa | Weight of evidence/opinion is in favour of usefulness/efficacy |
| Class IIb | Usefulness/efficacy is less well established by evidence/opinion |
| Class III | Evidence or general agreement that the treatment or procedure is not useful/effective and, in some cases, may be harmful |
Diabetes and cardiovascular diseases (CVD) often appear …
1,769 citations
••
Karlstad University1, Dresden University of Technology2, Karolinska University Hospital3, Mental Health Services4, Phillips University5, University of Florence6, Karolinska Institutet7, John Radcliffe Hospital8, King's College London9, London School of Economics and Political Science10, Lund University11, Harvard University12, University of Basel13, Norwegian University of Science and Technology14, University of Zurich15, Umeå University16, University of Cambridge17, University of Lausanne18, University of Sassari19, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction20, Aalborg University21, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc22, Maastricht University Medical Centre23, Radboud University Nijmegen24, Stockholm School of Economics25
TL;DR: The present report presents much improved cost estimates for the total cost of disorders of the brain in Europe in 2010, covering 19 major groups of disorders, 7 more than previously, of an increased range of age groups and more cost items.
1,325 citations
••
TL;DR: This new report presents updated, more accurate, and comprehensive 2010 estimates of annual costs for brain disorders in Europe for 30 European countries.
Abstract: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In 2005, we presented for the first time overall estimates of annual costs for brain disorders (mental and neurologic disorders) in Europe. This new report presents updated, ...
1,297 citations
Cited by
More filters
••
TL;DR: In this article, a randomized controlled trial of Aliskiren in the Prevention of Major Cardiovascular Events in Elderly people was presented. But the authors did not discuss the effect of the combination therapy in patients living with systolic hypertension.
Abstract: ABCD
: Appropriate Blood pressure Control in Diabetes
ABI
: ankle–brachial index
ABPM
: ambulatory blood pressure monitoring
ACCESS
: Acute Candesartan Cilexetil Therapy in Stroke Survival
ACCOMPLISH
: Avoiding Cardiovascular Events in Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension
ACCORD
: Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes
ACE
: angiotensin-converting enzyme
ACTIVE I
: Atrial Fibrillation Clopidogrel Trial with Irbesartan for Prevention of Vascular Events
ADVANCE
: Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron-MR Controlled Evaluation
AHEAD
: Action for HEAlth in Diabetes
ALLHAT
: Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart ATtack
ALTITUDE
: ALiskiren Trial In Type 2 Diabetes Using Cardio-renal Endpoints
ANTIPAF
: ANgioTensin II Antagonist In Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation
APOLLO
: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Aliskiren in the Prevention of Major Cardiovascular Events in Elderly People
ARB
: angiotensin receptor blocker
ARIC
: Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities
ARR
: aldosterone renin ratio
ASCOT
: Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial
ASCOT-LLA
: Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial—Lipid Lowering Arm
ASTRAL
: Angioplasty and STenting for Renal Artery Lesions
A-V
: atrioventricular
BB
: beta-blocker
BMI
: body mass index
BP
: blood pressure
BSA
: body surface area
CA
: calcium antagonist
CABG
: coronary artery bypass graft
CAPPP
: CAPtopril Prevention Project
CAPRAF
: CAndesartan in the Prevention of Relapsing Atrial Fibrillation
CHD
: coronary heart disease
CHHIPS
: Controlling Hypertension and Hypertension Immediately Post-Stroke
CKD
: chronic kidney disease
CKD-EPI
: Chronic Kidney Disease—EPIdemiology collaboration
CONVINCE
: Controlled ONset Verapamil INvestigation of CV Endpoints
CT
: computed tomography
CV
: cardiovascular
CVD
: cardiovascular disease
D
: diuretic
DASH
: Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension
DBP
: diastolic blood pressure
DCCT
: Diabetes Control and Complications Study
DIRECT
: DIabetic REtinopathy Candesartan Trials
DM
: diabetes mellitus
DPP-4
: dipeptidyl peptidase 4
EAS
: European Atherosclerosis Society
EASD
: European Association for the Study of Diabetes
ECG
: electrocardiogram
EF
: ejection fraction
eGFR
: estimated glomerular filtration rate
ELSA
: European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis
ESC
: European Society of Cardiology
ESH
: European Society of Hypertension
ESRD
: end-stage renal disease
EXPLOR
: Amlodipine–Valsartan Combination Decreases Central Systolic Blood Pressure more Effectively than the Amlodipine–Atenolol Combination
FDA
: U.S. Food and Drug Administration
FEVER
: Felodipine EVent Reduction study
GISSI-AF
: Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarto Miocardico-Atrial Fibrillation
HbA1c
: glycated haemoglobin
HBPM
: home blood pressure monitoring
HOPE
: Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation
HOT
: Hypertension Optimal Treatment
HRT
: hormone replacement therapy
HT
: hypertension
HYVET
: HYpertension in the Very Elderly Trial
IMT
: intima-media thickness
I-PRESERVE
: Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved Systolic Function
INTERHEART
: Effect of Potentially Modifiable Risk Factors associated with Myocardial Infarction in 52 Countries
INVEST
: INternational VErapamil SR/T Trandolapril
ISH
: Isolated systolic hypertension
JNC
: Joint National Committee
JUPITER
: Justification for the Use of Statins in Primary Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin
LAVi
: left atrial volume index
LIFE
: Losartan Intervention For Endpoint Reduction in Hypertensives
LV
: left ventricle/left ventricular
LVH
: left ventricular hypertrophy
LVM
: left ventricular mass
MDRD
: Modification of Diet in Renal Disease
MRFIT
: Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial
MRI
: magnetic resonance imaging
NORDIL
: The Nordic Diltiazem Intervention study
OC
: oral contraceptive
OD
: organ damage
ONTARGET
: ONgoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial
PAD
: peripheral artery disease
PATHS
: Prevention And Treatment of Hypertension Study
PCI
: percutaneous coronary intervention
PPAR
: peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor
PREVEND
: Prevention of REnal and Vascular ENdstage Disease
PROFESS
: Prevention Regimen for Effectively Avoiding Secondary Strokes
PROGRESS
: Perindopril Protection Against Recurrent Stroke Study
PWV
: pulse wave velocity
QALY
: Quality adjusted life years
RAA
: renin-angiotensin-aldosterone
RAS
: renin-angiotensin system
RCT
: randomized controlled trials
RF
: risk factor
ROADMAP
: Randomized Olmesartan And Diabetes MicroAlbuminuria Prevention
SBP
: systolic blood pressure
SCAST
: Angiotensin-Receptor Blocker Candesartan for Treatment of Acute STroke
SCOPE
: Study on COgnition and Prognosis in the Elderly
SCORE
: Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation
SHEP
: Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program
STOP
: Swedish Trials in Old Patients with Hypertension
STOP-2
: The second Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension
SYSTCHINA
: SYSTolic Hypertension in the Elderly: Chinese trial
SYSTEUR
: SYSTolic Hypertension in Europe
TIA
: transient ischaemic attack
TOHP
: Trials Of Hypertension Prevention
TRANSCEND
: Telmisartan Randomised AssessmeNt Study in ACE iNtolerant subjects with cardiovascular Disease
UKPDS
: United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study
VADT
: Veterans' Affairs Diabetes Trial
VALUE
: Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation
WHO
: World Health Organization
### 1.1 Principles
The 2013 guidelines on hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and the European Society of Cardiology …
14,173 citations
••
TL;DR: A systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled studies examined the efficacy and tolerability of different types of antidepressants, the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic, antipsychotics alone, or natural products in adults with somatoform disorders in adults to improve optimal treatment decisions.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Somatoform disorders are characterised by chronic, medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS). Although different medications are part of treatment routines for people with somatoform disorders in clinics and private practices, there exists no systematic review or meta-analysis on the efficacy and tolerability of these medications. We aimed to synthesise to improve optimal treatment decisions.OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders (specifically somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, and pain disorder) in adults.SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) (to 17 January 2014). This register includes relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from The Cochrane Library (all years), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), and PsycINFO (1967 to date). To identify ongoing trials, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials metaRegister, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry. For grey literature, we searched ProQuest Dissertation {\&} Theses Database, OpenGrey, and BIOSIS Previews. We handsearched conference proceedings and reference lists of potentially relevant papers and systematic reviews and contacted experts in the field.SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected RCTs or cluster RCTs of pharmacological interventions versus placebo, treatment as usual, another medication, or a combination of different medications for somatoform disorders in adults. We included people fulfilling standardised diagnostic criteria for somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, or somatoform pain disorder.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author and one research assistant independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes included the severity of MUPS on a continuous measure, and acceptability of treatment.MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 RCTs (33 reports), with 2159 participants, in the review. They examined the efficacy of different types of antidepressants, the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic, antipsychotics alone, or natural products (NPs). The duration of the studies ranged between two and 12 weeks.One meta-analysis of placebo-controlled studies showed no clear evidence of a significant difference between tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and placebo for the outcome severity of MUPS (SMD -0.13; 95{\%} CI -0.39 to 0.13; 2 studies, 239 participants; I(2) = 2{\%}; low-quality evidence). For new-generation antidepressants (NGAs), there was very low-quality evidence showing they were effective in reducing the severity of MUPS (SMD -0.91; 95{\%} CI -1.36 to -0.46; 3 studies, 243 participants; I(2) = 63{\%}). For NPs there was low-quality evidence that they were effective in reducing the severity of MUPS (SMD -0.74; 95{\%} CI -0.97 to -0.51; 2 studies, 322 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}).One meta-analysis showed no clear evidence of a difference between TCAs and NGAs for severity of MUPS (SMD -0.16; 95{\%} CI -0.55 to 0.23; 3 studies, 177 participants; I(2) = 42{\%}; low-quality evidence). There was also no difference between NGAs and other NGAs for severity of MUPS (SMD -0.16; 95{\%} CI -0.45 to 0.14; 4 studies, 182 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}).Finally, one meta-analysis comparing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) with a combination of SSRIs and antipsychotics showed low-quality evidence in favour of combined treatment for severity of MUPS (SMD 0.77; 95{\%} CI 0.32 to 1.22; 2 studies, 107 participants; I(2) = 23{\%}).Differences regarding the acceptability of the treatment (rate of all-cause drop-outs) were neither found between NGAs and placebo (RR 1.01, 95{\%} CI 0.64 to 1.61; 2 studies, 163 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}; low-quality evidence) or NPs and placebo (RR 0.85, 95{\%} CI 0.40 to 1.78; 3 studies, 506 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}; low-quality evidence); nor between TCAs and other medication (RR 1.48, 95{\%} CI 0.59 to 3.72; 8 studies, 556 participants; I(2) =14{\%}; low-quality evidence); nor between antidepressants and the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic (RR 0.80, 95{\%} CI 0.25 to 2.52; 2 studies, 118 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}; low-quality evidence). Percental attrition rates due to adverse effects were high in all antidepressant treatments (0{\%} to 32{\%}), but low for NPs (0{\%} to 1.7{\%}).The risk of bias was high in many domains across studies. Seventeen trials (65.4{\%}) gave no information about random sequence generation and only two (7.7{\%}) provided information about allocation concealment. Eighteen studies (69.2{\%}) revealed a high or unclear risk in blinding participants and study personnel; 23 studies had high risk of bias relating to blinding assessors. For the comparison NGA versus placebo, there was relatively high imprecision and heterogeneity due to one outlier study. Although we identified 26 studies, each comparison only contained a few studies and small numbers of participants so the results were imprecise.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current review found very low-quality evidence for NGAs and low-quality evidence for NPs being effective in treating somatoform symptoms in adults when compared with placebo. There was some evidence that different classes of antidepressants did not differ in efficacy; however, this was limited and of low to very low quality. These results had serious shortcomings such as the high risk of bias, strong heterogeneity in the data, and small sample sizes. Furthermore, the significant effects of antidepressant treatment have to be balanced against the relatively high rates of adverse effects. Adverse effects produced by medication can have amplifying effects on symptom perceptions, particularly in people focusing on somatic symptoms without medical causes. We can only draw conclusions about short-term efficacy of the pharmacological interventions because no trial included follow-up assessments. For each of the comparisons where there were available data on acceptability rates (NGAs versus placebo, NPs versus placebo, TCAs versus other medication, and antidepressants versus a combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic), no clear differences between the intervention and comparator were found.Future high-quality research should be carried out to determine the effectiveness of medications other than antidepressants, to compare antidepressants more thoroughly, and to follow-up participants over longer periods (the longest follow up was just 12 weeks). Another idea for future research would be to include other outcomes such as functional impairment or dysfunctional behaviours and cognitions as well as the classical outcomes such as symptom severity, depression, or anxiety.
11,458 citations
••
TL;DR: 2007 Guidelines for the Management of Arterial Hypertension : The Task Force for the management of Arterspertension of the European Society ofhypertension (ESH) and of theEuropean Society of Cardiology (ESC).
Abstract: 2007 Guidelines for the Management of Arterial Hypertension : The Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).
9,932 citations
01 Jan 2014
TL;DR: These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care.
Abstract: XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.
9,618 citations
••
TL;DR: It is important that the medical profession play a significant role in critically evaluating the use of diagnostic procedures and therapies as they are introduced in the detection, management, and management of diseases.
Abstract: PREAMBLE......e4
APPENDIX 1......e121
APPENDIX 2......e122
APPENDIX 3......e124
REFERENCES......e124
It is important that the medical profession play a significant role in critically evaluating the use of diagnostic procedures and therapies as they are introduced in the detection, management,
8,362 citations