Suchergebnisse

Jean-Philippe Nordmann1, Christophe Baudouin1, Jean-Paul Renard2, Philippe Denis3, Antoine Lafuma4, Caroline Laurendeau4, Viviane Jeanbat4, Gilles Berdeaux5,61Hôpital des Quinzes-Vingt, Paris, France; 2Hôpital du Val de Grâce, Paris, France; 3Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France; 4Cemka, Bourg-la-Reine, France; 5Alcon France, Rueil-Malmaison, France; 6Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, Paris, FranceObjective: To identify and characterize treatment compliance profiles of glaucoma patients and evaluate the association with intraocular pressure (IOP).Methods: A computerized device (Travalert®) that recorded daily instillation times and eye-drop counts was given for 3 months. Patients were declared compliant when at least 2 drops were instilled per day. Compliance rates were calculated for weekdays and weekends, separately, over 8 consecutive weeks. A principal components analysis (PCA) was followed by an ascendant hierarchical classification (AHC) to identify compliance groups.Results: 140 patients were recruited (mean age 65.5 years; 51.8% female) of whom 83.6% had primary open-angle glaucoma with mean IOP 23.9 mmHg before Travalert® use. 60.7% were treated with DuoTrav® (travoprost timolol fixed combination) and 39.3% with ­travoprost. The PCA identified two axes (compliance and treatment weeks). The AHC identified 3 ­compliance groups: 'high' (56.6%, approx. 80% compliance), 'medium' (21.2%, approx. 50% compliance), and 'low' (22.1%, approx. 20% compliance). Demographics and glaucoma parameters did not predict low compliance. Final mean IOP was 16.1 mmHg, but higher in the low compliance group (17.7 mmHg, P = 0.02).Conclusions: Compliance measurement by a medical device showed compliance rates <80% by 50% (approx.) of patients, significantly impacting IOP control. No demographic or glaucoma variable was associated with low compliance.Keywords: glaucoma, compliance, efficacy, intraocular pressure control

Abstract
European company and financial law and regulation have been evolving over time along with business and financial practices. The resulting 'social licence' established by company and financial law and regulation aimed to balance the granted privileges of limited liability and share transferability with the corporate social contribution to economic development and employment. Recent transformations driven by shareholder value and financialisation have been challenging this balance of interests between stakeholders (including employees and shareholders) and society. The EU institutional framework may respond to these challenges by reaffirming the centrality of the enterprise as a going concern. On this basis, corporate accountability and responsibility may be enforced to make ongoing corporate affairs accountable and responsible for their contribution to economy and society. Ongoing corporate capacity to cope with social and environmental responsibilities may be assured along with the fair and sustainable remuneration of stakeholders, including shareholding investors, and a fair tax contribution. The EU institutional design and policy mix may be organised to respond to this comprehensive set of corporate dimensions. Here the most relevant fields to be reconsidered include: enterprise groups and corporate social responsibility; financial reporting and transparency; financial investment and asset management.

This work, the third volume in its series, is devoted entirely to the procedural issues that may arise during the course of an arbitration procedure.With this trilingual publication, CEPANI wishes to highlight the importance of the proper conduct of arbitral proceedings. Furthermore, the Centre also seeks to enhance the attractiveness of arbitration, in Belgium as well as internationally, by contributing to a better knowledge of arbitral proceedings and their rules.The selected arbitral awards come with comments from expert practitioners and academics in English, Dutch or French, including a