And then there were four: a study of UK market concentration - causes, consequences and the scope for market adjustment

While concentration measures are a good indicator of market structure, the link with competitiveness is more complex than often assumed. In particular, the modern theory of industrial organisation makes no clear statement regarding the impact of concentration on competition - the focus of this paper is concentration and no inferences are made about competitive aspects of the market. The extent and nature of concentration within the UK listed company audit market as at April, 2002 and, pro forma, after the collapse of Andersen is documented and analysed in detail (by firm, market segment and industry sector). The largest four firms held 90 per cent of the market (based on audit fees) in 2002, rising to 96 per cent with the demise of Andersen. A single firm, Pricewaterhouse-Coopers, held 70 per cent or more of the share of six out of 38 industry sectors, with a share of 50 per cent up to 70 per cent in a further seven sectors. The provision of non-audit services (NAS) by incumbent auditors is also considered. As at April 2002, the average ratio of non-audit fees (paid to auditor) to audit fees was 208 per cent, and exceeded 300 per cent in seven sectors. It is likely, however, that disposals by firms of their management consultancy and outsource firms, combined with the impact of the Smith Report on audit committees will serve to reduce these ratios. Another finding is that audit firms with expertise in a particular sector appeared to earn significantly higher nonaudit fees from their audit clients in that sector. The paper thus provides a solid empirical basis for debate. The subsequent discussion considers the implications for companies and audit firms of the high level of concentration in the current regulatory climate, where no direct regulatory intervention is planned

Latin American chronic urticaria registry (CUR) contribution to the understanding and knowledge of the disease in the region

Chronic urticaria (CU) has a widespread spectrum on causal or exacerbating factors, clinical manifestations, therapeutic response and quality of life affectation. Registries are useful tools in several real-life diagnosis and management approach. We aimed to evaluate the characteristics of CU patients living in Latin America through an original cross-sectional registry with data entered by regional allergologists. Results: Three hundred patients were included, being 72% female, with median age of 36 years (1\u201385) and 20 months of CU median evolution time. The cause of CU was reported as unknown in 72% of them. Thirty-nine percent of suspected cases presented positive serology for Mycoplasma, positive autologous serum skin test (ASST) was reported in 47%, and occasional presence of thyroid or antinuclear autoantibodies and parasites. The impact of pruritus in their quality of life was moderate to severe in 60% of patients, with almost 3 out of four patients having partial or lack of urticaria control with anti-histamines. Conclusions: Our registry provides retrospective data on the real-life assistance of a large number of patients from the region. Continuous search for associated conditions and better treatment possibilities are needed, in order to control the significant impact on quality of life and the length of disease

Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of daily monitoring visual analog scales in MASK-air®

Background: MASK-air® is an app that supports allergic rhinitis patients in disease control. Users register daily allergy symptoms and their impact on activities using visual analog scales (VASs). We aimed to assess the concurrent validity, reliability, and responsiveness of these daily VASs. Methods: Daily monitoring VAS data were assessed in MASK-air® users with allergic rhinitis. Concurrent validity was assessed by correlating daily VAS values with those of the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) VAS, the Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARAT) score, and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Allergic Specific (WPAI-AS) Questionnaire (work and activity impairment scores). Intra-rater reliability was assessed in users providing multiple daily VASs within the same day. Test–retest reliability was tested in clinically stable users, as defined by the EQ-5D VAS, CARAT, or “VAS Work” (i.e., VAS assessing the impact of allergy on work). Responsiveness was determined in users with two consecutive measurements of EQ-5D-VAS or “VAS Work” indicating clinical change. Results: A total of 17,780 MASK-air® users, with 317,176 VAS days, were assessed. Concurrent validity was moderate–high (Spearman correlation coefficient range: 0.437–0.716). Intra-rater reliability intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranged between 0.870 (VAS assessing global allergy symptoms) and 0.937 (VAS assessing allergy symptoms on sleep). Test–retest reliability ICCs ranged between 0.604 and 0.878—“VAS Work” and “VAS asthma” presented the highest ICCs. Moderate/large responsiveness effect sizes were observed—the sleep VAS was associated with lower responsiveness, while the global allergy symptoms VAS demonstrated higher responsiveness. Conclusion: In MASK-air®, daily monitoring VASs have high intra-rater reliability and moderate–high validity, reliability, and responsiveness, pointing to a reliable measure of symptom loads

Adherence to inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β2-agonists in asthma:A MASK-air study

Introduction Adherence to controller medication is a major problem in asthma management, being difficult to assess and tackle. mHealth apps can be used to assess adherence. We aimed to assess the adherence to inhaled corticosteroids+long-acting β2-agonists (ICS+LABA) in users of the MASK-air® app, comparing the adherence to ICS+formoterol (ICS+F) with that to ICS+other LABA. Materials and methods We analysed complete weeks of MASK-air® data (2015-2022; 27 countries) from patients with self-reported asthma and ICS+LABA use. We compared patients reporting ICS+F versus ICS+other LABA on adherence levels, symptoms and symptom-medication scores. We built regression models to assess whether adherence to ICS+LABA was associated with asthma control or short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) use. Sensitivity analyses were performed considering the weeks with no more than one missing day. Results In 2598 ICS+LABA users, 621 (23.9%) reported 4824 complete weeks and 866 (33.3%) reported weeks with at most one missing day. Higher adherence (use of medication ≥80% of weekly days) was observed for ICS+other LABA (75.1%) when compared to ICS+F (59.3%), despite both groups displaying similar asthma control and work productivity. The ICS+other LABA group was associated with more days of SABA use than the ICS+F group (median=71.4% versus 57.1% days). Each additional weekly day of ICS+F use was associated with a 4.1% less risk in weekly SABA use (95%CI=-6.5;-1.6%;p=0.001). For ICS+other LABA, the percentage was 8.2 (95%CI=-11.6;-5.0%;p<0.001). Conclusions In asthma patients adherent to the MASK-air app, adherence to ICS+LABA was high. ICS+F users reported lower adherence but also a lower SABA use and a similar level of control

Beliefs and preferences regarding biological treatments for severe asthma

Background: Severe asthma is a serious condition with a significant burden on patients' morbidity, mortality, and quality of life. Some biological therapies targeting the IgE and interleukin-5 (IL5) mediated pathways are now available. Due to the lack of direct comparison studies, the choice of which medication to use varies. We aimed to explore the beliefs and practices in the use of biological therapies in severe asthma, hypothesizing that differences will occur depending on the prescribers’ specialty and experience. Methods: We conducted an online survey composed of 35 questions in English. The survey was circulated via the INterasma Scientific Network (INESNET) platform as well as through social media. Responses from allergists and pulmonologists, both those with experience of prescribing omalizumab with (OMA/IL5) and without (OMA) experience with anti-IL5 drugs, were compared. Results: Two hundred eighty-five (285) valid questionnaires from 37 countries were analyzed. Seventy-on percent (71%) of respondents prescribed biologics instead of oral glucocorticoids and believed that their side effects are inferior to those of Prednisone 5 mg daily. Agreement with ATS/ERS guidelines for identifying severe asthma patients was less than 50%. Specifically, significant differences were found comparing responses between allergists and pulmonologists (Chi-square test, p &lt; 0.05) and between OMA/IL5 and OMA groups (p &lt; 0.05). Conclusions: Uncertainties and inconsistencies regarding the use of biological medications have been shown. The accuracy of prescribers to correctly identify asthma severity, according to guidelines criteria, is quite poor. Although a substantial majority of prescribers believe that biological drugs are safer than low dose long-term treatment with oral steroids, and that they must be used instead of oral steroids, every effort should be made to further increase awareness. Efficacy as disease modifiers, biomarkers for selecting responsive patients, timing for outcomes evaluation, and checks need to be addressed by further research. Practices and beliefs regarding the use of asthma biologics differ between the prescriber's specialty and experience; however, the latter seems more significant in determining beliefs and behavior. Tailored educational measures are needed to ensure research results are better integrated in daily practice

Stress factors and stress management interventions: the heuristic of “bottom up” an update from a systematic review

Organizations have increasingly sought to adopt innovative interventions to prevent stress-related issues. In the field of manufacturing, however, the effectiveness of these interventions remains unclear because a systematic and specific review of existing primary evidence has not been undertaken. The present systematic literature review sought to address the foregoing limitation in the literature by summarizing the main source of stress and effectiveness of stress management interventions as grounded in the context of manufacturing. Our review was limited to only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies and concerned employees from the manufacturing sector. Twenty-two studies on primary, secondary and tertiary interventions across four continents (Asia, Europe, USA and South America) were selected and analyzed in terms of stress factors, methodological properties and outcomes. Most of these were RCT studies (68% Vs 32%) with a majority of secondary interventions (N = 11, 50%), followed by primary (N = 5, 22%), tertiary (N = 3, 13%), and two (9%) mixed interventions. The main outcomes included an improvement of psychological wellbeing, decreased stress reactivity and an increment of general health. There was a predominance of interventions utilizing skills programs and/or cognitive-behavioral techniques. The main source of stress reported related to professional identity, organizational deficiencies, interpersonal conflicts, physical complaints and poor work environment. Taken together, the findings provide important theoretical and practical implications for advancing the study of stress factors and the use of stress management interventions in the workplace. The prerequisite for a successful intervention is to address the real problems experienced by professionals and help them to cope with their difficult situations. The strategy of “bottom-up” offers a potential means of enhancing employees’ health and well-being; however, the most effective means of implementing these interventions needs to be understood better