A agricultura nas negociações multilaterais da Rodada Doha e suas implicações para o Brasil

This article aims to analyse the evolution of world trade, with emphasis on the multilateral negotiations, since GATT was created in 1948, through the current Doha round of WTO. The role of institutions in building a favourable environment for free trade, particularly in agriculture, is stressed. After all, not only has the farming sector been crucial for the negotiations to succeed, but also for the trade relations of many developing countries, including Brazil. Besides, agriculture has been one of the most protected sectors in world trade and as such out of reach of GATT regulation until the conclusion of the Uruguay Round. Given that subsidies, tariffs and other mechanisms of protection still prevail in agricultural policies of some countries, this sector still remains as the deadlock of the unfinished Doha Round. That is why the previous expectations of progresses in trade liberalization have given place to a widespread uncertainty as the negotiations carry on.agricultural trade; Doha Round, Brazilian agriculture

A agricultura nas negociações da Rodada Doha e suas implicações para o Brasil

This article aims to analyse the evolution of world trade, with emphasis negotiations, since GATT was created in 1948, through the current Doha round of WTO. The role of institutions in building a favourable environment for free trade, particularly in  agriculture, is stressed. After all, not only has the farming sector been crucial for the negotiations to succeed, but also for the trade relations of many developing countries, including Brazil. Besides, agriculture has been one of the most protected sectors in world trade and as such out of reach of GATT regulation until the conclusion of the Uruguay Round. Given that subsidies, tariffs and other mechanisms of protection still prevail in agricultural policies of some countries, this sector still remains as the deadlock of the unfinished Doha Round. That is why the previous expectations of progresses in trade liberalizationnegotiations carry on.A análise desenvolvida neste artigo trata da evolução do comércio com ênfase nas negociações multilaterais, desde a criação do GATT em 1948, até a presente Rodada Doha de negociações da OMC. Para tanto, destaca-se o papel das instituições na construção de um ambiente mais propíciopara o livre comércio, particularmente na agricultura. Afinal este tem sido um setor crucial, não apenas para o avanço das negociações em curso, mas também para as relações comerciais do Brasil. Adicionalmente, a agricultura tem sido um dos setores mais protegidos no comércio mundial, tendo estado fora da regulamentação do GATT até a Rodada Uruguai, quando foi aprovado o acordo sobre agricultura, implementado a partir de 1995. Tendo em vista o curto alcance de seus resultados em termos de diminuição de subsídios e tarifas à agricultura, este setor de atividades continua no centro do impasse que temmarcado a Rodada Doha. É em grande parte devido a isso que a grande expectativa de uma maior liberalização do comércio deu lugar a uma incerteza generalizada quanto a um avanço satisfatório nas negociações

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field