Welfare policy and social transfers in Croatia

This Occasional Paper occurred as the byproduct of preparations for writing the report by Predrag Bejaković and Alastair McAuley “Welfare Policy and Social Transfers in the Republic of Croatia”, The World Bank, Europe and Central Asia Region, Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit, June 1998. The authors, Predrag Bejaković (Institute of Public Finance, Zagreb, Croatia) and Alastair McAuley (University of Essex, Colchester, England) first published the text in Croatian in the Institute's journal "Financijska praksa", Volume 23, Number 1, (March 1999). This Occasional Paper is the English language translation of the article published in "Financijska praksa"

Welfare Policy and Social Transfers in Croatia

The purpose of this paper is to review the range of social policies that have been adopted by the government of Croatia since independence together with those that have been retained from the socialist past and to ask whether it might be possible to improve them. The paper concentrates on issues of social security and employment. After the Introduction, in Section 2 we provide estimates of the level and composition of social expenditure in Croatia in the last two or three years. These show that the scale of public expenditure has been growing and that it is high compared with a number of other transition economies. This is also true of social expenditure within the overall budget. It is this development that has, in fact, prompted the present report. Section 3 focuses upon the labour market. It assesses evidence on participation and on the level of unemployment. It also examines evidence on inequality and poverty. Finally, it looks at the unemployment benefit to see how far it provides an adequate safety-net for those who lose their jobs. Section 4 concentrates on the structure of social welfare and social assistance programmes provided by the Croatian government. Finally, Section 5 examines possible ways in which the efficacy of the present system might be improved.social welfare, Europe, public policy

Spatial and temporal dynamics of Western Australia’s commercially important sharks

This project took advantage of an unprecedented deployment of acoustic receiver infrastructure around the Western Australian coast to monitor a large number of sharks implanted with acoustic tags. This research was undertaken to better understand the temporal and spatial dynamics of commercially-important sharks in Western Australia, which has enabled a re-evaluation of the risks of cryptic sources of catch and bycatch to dusky and sandbar shark stocks and development of population simulation models with which to test the implications of spatially-different histories of fishery management, as well as future spatial-management arrangements for whiskery and gummy sharks stocks

Novel anti-tumour necrosis factor receptor-1 (TNFR1) domain antibody prevents pulmonary inflammation in experimental acute lung injury.

BACKGROUND: Tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) is a pleiotropic cytokine with both injurious and protective functions, which are thought to diverge at the level of its two cell surface receptors, TNFR1 and TNFR2. In the setting of acute injury, selective inhibition of TNFR1 is predicted to attenuate the cell death and inflammation associated with TNF-α, while sparing or potentiating the protective effects of TNFR2 signalling. We developed a potent and selective antagonist of TNFR1 (GSK1995057) using a novel domain antibody (dAb) therapeutic and assessed its efficacy in vitro, in vivo and in a clinical trial involving healthy human subjects. METHODS: We investigated the in vitro effects of GSK1995057 on human pulmonary microvascular endothelial cells (HMVEC-L) and then assessed the effects of pretreatment with nebulised GSK1995057 in a non-human primate model of acute lung injury. We then tested translation to humans by investigating the effects of a single nebulised dose of GSK1995057 in healthy humans (n=37) in a randomised controlled clinical trial in which subjects were subsequently exposed to inhaled endotoxin. RESULTS: Selective inhibition of TNFR1 signalling potently inhibited cytokine and neutrophil adhesion molecule expression in activated HMVEC-L monolayers in vitro (P<0.01 and P<0.001, respectively), and also significantly attenuated inflammation and signs of lung injury in non-human primates (P<0.01 in all cases). In a randomised, placebo-controlled trial of nebulised GSK1995057 in 37 healthy humans challenged with a low dose of inhaled endotoxin, treatment with GSK1995057 attenuated pulmonary neutrophilia, inflammatory cytokine release (P<0.01 in all cases) and signs of endothelial injury (P<0.05) in bronchoalveolar lavage and serum samples. CONCLUSION: These data support the potential for pulmonary delivery of a selective TNFR1 dAb as a novel therapeutic approach for the prevention of acute respiratory distress syndrome. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01587807

RAND appropriateness panel to determine the applicability of UK guidelines on the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and other strategies in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has become the most common cause of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) worldwide. Features of the pathophysiology and clinical presentation partially distinguish it from 'classical' ARDS. A Research and Development (RAND) analysis gauged the opinion of an expert panel about the management of ARDS with and without COVID-19 as the precipitating cause, using recent UK guidelines as a template. METHODS: An 11-person panel comprising intensive care practitioners rated the appropriateness of ARDS management options at different times during hospital admission, in the presence or absence of, or varying severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection on a scale of 1-9 (where 1-3 is inappropriate, 4-6 is uncertain and 7-9 is appropriate). A summary of the anonymised results was discussed at an online meeting moderated by an expert in RAND methodology. The modified online survey comprising 76 questions, subdivided into investigations (16), non-invasive respiratory support (18), basic intensive care unit management of ARDS (20), management of refractory hypoxaemia (8), pharmacotherapy (7) and anticoagulation (7), was completed again. RESULTS: Disagreement between experts was significant only when addressing the appropriateness of diagnostic bronchoscopy in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Adherence to existing published guidelines for the management of ARDS for relevant evidence-based interventions was recommended. Responses of the experts to the final survey suggested that the supportive management of ARDS should be the same, regardless of a COVID-19 diagnosis. For patients with ARDS with COVID-19, the panel recommended routine treatment with corticosteroids and a lower threshold for full anticoagulation based on a high index of suspicion for venous thromboembolic disease. CONCLUSION: The expert panel found no reason to deviate from the evidence-based supportive strategies for managing ARDS outlined in recent guidelines

RAND appropriateness panel to determine the applicability of UK guidelines on the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and other strategies in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has become the most common cause of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) worldwide. Features of the pathophysiology and clinical presentation partially distinguish it from 'classical' ARDS. A Research and Development (RAND) analysis gauged the opinion of an expert panel about the management of ARDS with and without COVID-19 as the precipitating cause, using recent UK guidelines as a template. METHODS: An 11-person panel comprising intensive care practitioners rated the appropriateness of ARDS management options at different times during hospital admission, in the presence or absence of, or varying severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection on a scale of 1-9 (where 1-3 is inappropriate, 4-6 is uncertain and 7-9 is appropriate). A summary of the anonymised results was discussed at an online meeting moderated by an expert in RAND methodology. The modified online survey comprising 76 questions, subdivided into investigations (16), non-invasive respiratory support (18), basic intensive care unit management of ARDS (20), management of refractory hypoxaemia (8), pharmacotherapy (7) and anticoagulation (7), was completed again. RESULTS: Disagreement between experts was significant only when addressing the appropriateness of diagnostic bronchoscopy in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Adherence to existing published guidelines for the management of ARDS for relevant evidence-based interventions was recommended. Responses of the experts to the final survey suggested that the supportive management of ARDS should be the same, regardless of a COVID-19 diagnosis. For patients with ARDS with COVID-19, the panel recommended routine treatment with corticosteroids and a lower threshold for full anticoagulation based on a high index of suspicion for venous thromboembolic disease. CONCLUSION: The expert panel found no reason to deviate from the evidence-based supportive strategies for managing ARDS outlined in recent guidelines

Biomarkers of acute lung injury: worth their salt?

The validation of biomarkers has become a key goal of translational biomedical research. The purpose of this article is to discuss the role of biomarkers in the management of acute lung injury (ALI) and related research. Biomarkers should be sensitive and specific indicators of clinically important processes and should change in a relevant timeframe to affect recruitment to trials or clinical management. We do not believe that they necessarily need to reflect pathogenic processes. We critically examined current strategies used to identify biomarkers and which, owing to expedience, have been dominated by reanalysis of blood derived markers from large multicenter Phase 3 studies. Combining new and existing validated biomarkers with physiological and other data may add predictive power and facilitate the development of important aids to research and therapy

Effect of a Perioperative, Cardiac Output-Guided Hemodynamic Therapy Algorithm on Outcomes Following Major Gastrointestinal Surgery A Randomized Clinical Trial and Systematic Review

Importance: small trials suggest that postoperative outcomes may be improved by the use of cardiac output monitoring to guide administration of intravenous fluid and inotropic drugs as part of a hemodynamic therapy algorithm.Objective: to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a perioperative, cardiac output–guided hemodynamic therapy algorithm.Design, setting, and participants: OPTIMISE was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, observer-blinded trial of 734 high-risk patients aged 50 years or older undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery at 17 acute care hospitals in the United Kingdom. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis were also conducted including randomized trials published from 1966 to February 2014.Interventions: patients were randomly assigned to a cardiac output–guided hemodynamic therapy algorithm for intravenous fluid and inotrope (dopexamine) infusion during and 6 hours following surgery (n=368) or to usual care (n=366).Main outcomes and measures: the primary outcome was a composite of predefined 30-day moderate or major complications and mortality. Secondary outcomes were morbidity on day 7; infection, critical care–free days, and all-cause mortality at 30 days; all-cause mortality at 180 days; and length of hospital stay.Results: baseline patient characteristics, clinical care, and volumes of intravenous fluid were similar between groups. Care was nonadherent to the allocated treatment for less than 10% of patients in each group. The primary outcome occurred in 36.6% of intervention and 43.4% of usual care participants (relative risk [RR], 0.84 [95% CI, 0.71-1.01]; absolute risk reduction, 6.8% [95% CI, ?0.3% to 13.9%]; P?=?.07). There was no significant difference between groups for any secondary outcomes. Five intervention patients (1.4%) experienced cardiovascular serious adverse events within 24 hours compared with none in the usual care group. Findings of the meta-analysis of 38 trials, including data from this study, suggest that the intervention is associated with fewer complications (intervention, 488/1548 [31.5%] vs control, 614/1476 [41.6%]; RR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.71-0.83]) and a nonsignificant reduction in hospital, 28-day, or 30-day mortality (intervention, 159/3215 deaths [4.9%] vs control, 206/3160 deaths [6.5%]; RR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.67-1.01]) and mortality at longest follow-up (intervention, 267/3215 deaths [8.3%] vs control, 327/3160 deaths [10.3%]; RR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.74-1.00]).Conclusions and relevance: in a randomized trial of high-risk patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery, use of a cardiac output–guided hemodynamic therapy algorithm compared with usual care did not reduce a composite outcome of complications and 30-day mortality. However, inclusion of these data in an updated meta-analysis indicates that the intervention was associated with a reduction in complication rate

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Sustaining remission of psychotic depression: Rationale, design and methodology of STOP-PD II

Background: Psychotic depression (PD) is a severe disabling disorder with considerable morbidity and mortality. Electroconvulsive therapy and pharmacotherapy are each efficacious in the treatment of PD. Expert guidelines recommend the combination of antidepressant and antipsychotic medications in the acute pharmacologic treatment of PD. However, little is known about the continuation treatment of PD. Of particular concern, it is not known whether antipsychotic medication needs to be continued once an episode of PD responds to pharmacotherapy. This issue has profound clinical importance. On the one hand, the unnecessary continuation of antipsychotic medication exposes a patient to adverse effects, such as weight gain and metabolic disturbance. On the other hand, premature discontinuation of antipsychotic medication has the potential risk of early relapse of a severe disorder.Methods/design: The primary goal of this multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trial is to assess the risks and benefits of continuing antipsychotic medication in persons with PD once the episode of depression has responded to treatment with an antidepressant and an antipsychotic. Secondary goals are to examine age and genetic polymorphisms as predictors or moderators of treatment variability, potentially leading to more personalized treatment of PD. Individuals aged 18-85 years with unipolar psychotic depression receive up to 12 weeks of open-label treatment with sertraline and olanzapine. Participants who achieve remission of psychosis and remission/near-remission of depressive symptoms continue with 8 weeks of open-label treatment to ensure stability of remission. Participants with stability of remission are then randomized to 36 weeks of double-blind treatment with either sertraline and olanzapine or sertraline and placebo. Relapse is the primary outcome. Metabolic changes are a secondary outcome.Discussion: This trial will provide clinicians with much-needed evidence to guide the continuation and maintenance treatment of one of the most disabling and lethal of psychiatric disorders.Trial registration and URL: NCT: NCT01427608. © 2013 Flint et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd