Clinical features and health-related quality of life in adult patients with mucopolysaccharidosis IVA: the Spanish experience

Background: Mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS) IVA or Morquio A syndrome is a progressive and disabling disease characterized by a deficiency of the enzyme N-acetylgalactosamine-6-sulphate sulphatase. Its clinical presentation is very heterogeneous and poorly understood in adults. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical manifestations of MPS IVA in adult patients in Spain and to assess their health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Results: Thirty-three patients from nine reference centres participated in the study. The median age was 32 (interquartile range [IQR]: 20.5–40.5) years. The phenotype was classical in 54.5% of patients, intermediate in 33.3% of patients, and non-classical in 12.1% of patients. The most common clinical manifestation was bone dysplasia, with a median height of 118 (IQR: 106–136) cm. Other frequent clinical manifestations were hearing loss (75.7%), ligamentous laxity (72.7%), odontoid dysplasia (69.7%), limb deformities that required orthopaedic aids (mainly hip dysplasia and genu valgus) (63.6%), and corneal clouding (60.6%). In addition, 36.0% of patients had obstructive sleep apnoea/hypopnoea syndrome and 33.3% needed non-invasive ventilation. Cervical surgery and varisation osteotomy were the most common surgical interventions (36.4% each). Almost 80% of patients had mobility problems and 36.4% used a wheelchair at all times. Furthermore, 87.9% needed help with self-care, 33.3% were fully dependent, and 78.8% had some degree of pain. HRQoL according to the health assessment questionnaire was 1.43 (IQR: 1.03–2.00) in patients with the non-classical phenotype, but 2.5 (IQR: 1.68–3.00) in those with the classical phenotype. Seven patients were initiated on enzyme replacement therapy (ERT), but two of them were lost to follow-up. Lung function improved in four patients and slightly worsened in one patient. The distance achieved in the six-minute walk test increased in the four patients who could perform it. HRQoL was better in patients treated with elosulfase alfa, with a median (IQR) of 1.75 (1.25–2.34) versus 2.25 (1.62–3.00) in patients not treated with ERT. Conclusions: The study provides real-world data on patients with MPS IVA. Limited mobility, difficulties with self-care, dependence, and pain were common, together with poor HRQoL. The severity and heterogeneity of clinical manifestations require the combined efforts of multidisciplinary teams

Public Policy towards R&D in a Mixed Duopoly with Spillovers

We investigate the use of subsidies to R&D, both in a mixed and a private duopoly market. We show that the socially optimal R&D subsidy is positive and increasing in the degree of spillovers both in the private and the mixed duopoly, although it is lower for the former than for the latter. We also find support for the empirical claim that privatization is followed by a scaling down of the R&D activity. A comparative static analysis of welfare levels suggests that privatization is welfare detrimental, which lends some support to the views against the widespread adoption of privatization programs

R&D policy and privatization in a mixed oligopoly

We introduce R&D activity and R&D subsidies in the context of a mixed oligopoly and evaluate the effects of privatization on welfare. We show that when R&D subsidies are employed, privatization is welfare and R&D promoting provided that the number of competitors is sufficiently large

R&D Subsidies, Spillovers and Privatization in Mixed Markets

We examine the use of subsidies to R&D in a mixed and a private duopoly market. We show that the socially optimal R&D subsidy is increasing in the degree of spillovers but it is lower in the private duopoly. The optimal R&D subsidy leads to an increase in total R&D and production, however, it does not lead to the equalisation of per fi?rm output and therefore to an efficient distribution of production costs. We also find that privatization of the public firm reduces R&D activity and welfare in the duopoly market. This result stands even when optimal R&D subsidies are provided

Terutroban versus aspirin in patients with cerebral ischaemic events (PERFORM): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial

Background: Patients with ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) are at high risk of recurrent stroke or other cardiovascular events. We compared the selective thromboxane-prostaglandin receptor antagonist terutroban with aspirin in the prevention of cerebral and cardiovascular ischaemic events in patients with a recent non-cardioembolic cerebral ischaemic event. <p/>Methods: This randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial was undertaken in 802 centres in 46 countries. Patients who had an ischaemic stroke in the previous 3 months or a TIA in the previous 8 days were randomly allocated with a central interactive response system to 30 mg per day terutroban or 100 mg per day aspirin. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of fatal or non-fatal ischaemic stroke, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction, or other vascular death (excluding haemorrhagic death). We planned a sequential statistical analysis of non-inferiority (margin 1·05) followed by analysis of superiority. Analysis was by intention to treat. The study was stopped prematurely for futility on the basis of the recommendation of the Data Monitoring Committee. This study is registered, number ISRCTN66157730. <p/>Findings: 9562 patients were assigned to terutroban (9556 analysed) and 9558 to aspirin (9544 analysed); mean follow-up was 28·3 months (SD 7·7). The primary endpoint occurred in 1091 (11%) patients receiving terutroban and 1062 (11%) receiving aspirin (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02, 95% CI 0·94–1·12). There was no evidence of a difference between terutroban and aspirin for the secondary or tertiary endpoints. We recorded some increase in minor bleedings with terutroban compared with aspirin (1147 [12%] vs 1045 [11%]; HR 1·11, 95% CI 1·02–1·21), but no significant differences in other safety endpoints. <p/>Interpretation: The trial did not meet the predefined criteria for non-inferiority, but showed similar rates of the primary endpoint with terutroban and aspirin, without safety advantages for terutroban. In a worldwide perspective, aspirin remains the gold standard antiplatelet drug for secondary stroke prevention in view of its efficacy, tolerance, and cost