US hegemony and Southeast Asia - The impact of, and limits to, US power and influence

The United States has exerted a major influence on Southeast Asia, especially since World War II. As both a promoter of neoliberal reform and as the key strategic actor in the wider East Asian region, the impact of U.S. power has been immense. But both the Asian economic crisis and its aftermath, and the more recent war on terror, have highlighted the contradictory impact of evolving U.S. foreign policy and intervention in the region. At both an elite and a mass level there is evidence of resentment about, and hostility toward, U.S. policy and its perceived negative effects. This article outlines how U.S. foreign policy has impacted the region in the economic, political, and security spheres, and argues that not only has it frequently not achieved its goals, but it may in fact be undermining both America's long-term hegemonic position in the region and any prospects for political liberalization.

Prognostic value of intraventricular dyssynchrony according to clinical stage of left ventricular impairment

Intraventricular dyssynchrony has prognostic implications in patients who have severe functional limitation and decreased ejection fraction. Patients with less advanced cardiac disease often exhibit intraventricular dyssynchrony, but there is little available information about its prognostic relevance in such patients. We investigated the prognostic effect of intraventricular dyssynchrony on outcome in 318 patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease who were classified according to the presence or absence of left ventricular dysfunction and heart failure symptoms. Mortality was considered the primary end point over a median follow-up of 56 months, and a Cox proportional hazards model was used for survival analysis. Despite a low prevalence (8%) of left bundle branch block, there was a high prevalence of intraventricular dyssynchrony even in patients without symptomatic heart failure. The magnitude of intraventricular dyssynchrony correlated poorly with QRS duration (r = 0.25),end-systolic volume index (r = 0.27), and number of scar segments (r = 0.25). There,were 58 deaths during follow-up. Ventricular volume, ischemic burden, and magnitude of intraventricular dyssynchrony predicted outcome, but magnitude of intraventricular dyssynchrony was an independent predictor of survival only in patients with asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction. In conclusion, patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease have a high prevalence of intraventricular dyssynchrony. Although ventricular volume, ischemic burden, and intraventricular dyssynchrony are potentially important prognostic markers, the relative importance of intraventricular dyssynchrony changes with the clinical setting and, may be greatest-in patients with preclinical disease. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Comparison of ASAS improvement criteria for ankylosing spondylitis with clinically relevant improvement according to an expert panel

Objective: To investigate whether the recently developed (statistically derived) "ASsessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis Working Group" improvement criteria (ASAS-IC) for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) reflect clinically relevant improvement according to the opinion of an expert panel. Methods: The ASAS-IC consist of four domains: physical function, spinal pain, patient global assessment, and inflammation. Scores on these four domains of 55 patients with AS, who had participated in a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug efficacy trial, were presented to an international expert panel (consisting of patients with AS and members of the ASAS Working Group) in a three round Delphi exercise. The number of (non-) responders according to the ASAS-IC was compared with the final-consensus of the experts. The most important domains in the opinion of the experts were identified, and also selected with discriminant analysis. A number of provisional criteria sets that best represented the consensus of the experts were defined. Using other datasets, these clinically derived criteria sets as well as the statistically derived ASAS-IC were then tested for discriminative properties and for agreement with the end of trial efficacy by patient and doctor. Results: Forty experts completed the three Delphi rounds. The experts considered twice as many patients to be responders than the ASAS-IC (42 v 21). Overall agreement between experts and ASAS-IC was 62%. Spinal pain was considered the most important domain by most experts and was also selected as such by discriminant analysis. Provisional criteria sets with an agreement of greater than or equal to 80% compared with the consensus of the experts showed high placebo response rates (27-42%), in contrast with the ASAS-IC with a predefined placebo response rate of 25%. All criteria sets and the ASAS-IC discriminated well between active and placebo treatment (chi(2) = 36-45; p < 0.001). Compared with the end of trial efficacy assessment, the provisional criteria sets showed an agreement of 71-82%, sensitivity of 67-83%, and specificity of 81-88%. The ASAS-IC showed an agreement of 70%, sensitivity of 62%, and specificity of 89%. Conclusion: The ASAS-IC are strict in defining response, are highly specific, and consequently show lower sensitivity than the clinically derived criteria sets. However, those patients who are considered as responders by applying the ASAS-IC are acknowledged as such by the expert panel as well as by. patients' and doctors' judgments, and are therefore likely to be true responders.