O estilo de liderança preferido pela geração Z

Mestrado em GestãoExame Público realizado em 20 de Dezembro de 2021O presente estudo tem como objetivo realizar uma análise sobre os estilos de liderança preferidos pela geração Z e se as dimensões culturais afetam nessa escolha. Deste modo, iniciou-se a revisão de literatura com a compreensão dos temas “Liderança” e os “Estilos de Liderança”, de seguida é realizado um estudo sobre as “Gerações”, de modo a entender as características de cada uma. A geração Z (1997, 2010) está neste momento a entrar no mercado de trabalho, os mais jovens consumidores e trabalhadores alguns ainda estudantes trazem novas ideias, padrões, crenças, práticas religiosas, ambiente social e emocional, saúde, economia, comunicação, ideologia política, preferência educacional e mais abertura na tecnologia, no entanto ainda são inexperientes. De seguida, é estudado a “Cultura” e as “Dimensões Culturais”, para entender se pode influenciar na escolha da geração Z, no estilo de liderança. Na pesquisa, foi realizado inquéritos a 157 pessoas entre idade de 13 a 24 anos e verifica-se uma preferência pelas lideranças Democrática, Servil/Visionário/Coaching e Transformacional, visto que estão mais direcionadas para as relações. Do mesmo modo, verificou-se que a geração Z prefere uma pequena distância de poder nas empresas, coletivismo entre colegas e a feminilidade como características. O trabalho foi dividido em género e conhecimento prévio, para verificar se tinha implicações nos resultados. E verificou-se que existe diferenças significativas entre os géneros, tanto na liderança como nas dimensões culturais. Por outro lado, o conhecimento prévio, não influencia significativamente a escolha do estilo de liderança. No final não se verificou um relacionamento estatisticamente significativo entre as dimensões culturais e os estilos de liderança, exceto na distância de poder

Results from a population-based cohort study

Funding Information: We have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: ARF reports travel grants from Roche and advisory board fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis and Roche, outside the submitted work. DMB reports travel grants from LEO Farmacêuticos, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Ipsen, Janssen, Roche, and Novartis, advisory board fees from Janssen, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Angelini, AstraZeneca, and Novartis, and institutional grants from F. Hoffmann-La Roche, outside the submitted work. The other authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Funding Information: The authors acknowledge the RON network that cooperated in providing up-to-date information on cases diagnosed and treated with the drug of interest (participating institutions: Centro Hospitalar Universit?rio de S?o Jo?o, Centro Hospitalar Universit?rio Lisboa Norte, Centro Hospitalar Universit?rio do Algarve, Hospital de Braga, Centro Hospitalar e Universit?rio de Coimbra, Centro Hospitalar de Tr?s-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Hospital Central do Funchal, Centro Hospitalar de Vila Nova de Gaia/Espinho, Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Ocidental, Hospital Garcia de Orta, Centro Hospitalar Universit?rio Lisboa Central, Hospital Distrital de Santar?m, Centro Hospitalar de Entre o Douro e Vouga, Hospital da Senhora da Oliveira Guimar?es, Centro Hospitalar de Set?bal, Centro Hospitalar e Universit?rio do Porto, Centro Hospitalar Tondela Viseu, Hospital do Esp?rito Santo de ?vora, Centro Hospitalar Barreiro Montijo, Hospital Beatriz ?ngelo, Hospital do Santo Esp?rito da Ilha Terceira, Hospital do Divino Esp?rito Santo de Ponta Delgada, Hospital Pedro Hispano ? ULS Matosinhos, Hospital do Litoral Alentejano ? Santiago do Cac?m ? ULS Litoral Alentejano, Centro Hospitalar do Oeste, Centro Hospitalar M?dio Tejo, Hospital Jos? Joaquim Fernandes ? Beja ? ULS Baixo Alentejo, Centro Hospitalar Universit?rio da Cova da Beira, Centro Cl?nico Champalimaud, Hospitais CUF, Hospitais da Luz, Hospitais dos Lus?adas, Hospital Particular do Algarve). Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The AuthorsBackground: Real-world (RW) data may provide valuable information on the effectiveness and safety of medicines, which is particularly relevant for clinicians, patients and third-party payers. Evidence on the effectiveness of palbociclib plus fulvestrant is scarce, which highlights the need of additional studies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of palbociclib plus fulvestrant in advanced breast cancer (ABC). Materials and methods: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study and cases of interest were identified through the Portuguese National Cancer Registry database and additional data sources. Patients aged≥18 years, diagnosed with ABC and exposed to palbociclib plus fulvestrant between May 31, 2017 and March 31, 2019 were included. Patients were followed-up until death or cut-off date (February 28, 2021). Primary outcome was rw-progression-free survival (rwPFS). Secondary outcomes were rw-overall survival (rwOS), rw-time to palbociclib failure (rwTPF) and rw-time to next treatment (rwTTNT). Results: A total of 210 patients were included. Median age was 58 years (range 29–83) and 99.05% were female. Median follow-up time was 23.22 months and, at cut-off date, treatment had been discontinued in 189 patients, mainly due to disease progression (n = 152). Median rwPFS was 7.43 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.28–9.05) and 2-year rwPFS was 16.65% (95%CI 11.97–22.00). Median rwOS was 24.70 months (95%CI 21.58–29.27), median rwTPF was 7.5 months (95%CI 6.51–9.08) and median rwTTNT was 11.74 months (95%CI 10.33–14.08). Conclusion: Palbociclib plus fulvestrant seems an effective treatment for ABC in real-world context. Compared to registrations studies, rwPFS and rwOS were shorter in real-life setting.publishersversionpublishe

Assessment of calcinosis in Portuguese patients with systemic sclerosis: a multicenter study

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to International League of Associations for Rheumatology (ILAR) 2023Introduction/objectives: The study aims to define the clinical and subclinical calcinosis prevalence, the sensitivity of radiographed site and clinical method for its diagnosis, and the phenotype of Portuguese systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients with calcinosis. Method: A cross-sectional multicenter study was conducted with SSc patients fulfilling Leroy/Medsger 2001 or ACR/EULAR 2013 classification criteria, registered in the Reuma.pt. Calcinosis was assessed through clinical examination and radiographs of hands, elbows, knees, and feet. Independent parametric or non-parametric tests, multivariate logistic regression, and sensitivity calculation of radiographed site and clinical method for calcinosis detection were performed. Results: We included 226 patients. Clinical calcinosis was described in 63 (28.1%) and radiological calcinosis in 91 (40.3%) patients, of which 37 (40.7%) were subclinical. The most sensitive location to detect calcinosis was the hand (74.7%). Sensitivity of the clinical method was 58.2%. Calcinosis patients were more often female (p = 0.008) and older (p < 0.001) and had more frequently longer disease duration (p < 0.001), limited SSc (p = 0.017), telangiectasia (p = 0.039), digital ulcers (p = 0.001), esophageal (p < 0.001) and intestinal (p = 0.003) involvements, osteoporosis (p = 0.028), and late capillaroscopic pattern (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, digital ulcers (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.02-6.78, p = 0.045) predicted overall calcinosis, esophageal involvement (OR 3.52, 95% CI 1.28-9.67, p = 0.015) and osteoporosis (OR 4.1, 95% CI 1.2-14.2, p = 0.027) predicted hand calcinosis, and late capillaroscopic pattern (OR 7.6, 95% CI 1.7-34.9, p = 0.009) predicted knee calcinosis. Anti-nuclear antibody positivity was associated with less knee calcinosis (OR 0.021, 95% CI 0.001-0477, p = 0.015). Conclusions: Subclinical calcinosis high prevalence suggests that calcinosis is underdiagnosed and radiographic screening might be relevant. Multifactorial pathogenesis may explain calcinosis predictors' variability. Key Points • Prevalence of subclinical calcinosis in SSc patients is substantial. • Hand radiographs are more sensitive to detect calcinosis than other locations or clinical method. • Digital ulcers were associated with overall calcinosis, esophageal involvement and osteoporosis were associated with hand calcinosis, and late sclerodermic pattern in nailfold capillaroscopy was associated with knee calcinosis. • Anti-nuclear antibody positivity may be a protective factor for knee calcinosis.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Characterisation of microbial attack on archaeological bone

As part of an EU funded project to investigate the factors influencing bone preservation in the archaeological record, more than 250 bones from 41 archaeological sites in five countries spanning four climatic regions were studied for diagenetic alteration. Sites were selected to cover a range of environmental conditions and archaeological contexts. Microscopic and physical (mercury intrusion porosimetry) analyses of these bones revealed that the majority (68%) had suffered microbial attack. Furthermore, significant differences were found between animal and human bone in both the state of preservation and the type of microbial attack present. These differences in preservation might result from differences in early taphonomy of the bones. © 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Efficacy and safety of sparsentan versus irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy (PROTECT): 2-year results from a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial

BackgroundSparsentan, a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist, significantly reduced proteinuria versus irbesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, at 36 weeks (primary endpoint) in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy in the phase 3 PROTECT trial's previously reported interim analysis. Here, we report kidney function and outcomes over 110 weeks from the double-blind final analysis.MethodsPROTECT, a double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, was done across 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries throughout the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy-proven primary IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of at least 1·0 g per day despite maximised renin–angiotensin system inhibition for at least 12 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sparsentan (target dose 400 mg oral sparsentan once daily) or irbesartan (target dose 300 mg oral irbesartan once daily) based on a permuted-block randomisation method. The primary endpoint was proteinuria change between treatment groups at 36 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of change (slope) of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), changes in proteinuria, a composite of kidney failure (confirmed 40% eGFR reduction, end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality), and safety and tolerability up to 110 weeks from randomisation. Secondary efficacy outcomes were assessed in the full analysis set and safety was assessed in the safety set, both of which were defined as all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of randomly assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850.FindingsBetween Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 203 patients were randomly assigned to the sparsentan group and 203 to the irbesartan group. One patient from each group did not receive the study drug and was excluded from the efficacy and safety analyses (282 [70%] of 404 included patients were male and 272 [67%] were White) . Patients in the sparsentan group had a slower rate of eGFR decline than those in the irbesartan group. eGFR chronic 2-year slope (weeks 6–110) was −2·7 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·8 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·1 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI 0·1 to 2·1; p=0·037); total 2-year slope (day 1–week 110) was −2·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·0 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI −0·03 to 1·94; p=0·058). The significant reduction in proteinuria at 36 weeks with sparsentan was maintained throughout the study period; at 110 weeks, proteinuria, as determined by the change from baseline in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, was 40% lower in the sparsentan group than in the irbesartan group (−42·8%, 95% CI −49·8 to −35·0, with sparsentan versus −4·4%, −15·8 to 8·7, with irbesartan; geometric least-squares mean ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·50 to 0·72). The composite kidney failure endpoint was reached by 18 (9%) of 202 patients in the sparsentan group versus 26 (13%) of 202 patients in the irbesartan group (relative risk 0·7, 95% CI 0·4 to 1·2). Treatment-emergent adverse events were well balanced between sparsentan and irbesartan, with no new safety signals.InterpretationOver 110 weeks, treatment with sparsentan versus maximally titrated irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy resulted in significant reductions in proteinuria and preservation of kidney function

Sparsentan in patients with IgA nephropathy: a prespecified interim analysis from a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial

Background: Sparsentan is a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin and angiotensin receptor antagonist being examined in an ongoing phase 3 trial in adults with IgA nephropathy. We report the prespecified interim analysis of the primary proteinuria efficacy endpoint, and safety. Methods: PROTECT is an international, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled study, being conducted in 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries. The study examines sparsentan versus irbesartan in adults (aged ≥18 years) with biopsy-proven IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of 1·0 g/day or higher despite maximised renin-angiotensin system inhibitor treatment for at least 12 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sparsentan 400 mg once daily or irbesartan 300 mg once daily, stratified by estimated glomerular filtration rate at screening (30 to 1·75 g/day). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 36 in urine protein-creatinine ratio based on a 24-h urine sample, assessed using mixed model repeated measures. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were safety endpoints. All endpoints were examined in all participants who received at least one dose of randomised treatment. The study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings: Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 404 participants were randomly assigned to sparsentan (n=202) or irbesartan (n=202) and received treatment. At week 36, the geometric least squares mean percent change from baseline in urine protein-creatinine ratio was statistically significantly greater in the sparsentan group (-49·8%) than the irbesartan group (-15·1%), resulting in a between-group relative reduction of 41% (least squares mean ratio=0·59; 95% CI 0·51-0·69; p<0·0001). TEAEs with sparsentan were similar to irbesartan. There were no cases of severe oedema, heart failure, hepatotoxicity, or oedema-related discontinuations. Bodyweight changes from baseline were not different between the sparsentan and irbesartan groups. Interpretation: Once-daily treatment with sparsentan produced meaningful reduction in proteinuria compared with irbesartan in adults with IgA nephropathy. Safety of sparsentan was similar to irbesartan. Future analyses after completion of the 2-year double-blind period will show whether these beneficial effects translate into a long-term nephroprotective potential of sparsentan. Funding: Travere Therapeutics

Efficacy and safety of sparsentan versus irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy (PROTECT): 2-year results from a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background Sparsentan, a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist, significantly reduced proteinuria versus irbesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, at 36 weeks (primary endpoint) in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy in the phase 3 PROTECT trial's previously reported interim analysis. Here, we report kidney function and outcomes over 110 weeks from the double-blind final analysis. Methods PROTECT, a double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, was done across 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries throughout the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy-proven primary IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of at least 1·0 g per day despite maximised renin–angiotensin system inhibition for at least 12 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sparsentan (target dose 400 mg oral sparsentan once daily) or irbesartan (target dose 300 mg oral irbesartan once daily) based on a permuted-block randomisation method. The primary endpoint was proteinuria change between treatment groups at 36 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of change (slope) of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), changes in proteinuria, a composite of kidney failure (confirmed 40% eGFR reduction, end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality), and safety and tolerability up to 110 weeks from randomisation. Secondary efficacy outcomes were assessed in the full analysis set and safety was assessed in the safety set, both of which were defined as all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of randomly assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 203 patients were randomly assigned to the sparsentan group and 203 to the irbesartan group. One patient from each group did not receive the study drug and was excluded from the efficacy and safety analyses (282 [70%] of 404 included patients were male and 272 [67%] were White) . Patients in the sparsentan group had a slower rate of eGFR decline than those in the irbesartan group. eGFR chronic 2-year slope (weeks 6–110) was −2·7 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·8 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·1 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI 0·1 to 2·1; p=0·037); total 2-year slope (day 1–week 110) was −2·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·0 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI −0·03 to 1·94; p=0·058). The significant reduction in proteinuria at 36 weeks with sparsentan was maintained throughout the study period; at 110 weeks, proteinuria, as determined by the change from baseline in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, was 40% lower in the sparsentan group than in the irbesartan group (−42·8%, 95% CI −49·8 to −35·0, with sparsentan versus −4·4%, −15·8 to 8·7, with irbesartan; geometric least-squares mean ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·50 to 0·72). The composite kidney failure endpoint was reached by 18 (9%) of 202 patients in the sparsentan group versus 26 (13%) of 202 patients in the irbesartan group (relative risk 0·7, 95% CI 0·4 to 1·2). Treatment-emergent adverse events were well balanced between sparsentan and irbesartan, with no new safety signals. Interpretation Over 110 weeks, treatment with sparsentan versus maximally titrated irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy resulted in significant reductions in proteinuria and preservation of kidney function.</p