Valoración de Intrumentos Financieros : Valoración de los Intrumentos de renta variable (Acciones Comunes) de la empresa Amarales en el año 2016

En este trabajo de seminario de Graduación será abordado el tema Valoración de instrumentos financieros, enfatizando en la valoración de los instrumentos de renta variable (acciones comunes) de la empresa Amarales en el año 2016 mediante el método de valuación de crecimiento cero, sin embargo en principio se aclarará en qué consiste el mercado financiero, posteriormente se desarrollará un caso práctico en donde se utilizará el método antes mencionado, este mismo asume que los rendimientos que se espera recibir por las acciones de una empresa permanecerán sin crecimiento en el futuro. El propósito es dar a conocer al mercado financiero como una buena opción para aquellos que desean invertir sus ahorros y hacerlos más productivos, así como también para quienes tengan necesidades de financiamiento ya que a través de este mercado también pueden obtenerlo. Este trabajo se elaboró desarrollando cada uno de los objetivos planteados, para ello se consultaron varios libros de diferentes autores que dan sus propias aportaciones y definiciones acerca de la temática del trabajo, respecto al caso práctico se realizó un planteamiento en donde se calculará el precio de las acciones comunes de la empresa Amarales, S.A y los rendimientos que se esperan recibir durante un período de 7 años por una cantidad determinada de acciones. Al final los resultados fueron satisfactorios ya que se logró hacer el cálculo del valor de las acciones y también se realizó el cálculo de los rendimientos totales que se espera recibir por las acciones de la empresa antes mencionada. Al final se logra presentar al mercado financiero como alternativa eficaz para canalizar el ahorro hacia la inversión y que además funciona como un intermediario que traslada los recursos de sectores menos productivos hacia otros sectores que pueden ser mucho más productivos, contribuyendo a la dinamización de la economía y por ende al crecimiento económico del país

Global attitudes in the management of acute appendicitis during COVID-19 pandemic: ACIE Appy Study

Background: Surgical strategies are being adapted to face the COVID-19 pandemic. Recommendations on the management of acute appendicitis have been based on expert opinion, but very little evidence is available. This study addressed that dearth with a snapshot of worldwide approaches to appendicitis. Methods: The Association of Italian Surgeons in Europe designed an online survey to assess the current attitude of surgeons globally regarding the management of patients with acute appendicitis during the pandemic. Questions were divided into baseline information, hospital organization and screening, personal protective equipment, management and surgical approach, and patient presentation before versus during the pandemic. Results: Of 744 answers, 709 (from 66 countries) were complete and were included in the analysis. Most hospitals were treating both patients with and those without COVID. There was variation in screening indications and modality used, with chest X-ray plus molecular testing (PCR) being the commonest (19\ub78 per cent). Conservative management of complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis was used by 6\ub76 and 2\ub74 per cent respectively before, but 23\ub77 and 5\ub73 per cent, during the pandemic (both P < 0\ub7001). One-third changed their approach from laparoscopic to open surgery owing to the popular (but evidence-lacking) advice from expert groups during the initial phase of the pandemic. No agreement on how to filter surgical smoke plume during laparoscopy was identified. There was an overall reduction in the number of patients admitted with appendicitis and one-third felt that patients who did present had more severe appendicitis than they usually observe. Conclusion: Conservative management of mild appendicitis has been possible during the pandemic. The fact that some surgeons switched to open appendicectomy may reflect the poor guidelines that emanated in the early phase of SARS-CoV-2

Rationale, design, and baseline characteristics in Evaluation of LIXisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome, a long-term cardiovascular end point trial of lixisenatide versus placebo

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular (CV) disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Furthermore, patients with T2DM and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) have a particularly high risk of CV events. The glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, lixisenatide, improves glycemia, but its effects on CV events have not been thoroughly evaluated. METHODS: ELIXA (www.clinicaltrials.gov no. NCT01147250) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study of lixisenatide in patients with T2DM and a recent ACS event. The primary aim is to evaluate the effects of lixisenatide on CV morbidity and mortality in a population at high CV risk. The primary efficacy end point is a composite of time to CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Data are systematically collected for safety outcomes, including hypoglycemia, pancreatitis, and malignancy. RESULTS: Enrollment began in July 2010 and ended in August 2013; 6,068 patients from 49 countries were randomized. Of these, 69% are men and 75% are white; at baseline, the mean ± SD age was 60.3 ± 9.7 years, body mass index was 30.2 ± 5.7 kg/m(2), and duration of T2DM was 9.3 ± 8.2 years. The qualifying ACS was a myocardial infarction in 83% and unstable angina in 17%. The study will continue until the positive adjudication of the protocol-specified number of primary CV events. CONCLUSION: ELIXA will be the first trial to report the safety and efficacy of a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist in people with T2DM and high CV event risk

Effects of once-weekly exenatide on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular effects of adding once-weekly treatment with exenatide to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes are unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes, with or without previous cardiovascular disease, to receive subcutaneous injections of extended-release exenatide at a dose of 2 mg or matching placebo once weekly. The primary composite outcome was the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The coprimary hypotheses were that exenatide, administered once weekly, would be noninferior to placebo with respect to safety and superior to placebo with respect to efficacy. RESULTS: In all, 14,752 patients (of whom 10,782 [73.1%] had previous cardiovascular disease) were followed for a median of 3.2 years (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.4). A primary composite outcome event occurred in 839 of 7356 patients (11.4%; 3.7 events per 100 person-years) in the exenatide group and in 905 of 7396 patients (12.2%; 4.0 events per 100 person-years) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.00), with the intention-to-treat analysis indicating that exenatide, administered once weekly, was noninferior to placebo with respect to safety (P<0.001 for noninferiority) but was not superior to placebo with respect to efficacy (P=0.06 for superiority). The rates of death from cardiovascular causes, fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, and the incidence of acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, medullary thyroid carcinoma, and serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes with or without previous cardiovascular disease, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between patients who received exenatide and those who received placebo

Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 306 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 188 countries, 1990-2013: quantifying the epidemiological transition.

International audienceThe Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 (GBD 2013) aims to bring together all available epidemiological data using a coherent measurement framework, standardised estimation methods, and transparent data sources to enable comparisons of health loss over time and across causes, age-sex groups, and countries. The GBD can be used to generate summary measures such as disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) and healthy life expectancy (HALE) that make possible comparative assessments of broad epidemiological patterns across countries and time. These summary measures can also be used to quantify the component of variation in epidemiology that is related to sociodemographic development. We used the published GBD 2013 data for age-specific mortality, years of life lost due to premature mortality (YLLs), and years lived with disability (YLDs) to calculate DALYs and HALE for 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2013 for 188 countries. We calculated HALE using the Sullivan method; 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) represent uncertainty in age-specific death rates and YLDs per person for each country, age, sex, and year. We estimated DALYs for 306 causes for each country as the sum of YLLs and YLDs; 95% UIs represent uncertainty in YLL and YLD rates. We quantified patterns of the epidemiological transition with a composite indicator of sociodemographic status, which we constructed from income per person, average years of schooling after age 15 years, and the total fertility rate and mean age of the population. We applied hierarchical regression to DALY rates by cause across countries to decompose variance related to the sociodemographic status variable, country, and time. Worldwide, from 1990 to 2013, life expectancy at birth rose by 6·2 years (95% UI 5·6-6·6), from 65·3 years (65·0-65·6) in 1990 to 71·5 years (71·0-71·9) in 2013, HALE at birth rose by 5·4 years (4·9-5·8), from 56·9 years (54·5-59·1) to 62·3 years (59·7-64·8), total DALYs fell by 3·6% (0·3-7·4), and age-standardised DALY rates per 100 000 people fell by 26·7% (24·6-29·1). For communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional disorders, global DALY numbers, crude rates, and age-standardised rates have all declined between 1990 and 2013, whereas for non-communicable diseases, global DALYs have been increasing, DALY rates have remained nearly constant, and age-standardised DALY rates declined during the same period. From 2005 to 2013, the number of DALYs increased for most specific non-communicable diseases, including cardiovascular diseases and neoplasms, in addition to dengue, food-borne trematodes, and leishmaniasis; DALYs decreased for nearly all other causes. By 2013, the five leading causes of DALYs were ischaemic heart disease, lower respiratory infections, cerebrovascular disease, low back and neck pain, and road injuries. Sociodemographic status explained more than 50% of the variance between countries and over time for diarrhoea, lower respiratory infections, and other common infectious diseases; maternal disorders; neonatal disorders; nutritional deficiencies; other communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional diseases; musculoskeletal disorders; and other non-communicable diseases. However, sociodemographic status explained less than 10% of the variance in DALY rates for cardiovascular diseases; chronic respiratory diseases; cirrhosis; diabetes, urogenital, blood, and endocrine diseases; unintentional injuries; and self-harm and interpersonal violence. Predictably, increased sociodemographic status was associated with a shift in burden from YLLs to YLDs, driven by declines in YLLs and increases in YLDs from musculoskeletal disorders, neurological disorders, and mental and substance use disorders. In most country-specific estimates, the increase in life expectancy was greater than that in HALE. Leading causes of DALYs are highly variable across countries. Global health is improving. Population growth and ageing have driven up numbers of DALYs, but crude rates have remained relatively constant, showing that progress in health does not mean fewer demands on health systems. The notion of an epidemiological transition--in which increasing sociodemographic status brings structured change in disease burden--is useful, but there is tremendous variation in burden of disease that is not associated with sociodemographic status. This further underscores the need for country-specific assessments of DALYs and HALE to appropriately inform health policy decisions and attendant actions. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium report, data summary of 50 countries for 2010-2015: Device-associated module

•We report INICC device-associated module data of 50 countries from 2010-2015.•We collected prospective data from 861,284 patients in 703 ICUs for 3,506,562 days.•DA-HAI rates and bacterial resistance were higher in the INICC ICUs than in CDC-NHSN's.•Device utilization ratio in the INICC ICUs was similar to CDC-NHSN's. Background: We report the results of International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) surveillance study from January 2010-December 2015 in 703 intensive care units (ICUs) in Latin America, Europe, Eastern Mediterranean, Southeast Asia, and Western Pacific. Methods: During the 6-year study period, using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Healthcare Safety Network (CDC-NHSN) definitions for device-associated health care-associated infection (DA-HAI), we collected prospective data from 861,284 patients hospitalized in INICC hospital ICUs for an aggregate of 3,506,562 days. Results: Although device use in INICC ICUs was similar to that reported from CDC-NHSN ICUs, DA-HAI rates were higher in the INICC ICUs: in the INICC medical-surgical ICUs, the pooled rate of central line-associated bloodstream infection, 4.1 per 1,000 central line-days, was nearly 5-fold higher than the 0.8 per 1,000 central line-days reported from comparable US ICUs, the overall rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia was also higher, 13.1 versus 0.9 per 1,000 ventilator-days, as was the rate of catheter-associated urinary tract infection, 5.07 versus 1.7 per 1,000 catheter-days. From blood cultures samples, frequencies of resistance of Pseudomonas isolates to amikacin (29.87% vs 10%) and to imipenem (44.3% vs 26.1%), and of Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates to ceftazidime (73.2% vs 28.8%) and to imipenem (43.27% vs 12.8%) were also higher in the INICC ICUs compared with CDC-NHSN ICUs. Conclusions: Although DA-HAIs in INICC ICU patients continue to be higher than the rates reported in CDC-NSHN ICUs representing the developed world, we have observed a significant trend toward the reduction of DA-HAI rates in INICC ICUs as shown in each international report. It is INICC's main goal to continue facilitating education, training, and basic and cost-effective tools and resources, such as standardized forms and an online platform, to tackle this problem effectively and systematically

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health