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

Patient-centered digital biomarkers for allergic respiratory diseases and asthma: The ARIA-EAACI approach – ARIA-EAACI Task Force Report

Biomarkers for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with rhinitis and/or asthma are urgently needed. Although some biologic biomarkers exist in specialist care for asthma, they cannot be largely used in primary care. There are no validated biomarkers in rhinitis or allergen immunotherapy (AIT) that can be used in clinical practice. The digital transformation of health and health care (including mHealth) places the patient at the center of the health system and is likely to optimize the practice of allergy. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) and EAACI (European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology) developed a Task Force aimed at proposing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as digital biomarkers that can be easily used for different purposes in rhinitis and asthma. It first defined control digital biomarkers that should make a bridge between clinical practice, randomized controlled trials, observational real-life studies and allergen challenges. Using the MASK-air app as a model, a daily electronic combined symptom-medication score for allergic diseases (CSMS) or for asthma (e-DASTHMA), combined with a monthly control questionnaire, was embedded in a strategy similar to the diabetes approach for disease control. To mimic real-life, it secondly proposed quality-of-life digital biomarkers including daily EQ-5D visual analogue scales and the bi-weekly RhinAsthma Patient Perspective (RAAP). The potential implications for the management of allergic respiratory diseases were proposed

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

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

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&lt;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

Consistent trajectories of rhinitis control and treatment in 16,177 weeks: The MASK-air® longitudinal study

Introduction: Data from mHealth apps can provide valuable information on rhinitis control and treatment patterns. However, in MASK-air®, these data have only been analyzed cross-sectionally, without considering the changes of symptoms over time. We analyzed data from MASK-air® longitudinally, clustering weeks according to reported rhinitis symptoms. Methods: We analyzed MASK-air® data, assessing the weeks for which patients had answered a rhinitis daily questionnaire on all 7 days. We firstly used k-means clustering algorithms for longitudinal data to define clusters of weeks according to the trajectories of reported daily rhinitis symptoms. Clustering was applied separately for weeks when medication was reported or not. We compared obtained clusters on symptoms and rhinitis medication patterns. We then used the latent class mixture model to assess the robustness of results. Results: We analyzed 113,239 days (16,177 complete weeks) from 2590 patients (mean age ± SD&nbsp;=&nbsp;39.1 ± 13.7 years). The first clustering algorithm identified ten clusters among weeks with medication use: seven with low variability in rhinitis control during the week and three with highly-variable control. Clusters with poorly-controlled rhinitis displayed a higher frequency of rhinitis co-medication, a more frequent change of medication schemes and more pronounced seasonal patterns. Six clusters were identified in weeks when no rhinitis medication was used, displaying similar control patterns. The second clustering method provided similar results. Moreover, patients displayed consistent levels of rhinitis control, reporting several weeks with similar levels of control. Conclusions: We identified 16 patterns of weekly rhinitis control. Co-medication and medication change schemes were common in uncontrolled weeks, reinforcing the hypothesis that patients treat themselves according to their symptoms