Stakeholder Theory and Marketing: Moving from a Firm-Centric to a Societal Perspective

This essay is inspired by the ideas and research examined in the special section on “Stakeholder Marketing” of the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing in 2010. The authors argue that stakeholder marketing is slowly coalescing with the broader thinking that has occurred in the stakeholder management and ethics literature streams during the past quarter century. However, the predominant view of stakeholders that many marketers advocate is still primarily pragmatic and company centric. The position advanced herein is that stronger forms of stakeholder marketing that reflect more normative, macro/societal, and network-focused orientations are necessary. The authors briefly explain and justify these characteristics in the context of the growing “prosociety” and “proenvironment” perspectives—orientations that are also in keeping with the public policy focus of this journal. Under the “hard form” of stakeholder theory, which the authors endorse, marketing managers must realize that serving stakeholders sometimes requires sacrificing maximum profits to mitigate outcomes that would inflict major damage on other stakeholders, especially society

Opposing Roles for Membrane Bound and Soluble Fas Ligand in Glaucoma-Associated Retinal Ganglion Cell Death

Glaucoma, the most frequent optic neuropathy, is a leading cause of blindness worldwide. Death of retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) occurs in all forms of glaucoma and accounts for the loss of vision, however the molecular mechanisms that cause RGC loss remain unclear. The pro-apoptotic molecule, Fas ligand, is a transmembrane protein that can be cleaved from the cell surface by metalloproteinases to release a soluble protein with antagonistic activity. Previous studies documented that constitutive ocular expression of FasL maintained immune privilege and prevented neoangeogenesis. We now show that FasL also plays a major role in retinal neurotoxicity. Importantly, in both TNFα triggered RGC death and a spontaneous model of glaucoma, gene-targeted mice that express only full-length FasL exhibit accelerated RGC death. By contrast, FasL-deficiency, or administration of soluble FasL, protected RGCs from cell death. These data identify membrane-bound FasL as a critical effector molecule and potential therapeutic target in glaucoma

Rectal indomethacin alone versus indomethacin and prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for preventing pancreatitis after ERCP: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Abstract Background The combination of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) – a temporary plastic stent placed in the pancreatic duct – and rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is recommended for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk cases. Preliminary data, however, suggest that PSP may be unnecessary if rectal NSAIDs are administered. Given the costs and potential risks of PSP, we aim to determine whether rectal indomethacin obviates the need for pancreatic stent placement in patients undergoing high-risk ERCP. Methods/Design The SVI (Stent vs. Indomethacin) trial is a comparative effectiveness, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study of rectal indomethacin alone versus the combination of rectal indomethacin and PSP for preventing PEP in high-risk cases. One thousand four hundred and thirty subjects undergoing high-risk ERCP, in whom PSP is planned solely for PEP prevention, will be randomized to indomethacin alone or combination therapy. Those who are aware of study group assignment, including the endoscopist, will not be involved in the post-procedure care of the patient for at least 48 hours. Subjects will be assessed for PEP and its severity by a panel of independent and blinded adjudicators. Indomethacin alone will be declared non-inferior to combination therapy if the two-sided 95 % upper confidence bound of the treatment difference is less than 5 % between the two groups. Biological specimens will be obtained from trial participants and centrally banked. Discussion The SVI trial is designed to determine whether PSP remains necessary in the era of NSAIDs pharmacoprevention. The associated bio-repository will establish the groundwork for important scientific breakthrough. Trial registration NCT02476279, registered June 2015

Rectal indomethacin alone versus indomethacin and prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for preventing pancreatitis after ERCP: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: The combination of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) - a temporary plastic stent placed in the pancreatic duct - and rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is recommended for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk cases. Preliminary data, however, suggest that PSP may be unnecessary if rectal NSAIDs are administered. Given the costs and potential risks of PSP, we aim to determine whether rectal indomethacin obviates the need for pancreatic stent placement in patients undergoing high-risk ERCP. Methods/Design: The SVI (Stent vs. Indomethacin) trial is a comparative effectiveness, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study of rectal indomethacin alone versus the combination of rectal indomethacin and PSP for preventing PEP in high-risk cases. One thousand four hundred and thirty subjects undergoing high-risk ERCP, in whom PSP is planned solely for PEP prevention, will be randomized to indomethacin alone or combination therapy. Those who are aware of study group assignment, including the endoscopist, will not be involved in the post-procedure care of the patient for at least 48 hours. Subjects will be assessed for PEP and its severity by a panel of independent and blinded adjudicators. Indomethacin alone will be declared non-inferior to combination therapy if the two-sided 95 % upper confidence bound of the treatment difference is less than 5 % between the two groups. Biological specimens will be obtained from trial participants and centrally banked. Discussion: The SVI trial is designed to determine whether PSP remains necessary in the era of NSAIDs pharmacoprevention. The associated bio-repository will establish the groundwork for important scientific breakthrough