32 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
WHO IS A TOURIST? A COMPARISON OF STRAIGHT LINE AND DRIVING DISTANCES
The purpose of this study was to determine if the definition of a tourist calculated by travel distance and method used to calculate that distance has an effect on who is considered a tourist. Three commonly used travel distance oriented definitions of a tourist and two methods of calculation are offered for these purposes. The three definitions of a tourist used in this study were: (1) Travel distance of greater than 50 miles, (2) Travel distance of greater than 100 miles, and (3) Travel distance of greater than 50 miles including a night’s stay. The two methods of calculating travel distance were straight line distance and driving distance. This research found that both the definition of a tourist and the method of distance calculation had a significant effect on who was considered a tourist
Recommended from our members
Gender Differences in Travel Constraints and Changed Travel Pattern after a Senior Travel Program Introduces: A Case Study of the Florence County Senior Travel Program
The purposes of this study were to explore pleasure travel constraints among adults aged 50 and over and investigate the gender differences of pleasure travel constraints. Moreover, this study investigated whether there were changed pleasure travel patterns among a specific group of older adults since an organized tour opportunity is available in their resident county, Florence County, South Carolina. The findings of this study indicated that female travelers perceived more travel constraints, however, they had a higher level of travel interest than males. Comparing the proportion of changed pleasure travel patterns with the FCPRD travel program, most of female travelers chose to participate in the FCPRD travel programs. As the FCPRD organized travel program was introduced, female travelers appeared to take more opportunities to travel than males
Antiinflammatory Therapy with Canakinumab for Atherosclerotic Disease
Background: Experimental and clinical data suggest that reducing inflammation without affecting lipid levels may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. Yet, the inflammatory hypothesis of atherothrombosis has remained unproved. Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial of canakinumab, a therapeutic monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-1β, involving 10,061 patients with previous myocardial infarction and a high-sensitivity C-reactive protein level of 2 mg or more per liter. The trial compared three doses of canakinumab (50 mg, 150 mg, and 300 mg, administered subcutaneously every 3 months) with placebo. The primary efficacy end point was nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: At 48 months, the median reduction from baseline in the high-sensitivity C-reactive protein level was 26 percentage points greater in the group that received the 50-mg dose of canakinumab, 37 percentage points greater in the 150-mg group, and 41 percentage points greater in the 300-mg group than in the placebo group. Canakinumab did not reduce lipid levels from baseline. At a median follow-up of 3.7 years, the incidence rate for the primary end point was 4.50 events per 100 person-years in the placebo group, 4.11 events per 100 person-years in the 50-mg group, 3.86 events per 100 person-years in the 150-mg group, and 3.90 events per 100 person-years in the 300-mg group. The hazard ratios as compared with placebo were as follows: in the 50-mg group, 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.07; P = 0.30); in the 150-mg group, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.74 to 0.98; P = 0.021); and in the 300-mg group, 0.86 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.031). The 150-mg dose, but not the other doses, met the prespecified multiplicity-adjusted threshold for statistical significance for the primary end point and the secondary end point that additionally included hospitalization for unstable angina that led to urgent revascularization (hazard ratio vs. placebo, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.95; P = 0.005). Canakinumab was associated with a higher incidence of fatal infection than was placebo. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio for all canakinumab doses vs. placebo, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.06; P = 0.31). Conclusions: Antiinflammatory therapy targeting the interleukin-1β innate immunity pathway with canakinumab at a dose of 150 mg every 3 months led to a significantly lower rate of recurrent cardiovascular events than placebo, independent of lipid-level lowering. (Funded by Novartis; CANTOS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01327846.