The Impact of a Change in Regulation on Environmental Disclosure: SAB92 and the US Chemical Industry

This study investigates environmental disclosure in the annual reports of US public companiesin the chemical industry during a time when there was a substantial change in reporting regulation.This change concerned contingent environmental liabilities. We draw on signal theoryand the economic cost perspective to generate predictions about environmental disclosurestrategies. We find evidence that managers use disclosure to distinguish their companies fromother companies: first by disclosing environmental liabilities that many other companies did notreveal; and later by disclosing other future-oriented financial information. We assumed initially,that this behaviour was indicative of signaling strategy. We find, however, that the companieswhich we initially thought were signaling have higher levels of pollutant emissions (perdollar of assets) than non-signaling companies. This evidence does not support our earlier assumption.We argue that public concern about this industry, and the fact that emissions levelsare open to public scrutiny, lowers the disclosure-cost threshold for high emission companies,leading managers to disclose information they previously withheld. Copyright © www.iiste.orgÂ

The usefulness of accrual-based surpluses in the Canadian public sector

This paper investigates how useful accrual-based surpluses are when predicting future cash flows and surpluses in the context of the Canadian public sector. We provide evidence that surpluses incrementally enhance the ability of operating cash flows to predict future cash flows and surpluses. Analysis of our accrual quality model illustrates that in the public sector, accruals accounting is useful in mitigating the noise in operating cash flows. We also find that decomposing surpluses into operating cash flows and accruals enhances the ability of surpluses to forecast future cash flows and surpluses. Therefore, we conclude that aggregate and disaggregated surpluses are positively related to both relevance and reliability. We also find a lack of test results to support the presence of conservatism in the Canadian public sector, and confirm that the usefulness of surpluses in making predictions is independent of selected control factors

Mind the gap: diversity and reactivity relationships among multihaem cytochromes of the MtrA/DmsE family

Shewanella oneidensis MR-1 has the ability to use many external terminal electron acceptors during anaerobic respiration, such as DMSO. The pathway that facilitates this electron transfer includes the decahaem cytochrome DmsE, a paralogue of the MtrA family of decahaem cytochromes. Although both DmsE and MtrA are decahaem cytochromes implicated in the long-range electron transfer across a ~300 Å (1 Å=0.1 nm) wide periplasmic ‘gap’, MtrA has been shown to be only 105 Å in maximal length. In the present paper, DmsE is further characterized via protein film voltammetry, revealing that the electrochemistry of the DmsE haem cofactors display macroscopic potentials lower than those of MtrA by 100 mV. It is possible this tuning of the redox potential of DmsE is required to shuttle electrons to the outer-membrane proteins specific to DMSO reduction. Other decahaem cytochromes found in S. oneidensis, such as the outer-membrane proteins MtrC, MtrF and OmcA, have been shown to have electrochemical properties similar to those of MtrA, yet possess a different evolutionary relationship.National Science Foundation (U.S.) (Grant MCB 0546323)National Science Foundation (U.S.) (Grant CHE 0840418)Research Corporation for Science Advancement (Scialog Award)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant F32GM904862

Implications of Advancing Paternal Age: Does It Affect Offspring School Performance?

Average paternal age is increasing in many high income countries, but the implications of this demographic shift for child health and welfare are poorly understood. There is equivocal evidence that children of older fathers are at increased risk of neurodevelopmental disorders and reduced IQ. We therefore report here on the relationship between paternal age and a composite indicator of scholastic achievement during adolescence, i.e. compulsory school leaving grades, among recent birth cohorts in Stockholm County where delayed paternity is notably common. We performed a record-linkage study comprising all individuals in Stockholm County who finished 9 years of compulsory school from 2000 through 2007 (n = 155,875). Data on school leaving grades and parental characteristics were retrieved from administrative and health service registers and analyzed using multiple linear regression. Advancing paternal age at birth was not associated with a decrease in school leaving grades in adolescent offspring. After adjustment for year of graduation, maternal age and parental education, country of birth and parental mental health service use, offspring of fathers aged 50 years or older had on average 0.3 (95% CI −3.8, 4.4) points higher grades than those of fathers aged 30–34 years. In conclusion, advancing paternal age is not associated with poorer school performance in adolescence. Adverse effects of delayed paternity on offspring cognitive function, if any, may be counterbalanced by other potential advantages for children born to older fathers

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials