Efficacy in asthma of once-daily treatment with fluticasone furoate: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Fluticasone furoate (FF) is a novel long-acting inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). This double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized study evaluated the efficacy and safety of FF 200 mcg or 400 mcg once daily, either in the morning or in the evening, and FF 200 mcg twice daily (morning and evening), for 8 weeks in patients with persistent asthma.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Asthma patients maintained on ICS for ≥ 3 months with baseline morning forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) 50-80% of predicted normal value and FEV₁reversibility of ≥ 12% and ≥ 200 ml were eligible. The primary endpoint was mean change from baseline FEV₁at week 8 in pre-dose (morning or evening [depending on regimen], pre-rescue bronchodilator) FEV₁.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 545 patients received one of five FF treatment groups and 101 patients received placebo (intent-to-treat population). Each of the five FF treatment groups produced a statistically significant improvement in pre-dose FEV₁compared with placebo (p < 0.05). FF 400 mcg once daily in the evening and FF 200 mcg twice daily produced similar placebo-adjusted improvements in evening pre-dose FEV₁at week 8 (240 ml vs. 235 ml). FF 400 mcg once daily in the morning, although effective, resulted in a smaller improvement in morning pre-dose FEV₁than FF 200 mcg twice daily at week 8 (315 ml vs. 202 ml). The incidence of oral candidiasis was low (0-4%) and UC excretion was comparable with placebo for all FF groups.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>FF at total daily doses of 200 mcg or 400 mcg was significantly more effective than placebo. FF 400 mcg once daily in the evening had similar efficacy to FF 200 mcg twice daily and all FF regimens had a safety tolerability profile generally similar to placebo. This indicates that inhaled FF is an effective and well tolerated once-daily treatment for mild-to-moderate asthma.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p><a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00398645">NCT00398645</a></p

Theory and research in strategic management: Swings of a pendulum

The development of the field of strategic management within the last two decades has been dramatic. While its roots have been in a more applied area, often referred to as business policy, the current field of strategic management is strongly theory based, with substantial empirical research, and is eclectic in nature. This review of the development of the field and its current position examines the field’s early development and the primary theoretical and methodological bases through its history. Early developments include Chandler’s (1962) Strategy and Structure and Ansoff’s (1965) Corporate Strategy. These early works took on a contingency perspective (fit between strategy and structure) and a resource-based framework emphasizing internal strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps, one of the more significant contributions to the development of strategic management came from industrial organization (IO) economics, specifically the work of Michael Porter. The structure-conduct-performance framework and the notion of strategic groups, as well as providing a foundation for research on competitive dynamics, are flourishing currently. The IO paradigm also brought econometric tools to the research on strategic management. Building on the IO economics framework, the organizational economics perspective contributed transaction costs economics and agency theory to strategic management. More recent theoretical contributions focus on the resource-based view of the firm. While it has its roots in Edith Penrose’s work in the late 1950s, the resource-based view was largely introduced to the field of strategic management in the 1980s and became a dominant framework in the 1990s. Based on the resource-based view or developing concurrently were research on strategic leadership, strategic decision theory (process research) and knowledge-based view of the firm. The research methodologies are becoming increasingly sophisticated and now frequently combine both quantitative and qualitative approaches and unique and new statistical tools. Finally, this review examines the future directions, both in terms of theory and methodologies, as the study of strategic management evolves.Yeshttps://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/manuscript-submission-guideline

Acute phase protein concentrations in serum and milk from healthy cows, cows with clinical mastitis and cows with extramammary inflammatory conditions

The concentrations of the two acute phase proteins, serum amyloid A and haptoglobin, in serum and milk were compared in 10 cows with clinical mastitis, 11 cows with extramammary inflammatory conditions and 10 clinically healthy control cows. The concentrations of both acute phase proteins were higher in the serum and milk of the cows with mastitis than in the cows in the other two groups. Four of the cows with extramammary inflammatory conditions had serum amyloid A concentrations in serum above 100 µg/ml, but negligible concentrations in milk, indicating that a pathogen must be present in the mammary gland for serum amyloid A to accumulate in milk. The acute phase protein concentrations in milk increased significantly with increasing somatic cell count, suggesting that they may be indicators of the severity of an infection