31 research outputs found

    Derecho a techo

    Get PDF
    Treball Final de Grau en Periodisme. Codi: PE0932 Curs acadèmic: 2014-2015Derecho a Techo es una página web que trata uno de los temas más relevantes de la actualidad, los desahucios, concretamente, en la provincia de Castellón. Las personas que los sufren, son una parte de la sociedad que aparece en los medios de comunicación de forma generalizada, es decir, sin nombre y en muchas ocasiones, sin voz. Queremos personificar a los ciudadanos que se encuentran en esta situación precaria, pero no solo a ellos, sino también a aquellas personas que en situaciones deplorables sacan su máxima solidaridad. Seguiremos a las familias, a los más afectados y a aquellos que luchan por los derechos de todos los ciudadanos, realizando reportajes, tanto escritos, radiofónicos como audiovisuales, entrevistas y fotografías. Derecho a Techo es una web dirigida a todos los públicos, ya que los desahucios no entienden de edad, género o raza.We have created a website that is specialized in provincial journalism focusing on topics that, despite not having real media interest, do exist. In "Derecho a Techo" (Right to a roof), the name of the website, you can find a lot of journalistic articles, especially interviews that cover a wide range of topics related to evictions in the province of Castellon. We chose this social problem because we believe it is right and necessary that all those who are being affected by the Mortgage Law in our province are heard. With our work we want to give a face, a voice, and represents de feelings and opinions of the people, who have this problem and are living it

    Multicenter prospective clinical study to evaluate children short-term neurodevelopmental outcome in congenital heart disease (children NEURO-HEART): study protocol

    Get PDF
    Congenital heart disease; Neurodevelopment; Predictive markersCardiopatía congénita; Desarrollo neurológico; Marcadores predictivosCardiopaties congènites; Neurodesenvolupament; Marcadors predictiusBackground: Congenital heart disease (CHD) is the most prevalent congenital malformation affecting 1 in 100 newborns. While advances in early diagnosis and postnatal management have increased survival in CHD children, worrying long-term outcomes, particularly neurodevelopmental disability, have emerged as a key prognostic factor in the counseling of these pregnancies. Methods: Eligible participants are women presenting at 20 to < 37 weeks of gestation carrying a fetus with CHD. Maternal/neonatal recordings are performed at regular intervals, from the fetal period to 24 months of age, and include: placental and fetal hemodynamics, fetal brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), functional echocardiography, cerebral oxymetry, electroencephalography and serum neurological and cardiac biomarkers. Neurodevelopmental assessment is planned at 12 months of age using the ages and stages questionnaire (ASQ) and at 24months of age with the Bayley-III test. Target recruitment is at least 150 cases classified in three groups according to three main severe CHD groups: transposition of great arteries (TGA), Tetralogy of Fallot (TOF) and Left Ventricular Outflow Tract Obstruction (LVOTO). Discussion: The results of NEURO-HEART study will provide themost comprehensive knowledge until date of children’s neurologic prognosis in CHD and will have the potential for developing future clinical decisive tools and improving preventive strategies in CHD.RETICS funded by the PN 2018-2021 (Spain), ISCIII- Sub-Directorate General for Research Assessment and Promotion and the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER), reference RD16/002

    COVID-19 : Age, Interleukin-6, C-reactive protein, and lymphocytes as key clues from a multicentre retrospective study

    Get PDF
    Background: The SARS-CoV-2 infection has widely spread to become the greatest public health challenge to date, the COVID-19 pandemic. Different fatality rates among countries are probably due to non-standardized records being carried out by local health authorities. The Spanish case-fatality rate is 11.22%, far higher than those reported in Asia or by other European countries. A multicentre retrospective study of demographic, clinical, laboratory and immunological features of 584 Spanish COVID-19 hospitalized patients and their outcomes was performed. The use of renin-angiotensin system blockers was also analysed as a risk factor. Results: In this study, 27.4% of cases presented a mild course, 42.1% a moderate one and for 30.5% of cases, the course was severe. Ages ranged from 18 to 98 (average 63). Almost 60 % (59.8%) of patients were male. Interleukin 6 was higher as severity increased. On the other hand, CD8 lymphocyte count was significantly lower as severity grew and subpopulations CD4, CD8, CD19, and NK showed concordant lowering trends. Severity-related natural killer percent descents were evidenced just within aged cases. A significant severity-related decrease of CD4 lymphocytes was found in males. The use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors was associated with a better prognosis. The angiotensin II receptor blocker use was associated with a more severe course. Conclusions: Age and age-related comorbidities, such as dyslipidaemia, hypertension or diabetes, determined more frequent severe forms of the disease in this study than in previous literature cohorts. Our cases are older than those so far reported and the clinical course of the disease is found to be impaired by age. Immunosenescence might be therefore a suitable explanation for the hampering of immune system effectors. The adaptive immunity would become exhausted and a strong but ineffective and almost deleterious innate response would account for COVID-19 severity. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors used by hypertensive patients have a protective effect in regards to COVID-19 severity in our series. Conversely, patients on angiotensin II receptor blockers showed a severer disease

    Determinants of Agri-food Firms Participation in Public Funded Research and Development

    Get PDF
    A database of over 2,700 agri-food businesses in the region of Valencia, Spain was used to test the influence of internal characteristics of the firm and of external characteristics linked to local systems on the willingness to participate in R&D activities promoted by knowledge supporting institutions. A Probit model was estimated, correcting possible intragroup correlations when group variables are combined with individual data. Results show that R&D activities are enhanced in medium and large firms, co-ops, experienced firms and better physical access to technological centers.The authors gratefully acknowledge the support received from the projects AGL2012-39793-C03-01 and 02, funded by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Spain).García Alvarez-Coque, JM.; Mas Verdú, F.; Sanchez Garcia, M. (2015). Determinants of Agri-food Firms Participation in Public Funded Research and Development. Agribusiness. 31(3):314-329. doi:10.1002/agr.21407S314329313Albors-Garrigos, J., Zabaleta, N., & Ganzarain, J. (2010). New R&D management paradigms: rethinking research and technology organizations strategies in regions. R&D Management, 40(5), 435-454. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2010.00611.xAlarcón, S., & Sánchez, M. (2013). External and Internal R&D, Capital Investment and Business Performance in the Spanish Agri-Food Industry. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 64(3), 654-675. doi:10.1111/1477-9552.12015Alecke, B., Alsleben, C., Scharr, F., & Untiedt, G. (2006). Are there really high-tech clusters? The geographic concentration of German manufacturing industries and its determinants. The Annals of Regional Science, 40(1), 19-42. doi:10.1007/s00168-005-0014-xAlfranca, O. (2005). Private R&D and Spillovers in European Agriculture. International Advances in Economic Research, 11(2), 201-213. doi:10.1007/s11294-005-3016-7Alston , J. 2010 The benefits from agricultural research and development, innovation and productivity growth http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5km91nfsnkwg-enAudretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Warning, S. (2005). University spillovers and new firm location. Research Policy, 34(7), 1113-1122. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.009Avermaete, T., Viaene, J., Morgan, E. J., & Crawford, N. (2003). Determinants of innovation in small food firms. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(1), 8-17. doi:10.1108/14601060310459163Balasubramanian, N., & Lee, J. (2008). Firm age and innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17(5), 1019-1047. doi:10.1093/icc/dtn028Baldwin, J., Hanel, P., & Sabourin, D. (2002). Determinants of Innovative Activity in Canadian Manufacturing Firms. Innovation and Firm Performance, 86-111. doi:10.1057/9780230595880_5Barge-Gil, A., Santamaría, L., & Modrego, A. (2011). Complementarities Between Universities and Technology Institutes: New Empirical Lessons and Perspectives. European Planning Studies, 19(2), 195-215. doi:10.1080/09654313.2011.532665Batabyal, A. A., & Nijkamp, P. (2012). A multi-region model of economic growth with human capital and negative externalities in innovation. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 23(4), 909-924. doi:10.1007/s00191-012-0293-1Batterink, M. H., Wubben, E. F. M., Klerkx, L., & Omta, S. W. F. (Onno). (2010). Orchestrating innovation networks: The case of innovation brokers in the agri-food sector. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(1), 47-76. doi:10.1080/08985620903220512Bayona-Sáez, C., García-Marco, T., Sanchez-García, M., & Cruz-Càzares, C. (2013). The impact of open innovation on innovation performance: the case of Spanish agri-food firms. Open Innovation in the Food and Beverage Industry, 74-94. doi:10.1533/9780857097248.1.74Bayona, C., Garcı́a-Marco, T., & Huerta, E. (2001). Firms’ motivations for cooperative R&D: an empirical analysis of Spanish firms. Research Policy, 30(8), 1289-1307. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(00)00151-7Becattini G. Industrial districts: A new approach to industrial change 88 111Beckeman, M., & Skjöldebrand, C. (2007). Clusters/networks promote food innovations. Journal of Food Engineering, 79(4), 1418-1425. doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2006.04.024Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Diederen, B., Lokshin, B., & Veugelers, R. (2004). Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22(8-9), 1237-1263. doi:10.1016/j.ijindorg.2004.08.001Belussi, F., & Sedita, S. R. (2009). Life Cycle vs. Multiple Path Dependency in Industrial Districts. European Planning Studies, 17(4), 505-528. doi:10.1080/09654310802682065Bhattacharya, M., & Bloch, H. (2004). Determinants of Innovation. Small Business Economics, 22(2), 155-162. doi:10.1023/b:sbej.0000014453.94445.deBougheas, S. (2004). Internal vs External Financing of R&D. Small Business Economics, 22(1), 11-17. doi:10.1023/b:sbej.0000011569.79252.e5Cantner, U., Conti, E., & Meder, A. (2010). Networks and Innovation: The Role of Social Assets in Explaining Firms’ Innovative Capacity. European Planning Studies, 18(12), 1937-1956. doi:10.1080/09654313.2010.515795Capitanio, F., Coppola, A., & Pascucci, S. (2009). Indications for drivers of innovation in the food sector. British Food Journal, 111(8), 820-838. doi:10.1108/00070700910980946Capitanio, F., Coppola, A., & Pascucci, S. (2010). Product and process innovation in the Italian food industry. Agribusiness, 26(4), 503-518. doi:10.1002/agr.20239Cantwell, J., & Piscitello, L. (2005). Recent Location of Foreign-owned Research and Development Activities by Large Multinational Corporations in the European Regions: The Role of Spillovers and Externalities. Regional Studies, 39(1), 1-16. doi:10.1080/0034340052000320824Capello, R., & Lenzi, C. (2013). Territorial Patterns of Innovation and Economic Growth in European Regions. Growth and Change, 44(2), 195-227. doi:10.1111/grow.12009Copus, A., Skuras, D., & Tsegenidi, K. (2009). Innovation and Peripherality: An Empirical Comparative Study of SMEs in Six European Union Member Countries. Economic Geography, 84(1), 51-82. doi:10.1111/j.1944-8287.2008.tb00391.xCrescenzi, R., Pietrobelli, C., & Rabellotti, R. (2013). Innovation drivers, value chains and the geography of multinational corporations in Europe. Journal of Economic Geography, 14(6), 1053-1086. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbt018Donald, S. G., & Lang, K. (2007). Inference with Difference-in-Differences and Other Panel Data. Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(2), 221-233. doi:10.1162/rest.89.2.221European Commission 2011 Proposal for a regulation of the european parliament and of the council on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)Eurostat 2014 Science and technology indicators http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/science_technology_innovation/data/databaseEvans, D. S. (1987). The Relationship Between Firm Growth, Size, and Age: Estimates for 100 Manufacturing Industries. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 35(4), 567. doi:10.2307/2098588Fearne, A., María García Álvarez‐Coque, J., López‐García Usach Mercedes, T., & García, S. (2013). Innovative firms and the urban/rural divide: the case of agro‐food system. Management Decision, 51(6), 1293-1310. doi:10.1108/md-12-2011-0482De Lucio, I. F., Mas-Verdu, F., & Tortosa, E. (2009). Regional innovation policies: the persistence of the linear model in Spain. The Service Industries Journal, 30(5), 749-762. doi:10.1080/02642060802398093Fernandez-Vazquez, E., & Rubiera-Morollon, F. (2013). Estimating Regional Variations of R&D Effects on Productivity Growth by Entropy Econometrics. Spatial Economic Analysis, 8(1), 54-70. doi:10.1080/17421772.2012.753638García Álvarez-Coque, J. M., Alba, M. F., & López-García Usach, T. (2012). Innovation and sectoral linkages in the agri-food system in the Valencian Community. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 10(1), 18. doi:10.5424/sjar/2012101-207-11Garcia Martinez, M. (2013). Open innovation in the food and beverage industry. doi:10.1533/9780857097248Garcia Martinez, M. (2000). Innovation in the Spanish food & drink industry. The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 3(2), 155-176. doi:10.1016/s1096-7508(00)00033-1GELLYNCK, X., & VERMEIRE, B. (2009). The Contribution of Regional Networks to Innovation and Challenges for Regional Policy. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(3), 719-737. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2009.00887.xGertler, M. S. (2010). Rules of the Game: The Place of Institutions in Regional Economic Change. Regional Studies, 44(1), 1-15. doi:10.1080/00343400903389979Giannakas, K., & Fulton, M. (2005). Process Innovation Activity in a Mixed Oligopoly: The Role of Cooperatives. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87(2), 406-422. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8276.2005.00731.xHagedoorn, J. (2002). Inter-firm R&D partnerships: an overview of major trends and patterns since 1960. Research Policy, 31(4), 477-492. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(01)00120-2Hassink, R. (2005). How to unlock regional economies from path dependency? From learning region to learning cluster. European Planning Studies, 13(4), 521-535. doi:10.1080/09654310500107134Hirsch, S., & Gschwandtner, A. (2013). Profit persistence in the food industry: evidence from five European countries. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 40(5), 741-759. doi:10.1093/erae/jbt007Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715-728. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005Huergo, E., & Jaumandreu, J. (2004). Firms’ age, process innovation and productivity growth. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22(4), 541-559. doi:10.1016/j.ijindorg.2003.12.002Klerkx, L., & Leeuwis, C. (2009). Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: Insights from the Dutch agricultural sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(6), 849-860. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2008.10.001Inkinen, T., & Suorsa, K. (2010). Intermediaries in Regional Innovation Systems: High-Technology Enterprise Survey from Northern Finland. European Planning Studies, 18(2), 169-187. doi:10.1080/09654310903491556Instituto Nacional de Estadística Encuesta sobre innovación de las empresas Author MadridJacob, J., Belderbos, R., & Gilsing, V. (2013). Technology alliances in emerging economies: persistence and interrelation in European firms’ alliance formation. R&D Management, 43(5), 447-460. doi:10.1111/radm.12028Jonard , F. Lambotte , M. Ramos , F. Terres , J.M. Bamps , C. 2009 Delimitations of rural areas in Europe using criteria of population densityJovanovic, B. (1982). Selection and the Evolution of Industry. Econometrica, 50(3), 649. doi:10.2307/1912606Kang, K.-N., & Park, H. (2012). Influence of government R&D support and inter-firm collaborations on innovation in Korean biotechnology SMEs. Technovation, 32(1), 68-78. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2011.08.004Karantininis, K., Sauer, J., & Furtan, W. H. (2010). Innovation and integration in the agri-food industry. Food Policy, 35(2), 112-120. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2009.10.003Hori, K., & Yamada, K. (2012). Education, Innovation and Long-Run Growth. Japanese Economic Review, 64(3), 295-318. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5876.2012.00588.xKloek, T. (1981). OLS Estimation in a Model Where a Microvariable is Explained by Aggregates and Contemporaneous Disturbances are Equicorrelated. Econometrica, 49(1), 205. doi:10.2307/1911134Koput, K. W. (1997). A Chaotic Model of Innovative Search: Some Answers, Many Questions. Organization Science, 8(5), 528-542. doi:10.1287/orsc.8.5.528La Caixa 2009 Spanish estatistical yearbook, 2009 http://www.anuarieco.lacaixa.comunicacions.com/java/X? cgi=caixa.anuari99.util.ChangeLanguage&lang=espLaforet, S. (2008). Size, strategic, and market orientation affects on innovation. Journal of Business Research, 61(7), 753-764. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.08.002Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2005). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131-150. doi:10.1002/smj.507Lee, C.-Y., & Sung, T. (2005). Schumpeter’s legacy: A new perspective on the relationship between firm size and R&D. Research Policy, 34(6), 914-931. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.04.006Lin, F.-J., & Lin, Y.-H. (2012). The determinants of successful R&D consortia: government strategy for the servitization of manufacturing. Service Business, 6(4), 489-502. doi:10.1007/s11628-012-0157-7López Estornell, M. (s. f.). Empresa innovadora, conocimiento y distrito industrial. doi:10.4995/thesis/10251/10080Maietta , O. 2014 Innovation Systems Research in the Italian Food Industry, Centre for Studies and Economics FinanceMaravelakis, E., Bilalis, N., Antoniadis, A., Jones, K. A., & Moustakis, V. (2006). Measuring and benchmarking the innovativeness of SMEs: A three-dimensional fuzzy logic approach. Production Planning & Control, 17(3), 283-292. doi:10.1080/09537280500285532Moulton, B. R. (1986). Random group effects and the precision of regression estimates. Journal of Econometrics, 32(3), 385-397. doi:10.1016/0304-4076(86)90021-7Moulton, B. R. (1990). An Illustration of a Pitfall in Estimating the Effects of Aggregate Variables on Micro Units. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 72(2), 334. doi:10.2307/2109724Muscio, A. (2007). THE IMPACT OF ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY ON SMEs’ COLLABORATION. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(8), 653-668. doi:10.1080/10438590600983994Naranjo-Gil, D. (2009). The influence of environmental and organizational factors on innovation adoptions: Consequences for performance in public sector organizations. Technovation, 29(12), 810-818. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2009.07.003North, D., & Smallbone, D. (1996). Small business development in remote rural areas: The example of mature manufacturing firms in Northern England. Journal of Rural Studies, 12(2), 151-167. doi:10.1016/0743-0167(96)00009-5(2006). The New Rural Paradigm. OECD Rural Policy Reviews. doi:10.1787/9789264023918-enOECD 2013 Entrepreneurship at a Glance OECD PublishingOECD 2014 Research and Development Statistics http://stats.oecd.orgOleaga , M. Caladrero , A. Ugalde , I. 2008 Prospective innovation challenges in the food and drink sector(Onno) Omta, S. (2002). Innovation in chains and networks. Journal on Chain and Network Science, 2(2), 73-80. doi:10.3920/jcns2002.x019O’Regan, N., Ghobadian, A., & Sims, M. (2006). Fast tracking innovation in manufacturing SMEs. Technovation, 26(2), 251-261. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2005.01.003Paladino, A. (2008). Analyzing the Effects of Market and Resource Orientations on Innovative Outcomes in Times of Turbulence*. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(6), 577-592. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00323.xPavitt, K., Robson, M., & Townsend, J. (1987). The Size Distribution of Innovating Firms in the UK: 1945-1983. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 35(3), 297. doi:10.2307/2098636Pezzini, M. (2001). Rural Policy Lessons from OECD Countries. International Regional Science Review, 24(1), 134-145. doi:10.1177/016001701761013024Pisano, G. P. (1990). The R&D Boundaries of the Firm: An Empirical Analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 153. doi:10.2307/2393554Pla-Barber, J., & Alegre, J. (2007). Analysing the link between export intensity, innovation and firm size in a science-based industry. International Business Review, 16(3), 275-293. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2007.02.005Rama , R. 2008 Handbook of innovation in the food and drink industry New York Haworth PressRobertson, T. S., & Gatignon, H. (1998). Technology development mode: a transaction cost conceptualization. Strategic Management Journal, 19(6), 515-531. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199806)19:63.0.co;2-fSchaper, M. T. (2006). Distribution patterns of small firms in developed economies: is there an emergent global pattern? International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 3(2), 183. doi:10.1504/ijesb.2006.008927Schmidheiny , K. 2012 Clustering in the linear model, Short guides to microeconometrics http://www.schmidheiny.name/teaching/clustering.pdfSegarra-Blasco, A., & Arauzo-Carod, J.-M. (2008). Sources of innovation and industry–university interaction: Evidence from Spanish firms. Research Policy, 37(8), 1283-1295. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.05.003Sorensen, J. B., & Stuart, T. E. (2000). Aging, Obsolescence, and Organizational Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), 81. doi:10.2307/2666980Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B., & Knockaert, M. (2010). Building absorptive capacity to organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation, 30(2), 130-141. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2009.08.004Tether, B. S. (2002). Who co-operates for innovation, and why. Research Policy, 31(6), 947-967. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(01)00172-xTraill, W. B., & Meulenberg, M. (2002). Innovation in the food industry. Agribusiness, 18(1), 1-21. doi:10.1002/agr.10002Triguero, Á., Córcoles, D., & Cuerva, M. C. (2013). Differences in Innovation Between Food and Manufacturing Firms: An Analysis of Persistence. Agribusiness, 29(3), 273-292. doi:10.1002/agr.21335Tsai, K.-H., & Wang, J.-C. (2005). Does R&D performance decline with firm size?—A re-examination in terms of elasticity. Research Policy, 34(6), 966-976. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.017Un, C. A., Cuervo-Cazurra, A., & Asakawa, K. (2010). R&D Collaborations and Product Innovation*. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(5), 673-689. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00744.xVan Hemert, P., Nijkamp, P., & Masurel, E. (2012). From innovation to commercialization through networks and agglomerations: analysis of sources of innovation, innovation capabilities and performance of Dutch SMEs. The Annals of Regional Science, 50(2), 425-452. doi:10.1007/s00168-012-0509-1Vecchiato, R., & Roveda, C. (2014). Foresight for public procurement and regional innovation policy: The case of Lombardy. Research Policy, 43(2), 438-450. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.11.003Veugelers, R., & Cassiman, B. (2005). R&D cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 23(5-6), 355-379. doi:10.1016/j.ijindorg.2005.01.008Wang, Y., & Zhou, Z. (2013). The dual role of local sites in assisting firms with developing technological capabilities: Evidence from China. International Business Review, 22(1), 63-76. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2012.02.003Webber, D., Curry, N., & Plumridge, A. (2009). Business Productivity and Area Productivity in Rural England. Regional Studies, 43(5), 661-675. doi:10.1080/00343400701874156Zhang, Y., & Li, H. (2010). Innovation search of new ventures in a technology cluster: the role of ties with service intermediaries. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 88-109. doi:10.1002/smj.80

    Effectiveness of Fosfomycin for the Treatment of Multidrug-Resistant Escherichia coli Bacteremic Urinary Tract Infections

    Get PDF
    IMPORTANCE The consumption of broad-spectrum drugs has increased as a consequence of the spread of multidrug-resistant (MDR) Escherichia coli. Finding alternatives for these infections is critical, for which some neglected drugs may be an option. OBJECTIVE To determine whether fosfomycin is noninferior to ceftriaxone or meropenem in the targeted treatment of bacteremic urinary tract infections (bUTIs) due to MDR E coli. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This multicenter, randomized, pragmatic, open clinical trial was conducted at 22 Spanish hospitals from June 2014 to December 2018. Eligible participants were adult patients with bacteremic urinary tract infections due to MDR E coli; 161 of 1578 screened patients were randomized and followed up for 60 days. Data were analyzed in May 2021. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized 1 to 1 to receive intravenous fosfomycin disodium at 4 g every 6 hours (70 participants) or a comparator (ceftriaxone or meropenem if resistant; 73 participants) with the option to switch to oral fosfomycin trometamol for the fosfomycin group or an active oral drug or pa renteral ertapenem for the comparator group after 4 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was clinical and microbiological cure (CMC) 5 to 7 days after finalization of treatment; a noninferiority margin of 7% was considered. RESULTS Among 143 patients in the modified intention-to-treat population (median [IQR] age, 72 [62-81] years; 73 [51.0%] women), 48 of 70 patients (68.6%) treated with fosfomycin and 57 of 73 patients (78.1%) treated with comparators reached CMC (risk difference, -9.4 percentage points; 1-sided 95% CI, -21.5 to infinity percentage points; P = .10). While clinical or microbiological failure occurred among 10 patients (14.3%) treated with fosfomycin and 14 patients (19.7%) treated with comparators (risk difference, -5.4 percentage points; 1-sided 95% CI. -infinity to 4.9; percentage points; P = .19), an increased rate of adverse event-related discontinuations occurred with fosfomycin vs comparators (6 discontinuations [8.5%] vs 0 discontinuations; P = .006). In an exploratory analysis among a subset of 38 patients who underwent rectal colonization studies, patients treated with fosfomycin acquired a new ceftriaxone-resistant or meropenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria at a decreased rate compared with patients treated with comparators (0 of 21 patients vs 4 of 17 patients [23.5%]; 1-sided P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This study found that fosfomycin did not demonstrate noninferiority to comparators as targeted treatment of bUTI from MDR E coli; this was due to an increased rate of adverse event-related discontinuations. This finding suggests that fosfomycin may be considered for selected patients with these infections

    Spread of a SARS-CoV-2 variant through Europe in the summer of 2020.

    Get PDF
    Following its emergence in late 2019, the spread of SARS-CoV-21,2 has been tracked by phylogenetic analysis of viral genome sequences in unprecedented detail3–5. Although the virus spread globally in early 2020 before borders closed, intercontinental travel has since been greatly reduced. However, travel within Europe resumed in the summer of 2020. Here we report on a SARS-CoV-2 variant, 20E (EU1), that was identified in Spain in early summer 2020 and subsequently spread across Europe. We find no evidence that this variant has increased transmissibility, but instead demonstrate how rising incidence in Spain, resumption of travel, and lack of effective screening and containment may explain the variant’s success. Despite travel restrictions, we estimate that 20E (EU1) was introduced hundreds of times to European countries by summertime travellers, which is likely to have undermined local efforts to minimize infection with SARS-CoV-2. Our results illustrate how a variant can rapidly become dominant even in the absence of a substantial transmission advantage in favourable epidemiological settings. Genomic surveillance is critical for understanding how travel can affect transmission of SARS-CoV-2, and thus for informing future containment strategies as travel resumes. © 2021, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited

    Clonal chromosomal mosaicism and loss of chromosome Y in elderly men increase vulnerability for SARS-CoV-2

    Full text link
    The pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19) had an estimated overall case fatality ratio of 1.38% (pre-vaccination), being 53% higher in males and increasing exponentially with age. Among 9578 individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 in the SCOURGE study, we found 133 cases (1.42%) with detectable clonal mosaicism for chromosome alterations (mCA) and 226 males (5.08%) with acquired loss of chromosome Y (LOY). Individuals with clonal mosaic events (mCA and/or LOY) showed a 54% increase in the risk of COVID-19 lethality. LOY is associated with transcriptomic biomarkers of immune dysfunction, pro-coagulation activity and cardiovascular risk. Interferon-induced genes involved in the initial immune response to SARS-CoV-2 are also down-regulated in LOY. Thus, mCA and LOY underlie at least part of the sex-biased severity and mortality of COVID-19 in aging patients. Given its potential therapeutic and prognostic relevance, evaluation of clonal mosaicism should be implemented as biomarker of COVID-19 severity in elderly people. Among 9578 individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 in the SCOURGE study, individuals with clonal mosaic events (clonal mosaicism for chromosome alterations and/or loss of chromosome Y) showed an increased risk of COVID-19 lethality

    Spread of a SARS-CoV-2 variant through Europe in the summer of 2020

    Get PDF
    [EN] Following its emergence in late 2019, the spread of SARS-CoV-21,2 has been tracked by phylogenetic analysis of viral genome sequences in unprecedented detail3,4,5. Although the virus spread globally in early 2020 before borders closed, intercontinental travel has since been greatly reduced. However, travel within Europe resumed in the summer of 2020. Here we report on a SARS-CoV-2 variant, 20E (EU1), that was identified in Spain in early summer 2020 and subsequently spread across Europe. We find no evidence that this variant has increased transmissibility, but instead demonstrate how rising incidence in Spain, resumption of travel, and lack of effective screening and containment may explain the variant’s success. Despite travel restrictions, we estimate that 20E (EU1) was introduced hundreds of times to European countries by summertime travellers, which is likely to have undermined local efforts to minimize infection with SARS-CoV-2. Our results illustrate how a variant can rapidly become dominant even in the absence of a substantial transmission advantage in favourable epidemiological settings. Genomic surveillance is critical for understanding how travel can affect transmission of SARS-CoV-2, and thus for informing future containment strategies as travel resumes.S

    Novel genes and sex differences in COVID-19 severity

    Get PDF
    [EN] Here, we describe the results of a genome-wide study conducted in 11 939 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) positive cases with an extensive clinical information that were recruited from 34 hospitals across Spain (SCOURGE consortium). In sex-disaggregated genome-wide association studies for COVID-19 hospitalization, genome-wide significance (P < 5 × 10−8) was crossed for variants in 3p21.31 and 21q22.11 loci only among males (P = 1.3 × 10−22 and P = 8.1 × 10−12, respectively), and for variants in 9q21.32 near TLE1 only among females (P = 4.4 × 10−8). In a second phase, results were combined with an independent Spanish cohort (1598 COVID-19 cases and 1068 population controls), revealing in the overall analysis two novel risk loci in 9p13.3 and 19q13.12, with fine-mapping prioritized variants functionally associated with AQP3 (P = 2.7 × 10−8) and ARHGAP33 (P = 1.3 × 10−8), respectively. The meta-analysis of both phases with four European studies stratified by sex from the Host Genetics Initiative (HGI) confirmed the association of the 3p21.31 and 21q22.11 loci predominantly in males and replicated a recently reported variant in 11p13 (ELF5, P = 4.1 × 10−8). Six of the COVID-19 HGI discovered loci were replicated and an HGI-based genetic risk score predicted the severity strata in SCOURGE. We also found more SNP-heritability and larger heritability differences by age (<60 or ≥60 years) among males than among females. Parallel genome-wide screening of inbreeding depression in SCOURGE also showed an effect of homozygosity in COVID-19 hospitalization and severity and this effect was stronger among older males. In summary, new candidate genes for COVID-19 severity and evidence supporting genetic disparities among sexes are provided.S
    corecore