Optimum Currency Area Indices - How Close is the Czech Republic to the Eurozone?

In this paper we provide a survey of the optimum currency area theory, estimate the degree of the explanatory power of the optimum currency area criteria, and also calculate the optimum currency area index in the case of the Czech Republic. The results indicate that the traditional optimum currency area criteria to certain extent explain exchange rate variability. Our results may be interpreted as an attempt to assess the benefit-cost ratio of implementing a common currency for a pair of countries. Our results also suggest that from the point of view of the optimum currency area theory the costs of adopting the euro for the Czech Republic may be relatively low, at least in comparison with other EMU member countries. We conclude that if the European Monetary Union is sustainable, the accession of the Czech Republic should not change it.Convergence, EU/eurozone, exchange rate, optimum currency area theory, transition.

ERM II Membership - the View of the Accession Countries

With EU accession looming, a new chapter has been opened in the debate about the candidate countries' exchange rate strategies. A heated discussion has arisen in relation to ERM2 membership. The experience of the present eurozone members with ERM/ERM2 membership shows that none of them faced a significant challenge in the two-year 'evaluation' period in terms of the exchange rate stability convergence criterion. This could also be attributable to the stability policies prescribed by the Maastricht Treaty. However, for catching-up countries in the run-up to joining the eurozone, given the existing functioning of the mechanism, the ERM2 appears be of little help for ensuring exchange rate stability. The mechanism should be viewed rather as a tool for 'persuading' the markets of the appropriateness of the euro-locking rate. Since the Maastricht rules do not allow downward adjustment of the central parity within the ERM2 for two years before introduction of the euro, the authorities should be familiar with the preferred real exchange rate path prior to entering the mechanism. We conclude that countries could face large costs if they fail to do so.EU/eurozone, convergence, exchange rate, transition.

Omecamtiv mecarbil in chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, GALACTIC‐HF: baseline characteristics and comparison with contemporary clinical trials

Aims: The safety and efficacy of the novel selective cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil, in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is tested in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC‐HF) trial. Here we describe the baseline characteristics of participants in GALACTIC‐HF and how these compare with other contemporary trials. Methods and Results: Adults with established HFrEF, New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA) ≥ II, EF ≤35%, elevated natriuretic peptides and either current hospitalization for HF or history of hospitalization/ emergency department visit for HF within a year were randomized to either placebo or omecamtiv mecarbil (pharmacokinetic‐guided dosing: 25, 37.5 or 50 mg bid). 8256 patients [male (79%), non‐white (22%), mean age 65 years] were enrolled with a mean EF 27%, ischemic etiology in 54%, NYHA II 53% and III/IV 47%, and median NT‐proBNP 1971 pg/mL. HF therapies at baseline were among the most effectively employed in contemporary HF trials. GALACTIC‐HF randomized patients representative of recent HF registries and trials with substantial numbers of patients also having characteristics understudied in previous trials including more from North America (n = 1386), enrolled as inpatients (n = 2084), systolic blood pressure < 100 mmHg (n = 1127), estimated glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (n = 528), and treated with sacubitril‐valsartan at baseline (n = 1594). Conclusions: GALACTIC‐HF enrolled a well‐treated, high‐risk population from both inpatient and outpatient settings, which will provide a definitive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of this novel therapy, as well as informing its potential future implementation

36-month clinical outcomes of patients with venous thromboembolism: GARFIELD-VTE

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE), encompassing both deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide.Methods: GARFIELD-VTE is a prospective, non-interventional observational study of real-world treatment practices. We aimed to capture the 36-month clinical outcomes of 10,679 patients with objectively confirmed VTE enrolled between May 2014 and January 2017 from 415 sites in 28 countries.Findings: A total of 6582 (61.6 %) patients had DVT alone, 4097 (38.4 %) had PE +/- DVT. At baseline, 98.1 % of patients received anticoagulation (AC) with or without other modalities of therapy. The proportion of patients on AC therapy decreased over time: 87.6 % at 3 months, 73.0 % at 6 months, 54.2 % at 12 months and 42.0 % at 36 months. At 12-months follow-up, the incidences (95 % confidence interval [CI]) of all-cause mortality, recurrent VTE and major bleeding were 6.5 (7.0-8.1), 5.4 (4.9-5.9) and 2.7 (2.4-3.0) per 100 person-years, respectively. At 36-months, these decreased to 4.4 (4.2-4.7), 3.5 (3.2-2.7) and 1.4 (1.3-1.6) per 100 person-years, respectively. Over 36-months, the rate of all-cause mortality and major bleeds were highest in patients treated with parenteral therapy (PAR) versus oral anti-coagulants (OAC) and no OAC, and the rate of recurrent VTE was highest in patients on no OAC versus those on PAR and OAC. The most frequent cause of death after 36-month follow-up was cancer (n = 565, 48.6 %), followed by cardiac (n = 94, 8.1 %), and VTE (n = 38, 3.2 %). Most recurrent VTE events were DVT alone (n = 564, 63.3 %), with the remainder PE, (n = 236, 27.3 %), or PE in combination with DVT (n = 63, 7.3 %).Interpretation: GARFIELD-VTE provides a global perspective of anticoagulation patterns and highlights the accumulation of events within the first 12 months after diagnosis. These findings may help identify treatment gaps for subsequent interventions to improve patient outcomes in this patient population

Cardiac myosin activation with omecamtiv mecarbil in systolic heart failure

BACKGROUND The selective cardiac myosin activator omecamtiv mecarbil has been shown to improve cardiac function in patients with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. Its effect on cardiovascular outcomes is unknown. METHODS We randomly assigned 8256 patients (inpatients and outpatients) with symptomatic chronic heart failure and an ejection fraction of 35% or less to receive omecamtiv mecarbil (using pharmacokinetic-guided doses of 25 mg, 37.5 mg, or 50 mg twice daily) or placebo, in addition to standard heart-failure therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of a first heart-failure event (hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure) or death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS During a median of 21.8 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 1523 of 4120 patients (37.0%) in the omecamtiv mecarbil group and in 1607 of 4112 patients (39.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 0.99; P = 0.03). A total of 808 patients (19.6%) and 798 patients (19.4%), respectively, died from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.11). There was no significant difference between groups in the change from baseline on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score. At week 24, the change from baseline for the median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level was 10% lower in the omecamtiv mecarbil group than in the placebo group; the median cardiac troponin I level was 4 ng per liter higher. The frequency of cardiac ischemic and ventricular arrhythmia events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection, those who received omecamtiv mecarbil had a lower incidence of a composite of a heart-failure event or death from cardiovascular causes than those who received placebo. (Funded by Amgen and others; GALACTIC-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02929329; EudraCT number, 2016 -002299-28.)