Defining Virtual Worlds: Main Features and Regulatory Challenges

This issue paper pursues three goals. First, it aims to identify a definition of virtual worlds that is shared among stakeholders. There are many possible ways to define virtual worlds and the metaverse that differ sensibly depending on the sector, the use case at hand, or the sensibility of those employing the terms. The European Commission (EC)’s call for evidence for a non-legislative initiative on virtual worlds (April 2023)1 has made things even more complicated. While it employs the term ‘metaverse’ abundantly in its advertising campaign (website, social media, and so on), it uses only ‘virtual words’ in the text of the call itself. Clarifying the boundaries of the two notions is thus necessary, to both making sure we all debate over the same subject matter, and for policy makers to target policy intervention at the appropriate issues. This part concludes by providing a definition of virtual worlds. Second, on the basis of the definitions settled in the first part, this paper identifies the main characteristics of virtual worlds, and highlights a set of challenging features that are relevant for the debate. And third, based on the identified challenging features, the paper raises a set of questions aimed at identifying possible regulatory gaps or topics that might require attention by policy makers

Abusive practices in competition law

- Divulgação dos SUMÁRIOS das obras recentemente incorporadas ao acervo da Biblioteca Ministro Oscar Saraiva do STJ. Em respeito à Lei de Direitos Autorais, não disponibilizamos a obra na íntegra.- Localização na estante: 347.733 A167

Beta-Blocker Use in Older Hospitalized Patients Affected by Heart Failure and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: An Italian Survey From the REPOSI Register

Beta (β)-blockers (BB) are useful in reducing morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure (HF) and concomitant chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Nevertheless, the use of BBs could induce bronchoconstriction due to β2-blockade. For this reason, both the ESC and GOLD guidelines strongly suggest the use of selective β1-BB in patients with HF and COPD. However, low adherence to guidelines was observed in multiple clinical settings. The aim of the study was to investigate the BBs use in older patients affected by HF and COPD, recorded in the REPOSI register. Of 942 patients affected by HF, 47.1% were treated with BBs. The use of BBs was significantly lower in patients with HF and COPD than in patients affected by HF alone, both at admission and at discharge (admission, 36.9% vs. 51.3%; discharge, 38.0% vs. 51.7%). In addition, no further BB users were found at discharge. The probability to being treated with a BB was significantly lower in patients with HF also affected by COPD (adj. OR, 95% CI: 0.50, 0.37-0.67), while the diagnosis of COPD was not associated with the choice of selective β1-BB (adj. OR, 95% CI: 1.33, 0.76-2.34). Despite clear recommendations by clinical guidelines, a significant underuse of BBs was also observed after hospital discharge. In COPD affected patients, physicians unreasonably reject BBs use, rather than choosing a β1-BB. The expected improvement of the BB prescriptions after hospitalization was not observed. A multidisciplinary approach among hospital physicians, general practitioners, and pharmacologists should be carried out for better drug management and adherence to guideline recommendations