Daptomycin versus standard therapy for bacteremia and endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus.

BACKGROUND: Alternative therapies for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and endocarditis are needed. METHODS: We randomly assigned 124 patients with S. aureus bacteremia with or without endocarditis to receive 6 mg of daptomycin intravenously per kilogram of body weight daily and 122 to receive initial low-dose gentamicin plus either an antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin. The primary efficacy end point was treatment success 42 days after the end of therapy. RESULTS: Forty-two days after the end of therapy in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, a successful outcome was documented for 53 of 120 patients who received daptomycin as compared with 48 of 115 patients who received standard therapy (44.2 percent vs. 41.7 percent; absolute difference, 2.4 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, -10.2 to 15.1 percent). Our results met prespecified criteria for the noninferiority of daptomycin. The success rates were similar in subgroups of patients with complicated bacteremia, right-sided endocarditis, and methicillin-resistant S. aureus. Daptomycin therapy was associated with a higher rate of microbiologic failure than was standard therapy (19 vs. 11 patients, P=0.17). In 6 of the 19 patients with microbiologic failure in the daptomycin group, isolates with reduced susceptibility to daptomycin emerged; similarly, a reduced susceptibility to vancomycin was noted in isolates from patients treated with vancomycin. As compared with daptomycin therapy, standard therapy was associated with a nonsignificantly higher rate of adverse events that led to treatment failure due to the discontinuation of therapy (17 vs. 8, P=0.06). Clinically significant renal dysfunction occurred in 11.0 percent of patients who received daptomycin and in 26.3 percent of patients who received standard therapy (P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Daptomycin (6 mg per kilogram daily) is not inferior to standard therapy for S. aureus bacteremia and right-sided endocarditis. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00093067 [ClinicalTrials.gov].)

Monetary Policy through Production Networks: Evidence from the Stock Market

Monetary policy shocks have a large impact on aggregate stock market returns in narrow event windows around press releases by the Federal Open Market Committee. We use spatial autoregressions to decompose the overall effect of monetary policy shocks into a direct (demand) effect and an indirect (network) effect. We attribute 50%-85% of the overall effect to indirect effects. The decomposition is robust to different sample periods, event windows, and types of announcements. Direct effects are larger for industries selling most of the industry output to end-consumers compared to other industries. We find similar evidence of large indirect effects using ex-post realized cash-flow fundamentals. A simple model with intermediate inputs guides our empirical methodology. Our findings indicate that production networks might be an important propagation mechanism of monetary policy to the real economy

One central bank to rule them all

While global stock markets enjoy high returns on days surrounding FOMC meetings, there is no comparable result for other central banks either internationally or, more surprisingly, domestically. Neither announcement surprises nor currency moves drive these Öndings, which hold even for stocks with a domestic focus. The di§erence in announcement premia is not explained by economy size, exposure to multinationals, or policy activism. We conclude that the Fed exerts a unique impact on global equities. Consistent with this hypothesis, uncertainty drops across global markets following FOMC announcements but not those of other central banks. Furthermore, the Fed is generally the leader among central banks in setting monetary policy

One central bank to rule them all

While global stock markets enjoy high returns on days surrounding FOMC meetings, there is no comparable result for other central banks either internationally or, more surprisingly, domestically. Neither announcement surprises nor currency moves drive these Öndings, which hold even for stocks with a domestic focus. The di§erence in announcement premia is not explained by economy size, exposure to multinationals, or policy activism. We conclude that the Fed exerts a unique impact on global equities. Consistent with this hypothesis, uncertainty drops across global markets following FOMC announcements but not those of other central banks. Furthermore, the Fed is generally the leader among central banks in setting monetary policy

Saxagliptin and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular safety and efficacy of many current antihyperglycemic agents, including saxagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, are unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned 16,492 patients with type 2 diabetes who had a history of, or were at risk for, cardiovascular events to receive saxagliptin or placebo and followed them for a median of 2.1 years. Physicians were permitted to adjust other medications, including antihyperglycemic agents. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. RESULTS: A primary end-point event occurred in 613 patients in the saxagliptin group and in 609 patients in the placebo group (7.3% and 7.2%, respectively, according to 2-year Kaplan-Meier estimates; hazard ratio with saxagliptin, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89 to 1.12; P=0.99 for superiority; P<0.001 for noninferiority); the results were similar in the "on-treatment" analysis (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.17). The major secondary end point of a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, coronary revascularization, or heart failure occurred in 1059 patients in the saxagliptin group and in 1034 patients in the placebo group (12.8% and 12.4%, respectively, according to 2-year Kaplan-Meier estimates; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.11; P=0.66). More patients in the saxagliptin group than in the placebo group were hospitalized for heart failure (3.5% vs. 2.8%; hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.51; P=0.007). Rates of adjudicated cases of acute and chronic pancreatitis were similar in the two groups (acute pancreatitis, 0.3% in the saxagliptin group and 0.2% in the placebo group; chronic pancreatitis, <0.1% and 0.1% in the two groups, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: DPP-4 inhibition with saxagliptin did not increase or decrease the rate of ischemic events, though the rate of hospitalization for heart failure was increased. Although saxagliptin improves glycemic control, other approaches are necessary to reduce cardiovascular risk in patients with diabetes. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb; SAVOR-TIMI 53 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01107886.)