How Effective are Unemployment Benefit Sanctions? Looking Beyond Unemployment Exit

This paper provides a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of benefit sanctions on post-unemployment outcomes such as post-unemployment employment stability and earnings. We use rich register data which allow us to distinguish between a warning that a benefit reduction may take place in the near future and the actual withdrawal of unemployment benefits. Adopting a multivariate mixed proportional hazard approach to address selectivity, we find that warnings do not affect subsequent employment stability but do reduce post-unemployment earnings. Actual benefit reductions lower the quality of post-unemployment jobs both in terms of job duration as well as in terms of earnings. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Angiotensin II receptor blockade: is there truly a benefit of adding an ACE inhibitor?

We assessed the blockade of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) achieved with 2 angiotensin (Ang) antagonists given either alone at different doses or with an ACE inhibitor. First, 20 normotensive subjects were randomly assigned to 100 mg OD losartan (LOS) or 80 mg OD telmisartan (TEL) for 1 week; during another week, the same doses of LOS and TEL were combined with 20 mg OD lisinopril. Then, 10 subjects were randomly assigned to 200 mg OD LOS and 160 mg OD TEL for 1 week and 100 mg BID LOS and 80 mg BID TEL during the second week. Blockade of the RAS was evaluated with the inhibition of the pressor effect of exogenous Ang I, an ex vivo receptor assay, and the changes in plasma Ang II. Trough blood pressure response to Ang I was blocked by 35+/-16% (mean+/-SD) with 100 mg OD LOS and by 36+/-13% with 80 mg OD TEL. When combined with lisinopril, blockade was 76+/-7% with LOS and 79+/-9% with TEL. With 200 mg OD LOS, trough blockade was 54+/-14%, but with 100 mg BID it increased to 77+/-8% (P<0.01). Telmisartan (160 mg OD and 80 mg BID) produced a comparable effect. Thus, at their maximal recommended doses, neither LOS nor TEL blocks the RAS for 24 hours; hence, the addition of an ACE inhibitor provides an additional blockade. A 24-hour blockade can be achieved with an angiotensin antagonist alone, provided higher doses or a BID regimen is used.

Clinical benefit of fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer and primary or acquired resistance to aromatase inhibitors: final results of phase II Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research Trial (SAKK 21/00).

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of fulvestrant, an estrogen receptor antagonist, in postmenopausal women with hormone-responsive tumors progressing after aromatase inhibitor (AI) treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a phase II, open, multicenter, noncomparative study. Two patient groups were prospectively considered: group A (n=70) with AI-responsive disease and group B (n=20) with AI-resistant disease. Fulvestrant 250 mg was administered as intramuscular injection every 28 (+/-3) days. RESULTS: All patients were pretreated with AI and 84% also with tamoxifen or toremifene; 67% had bone metastases and 45% liver metastases. Fulvestrant administration was well tolerated and yielded a clinical benefit (CB; defined as objective response or stable disease [SD] for >or=24 weeks) in 28% (90% confidence interval [CI] 19% to 39%) of patients in group A and 37% (90% CI 19% to 58%) of patients in group B. Median time to progression (TTP) was 3.6 (95% CI 3.0 to 4.8) months in group A and 3.4 (95% CI 2.5 to 6.7) months in group B. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, 30% of patients who had progressed following prior AI treatment gained CB with fulvestrant, thereby delaying indication to start chemotherapy. Prior response to an AI did not appear to be predictive for benefit with fulvestrant.

Sharing data between LSDBs and central repositories.

Several Locus-Specific DataBases (LSDBs) have recently been approached by larger, more general data repositories (including NCBI and UCSC) with the request to share the DNA variant data they have collected. Within the Human Genome Variation Society (HGVS) a document was generated summarizing the issues related to these requests. The document has been circulated in the HGVS/LSDB community and was discussed extensively. Here we summarize these discussions and present the concluded recommendations for LSDB data sharing with central repositories.