Repeated exposure to intra-amniotic LPS partially protects against adverse effects of intravenous LPS in preterm lambs

Histologic chorioamnionitis, frequently associated with preterm births and adverse outcomes, results in prolonged exposure of preterm fetuses to infectious agents and pro-inflammatory mediators, such as LPS. Endotoxin tolerance-type effects were demonstrated in fetal sheep following repetitive systemic or intra-amniotic (i.a.) exposures to LPS, suggesting that i.a. LPS exposure would cause endotoxin tolerance to a postnatal systemic dose of LPS in preterm sheep. In this study, randomized pregnant ewes received either two i.a. injections of LPS or saline prior to preterm delivery. Following operative delivery, the lambs were treated with surfactant, ventilated, and randomized to receive either i.v. LPS or saline at 30 min of age. Physiologic variables and indicators of systemic and lung inflammation were measured. Intravenous LPS decreased blood neutrophils and platelets values following i.a. saline compared to that after i.a. LPS. Intra-amniotic LPS prevented blood pressure from decreasing following the i.v. LPS, but also caused an increased oxygen index. Intra-amniotic LPS did not cause endotoxin tolerance as assessed by cytokine expression in the liver, lung or plasma, but increased myeloperoxidase-positive cells in the lung. The different compartments of exposure to LPS (i.a. vs i.v.) are unique to the fetal to newborn transition. Intra-amniotic LPS incompletely tolerized fetal lambs to postnatal i.v. LPS

The regulatory challenge to branding: an interpretation of UK competition authority investigations 1950-2007

Branding is a necessary and important business tool. This study, however, examines whether branding can constitute an anticompetitive act. While most markets and firms do not undertake anticompetitive actions, being identified as such can result in a wide range of negative outcomes. To explore this low-frequency yet high-risk outcome, this study assesses how branding has been perceived to be anticompetitive by the UK competition authorities. This assessment is undertaken by examination of all UK competition law regulatory decisions undertaken over the period 1950–2007 by the UK competition authorities. From this assessment, it is observed that branding can facilitate excessive pricing, requires vertical restraints, and can lead to consumer confusion; all potentially anticompetitive acts. The competition regulatory decisions focused on branding issues are demonstrably different from regulatory decisions without branding concerns and involve larger, often manufacturing, firms, which operate in more concentrated markets. It is concluded that comprehension of competition law needs to be disseminated more widely amongst marketing communities and greater reference to business and marketing theory should be made by competition law agencies to assist the comprehension of marketing techniques such as branding