Reform of Spain's profesional services market: Implementation of the EU Services Directive

The implementation of the European Commission Services Directive initiated the modernization process of services markets within the European Union. The objective was to guarantee the creation of a single market by ensuring the freedom of establishment and circulation. The transposition of the Directive in Spain triggered an initial wave of reforms in the Spanish legal system. A second package of reforms is currently underway, following recommendations by the EC, IMF and OECD, which highlight the relative lack of competition in Spain’s services as one of the major imbalances in its economy, alongside the public deficit and unemployment. Both the implemented and planned reforms represent a major step forward. Nevertheless, the government has recently announced modifications to the draft bill of the Professional Services and Associations Law, which is expected to soon be submitted for parliamentary debate and approval. Taking into consideration modifications already introduced, together with anticipated further changes, it will be important to maintain the main points of the draft bill and to introduce a deeper review of the legal framework for professional services, of the professional associations themselves, and for the activities that are subject to compulsory membership within a professional association. Spain’s territorial map of professional associations must too be redrawn.

Length of concentrate finishing affects the fatty acid composition of grass-fed andgenetically lean beef: an emphasis on trans-18:1 and conjugated linoleic acid profiles

2.4. The author may post the VoR version of the article (in PDF or HTML form) in the Institutional Repository of the institution in which the author worked at the time the article was first submitted, or (for appropriate journals) in PubMed Central or UK PubMed Central or arXiv, no sooner than one year after first publication of the article in the Journal, subject to file availability and provided the posting includes a prominent statement of the full bibliographical details, a copyright notice in the name of the copyright holder (Cambridge University Press or the sponsoring Society, as appropriate), and a link to the online edition of the Journal at Cambridge Journals Online.

Randomised, crossover clinical trial, in healthy volunteers, to compare the systemic availability of two topical intranasal budesonide formulations

Background: Budesonide has a long history as intranasal drug, with many marketed products. Efforts should be made to demonstrate the therapeutic equivalence and safety comparability between them. Given that systemic availability significantly varies from formulations, the clinical comparability of diverse products comes to be of clinical interest and a regulatory requirement. The aim of the present study was to compare the systemic availability, pharmacodynamic effect, and safety of two intranasal budesonide formulations for the treatment of rhinitis. Methods: Eighteen healthy volunteers participated in this randomised, controlled, crossover, clinical trial. On two separated days, subjects received a single dose of 512 mu g budesonide (4 puffs per nostril) from each of the assayed devices (Budesonida nasal 64 (R), Aldo-Union, Spain and Rhinocort 64 (R), AstraZeneca, Spain). Budesonide availability was determined by the measurement of budesonide plasma concentration. The pharmacodynamic effect on the hypothalamic-adrenal axis was evaluated as both plasma and urine cortisol levels. Adverse events were tabulated and described. Budesonide availability between formulations was compared by the calculation of 90% CI intervals of the ratios of the main pharmacokinetic parameters describing budesonide bioavailability. Plasma cortisol concentration-time curves were compared by means of a GLM for Repeated Measures. Urine cortisol excretion between formulations was compared through the Wilcoxon's test. Results: All the enroled volunteers successfully completed the study. Pharmacokinetic parameters were comparable in terms of AUC(t) (2.6 +/- 1.5 vs 2.2 +/- 0.7), AUCi (2.9 +/- 1.5 vs 2.4 +/- 0.7), t(max) (0.4 +/- 0.1 vs 0.4 +/- 0.2), C(max)/AUC(i) (0.3 +/- 0.1 vs 0.3 +/- 0.0), and MRT (5.0 +/- 1.4 vs 4.5 +/- 0.6), but not in the case of C(max) (0.9 +/- 0.3 vs 0.7 +/- 0.2) and t(1/2) (3.7 +/- 1.8 vs 2.9 +/- 0.4). The pharmacodynamic effects, measured as the effect over plasma and urine cortisol, were also comparables between both formulations. No severe adverse events were reported and tolerance was comparable between formulations. Conclusion: The systemic availability of intranasal budesonide was comparable for both formulations in terms of most pharmacokinetic parameters. The pharmacodynamic effect on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis was also similar. Side effects were scarce and equivalent between the two products. This methodology to compare different budesonide-containing devices is reliable and easy to perform, and should be recommended for similar products intented to be marketed or already on the market.