Search

Digital marketplaces are standard and pervasive sites to trade and exchange material consumer goods worldwide. Yet the media characteristics of different, situated marketplaces have received relatively sporadic attention from the field of media and communication studies, despite the otherwise prominent disciplinary interest in digital technologies, platforms and processes of mediatisation. This paper coalesces perspectives from social, geography and retail studies with mediatisation approaches to extend a theorisation of digital marketplaces as 'mediatised marketplaces', focusing on the discussion of interactions between digital media and place involved in the distribution of material goods. We use illustrative examples of two different local marketplaces – the Swedish Tradera and Facebook Marketplace – to demonstrate how mediatised marketplaces challenge a range of distinctions, including between offline and online, material and immaterial, local and global. Mediatised marketplaces such as Tradera and Facebook Marketplace are grounded in place and local market identities, even as they operate on or are owned by global platforms; they rely on communicative as much as logistical functionalities of media; and are transformative of media and consumption practices. The paper contributes to studies of mediatisation and its impacts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyzes India's Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) as a potential intervention in the administration of patent law. The TKDL is a database including a vast body of traditional medical knowledge from India, aiming to prevent the patenting and misappropriation of that knowledge. This article contextualizes the TKDL in relation to documentation theory as well as to existing research on the uses of databases to protect traditional knowledge. It explores the TKDL's potential consequences for India's traditional medical knowledge and the wider implications that traditional knowledge databases can have for the safeguarding of traditional knowledge in general. The article concludes that on the one hand the TKDL bridges the gap between the main branches of Indian traditional medicine and the formal knowledge system of International Patent Classifications. Furthermore, it has also inspired revisions of the International Patent Classification system, which makes it better adapted to incorporate traditional medical knowledge. On the other hand, critical research on traditional knowledge documentation argues that traditional knowledge databases, like the TKDL, can decontextualize the knowledge they catalogue and dispossess its original owners. The TKDL, however, also fits into a national, Indian agenda of documenting and modernizing traditional medicine that predates the formation of the TKDL by several decades and challenges the dichotomy between traditional and scientific knowledge systems that originally motivated the formation of the TKDL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Big data is central to new developments in global clinical science aiming to improve the lives of patients. Technological advances have led to the routine use of structured electronic healthcare records with the potential to address key gaps in clinical evidence. The covid-19 pandemic has demonstrated the potential of big data and related analytics, but also important pitfalls. Verification, validation, and data privacy, as well as the social mandate to undertake research are key challenges. The European Society of Cardiology and the BigData@Heart consortium have brought together a range of international stakeholders, including patient representatives, clinicians, scientists, regulators, journal editors and industry. We propose the CODE-EHR Minimum Standards Framework as a means to improve the design of studies, enhance transparency and develop a roadmap towards more robust and effective utilisation of healthcare data for research purposes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: In patients with moderate to severe albuminuric kidney disease, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors reduce the risk of kidney disease progression. These post hoc analyses assess the effects of dapagliflozin on kidney function decline in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), focusing on populations with low kidney risk.Research Design and Methods: In the Dapagliflozin Effect on Cardiovascular Events-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 58 (DECLARE-TIMI 58) trial, patients with T2D at high cardiovascular risk were randomly assigned to dapagliflozin versus placebo. Outcomes were analyzed by treatment arms, overall, and by Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) risk categories. The prespecified kidney-specific composite outcome was a sustained decline ≥40% in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) to <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, end-stage kidney disease, and kidney-related death. Other outcomes included incidence of categorical eGFR decline of different thresholds and chronic (6 month to 4 year) or total (baseline to 4 year) eGFR slopes.Results: Most participants were in the low-moderate KDIGO risk categories (n = 15,201 [90.3%]). The hazard for the kidney-specific composite outcome was lower with dapagliflozin across all KDIGO risk categories (P-interaction = 0.97), including those at low risk (hazard ratio [HR] 0.54, 95% CI 0.38-0.77). Risks for categorical eGFR reductions (≥57% [in those with baseline eGFR ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2], ≥50%, ≥40%, and ≥30%) were lower with dapagliflozin (HRs 0.52, 0.57, 0.55, and 0.70, respectively; P < 0.05). Slopes of eGFR decline favored dapagliflozin across KDIGO risk categories, including the low KDIGO risk (between-arm differences of 0.87 [chronic] and 0.55 [total] mL/min/1.73 m2/year; P < 0.0001).Conclusions: Dapagliflozin mitigated kidney function decline in patients with T2D at high cardiovascular risk, including those with low KDIGO risk, suggesting a role of dapagliflozin in the early prevention of diabetic kidney disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Organization scholars have extensively studied both the politics of organization and the organization of politics. Contributing to the latter, we argue for further and deeper consideration of political parties, since: (1) parties illuminate organizational dynamics of in- and exclusion; (2) internal struggles related to the constitution of identities, practices and procedures are accentuated in parties; (3) the study of parties allow for the isolation of processes of normative and affective commitment; (4) parties prioritize and intensify normative control mechanisms; (5) party organizing currently represents an example of profound institutional change, as new (digital) formations challenge old bureaucratic models. Consequently, we argue that political parties should be seen as 'critical cases' of organizing, meaning that otherwise commonplace phenomena are intensified and exposed in parties. This allows researchers to use parties as magnifying glasses for zooming-in on organizational dynamics that may be suppressed or concealed by the seemingly non-political façade of many contemporary organizations. In conclusion, we argue that organization scholars are in a privileged position to investigate how political parties function today and how their democratic potential can be improved in the future. To this end, we call on Organization and Management Studies to engage actively with alternative parties in an attempt to explore and promote progressive change within the formal political system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyses how local, national and international interests are reflected in India's attempts to protect traditional knowledge through the formation of a Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL). It compares how the digital library is contextualised within India's domestic policy with how it is presented to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The article argues that WIPO has endorsed the Indian initiative and embraced the promotion of protective databases as an uncontroversial tool that diverts attention from more contested forms of traditional knowledge protection. Consequently, India has been able to use WIPO as a platform to promote itself and the TKDL to the global community. Domestically, however, the library serves other purposes. Since it systematically documents a vast body of traditional medical knowledge, Indian authorities can use the library to claim that knowedge as part of a national cultural heritage, and as a source of scientific innovations to the economic and social benefit of the country. In that regard, the TKDL reflects an interplay among local, national and international interests, where the goal of protecting the traditional knowledge of indigenous and local communities against misappropriation risks being co-opted to serve national purposes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) improve albuminuria in patients with high cardiorenal risk. We report albuminuria change in the Dapagliflozin Effect on Cardiovascular Events (DECLARE-TIMI 58) cardiovascular outcome trial, which included populations with lower cardiorenal risk.Research Design and Methods: DECLARE-TIMI 58 randomized 17,160 patients with type 2 diabetes, creatinine clearance >60 mL/min, and either atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD; 40.6%) or risk-factors for CVD (59.4%) to dapagliflozin or placebo. Urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) was tested at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, and yearly thereafter. The change in UACR over time was measured as a continuous and categorical variable (≤15, >15 to <30, ≥30 to ≤300, and >300 mg/g) by treatment arm. The composite cardiorenal outcome was a ≥40% sustained decline in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) to <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, end-stage kidney disease, and cardiovascular or renal death; specific renal outcome included all except cardiovascular death.Results: Baseline UACR was available for 16,843 (98.15%) participants: 9,067 (53.83%) with ≤15 mg/g, 2,577 (15.30%) with >15 to <30 mg/g, 4,030 (23.93%) with 30-300 mg/g, and 1,169 (6.94%) with >300 mg/g. Measured as a continuous variable, UACR improved from baseline to 4.0 years with dapagliflozin, compared with placebo, across all UACR and eGFR categories (all P < 0.0001). Sustained confirmed ≥1 category improvement in UACR was more common in dapagliflozin versus placebo (hazard ratio 1.45 [95% CI 1.35-1.56], P < 0.0001). Cardiorenal outcome was reduced with dapagliflozin for subgroups of UACR ≥30 mg/g (P < 0.0125, Pinteraction = 0.033), and the renal-specific outcome was reduced for all UACR subgroups (P < 0.05, Pinteraction = 0.480).Conclusions: In DECLARE-TIMI 58, dapagliflozin demonstrated a favorable effect on UACR and renal-specific outcome across baseline UACR categories, including patients with normal albumin excretion. The results suggest a role for SGLT2i also in the primary prevention of diabetic kidney disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article argues that since genetic resources carry cultural significance to many Indigenous communities, the protection of genetic resources should be considered in relation to the protection of Indigenous cultural heritage. It compares international regulations of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge to those of traditional cultural expressions, focusing particularly on the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its implementation through the Nagoya Protocol. The article discusses how attempts to decolonise the regulation of genetic resources are impeded by two dilemmas that have also affected UNESCO and WIPO's attempts to safeguard traditional cultural expressions. The first dilemma concerns the problems of promoting Indigenous self-recognition within a system of governance based on national agency and sovereignty. The second dilemma concerns how international regulations are based on a Western ontology that polarises natural and cultural resources, which has resulted in a reluctance to address intellectual property rights within the CBD. Exploring parallels between the regulation of genetic resources and traditional cultural expressions provides new perspectives on the difficulties facing the decolonisation of the protection of Indigenous resources and the implementation of Indigenous data sovereignty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of the composite of cardiovascular (CV) death or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in DECLARE‐TIMI 58. We hypothesized that baseline N‐terminal pro B‐type natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP) and high‐sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) levels would help identify patients who are at higher baseline risk and we describe the treatment effects of dapagliflozin in patients according to their baseline NT‐proBNP and hsTnT levels. Methods and results: This was a pre‐specified biomarker study from DECLARE‐TIMI 58, a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled CV outcomes trial of dapagliflozin. Baseline NT‐proBNP and hsTnT levels were measured in the TIMI Clinical Trials Laboratory in 14 565 patients. Among the included patients, 9143 patients (62.8%) were male, 1464 (10.1%) had a history of heart failure and the mean age was 63.9 years. The median baseline NT‐proBNP and hsTnT levels were 75 pg/mL [interquartile range (IQR) 35–165] and 10.2 pg/mL (IQR 6.9–15.5), respectively. Patients with higher NT‐proBNP and hsTnT quartiles had higher rates of CV death/HHF (Q4 vs. Q1: NT‐proBNP: 4‐year Kaplan–Meier event rates 13.7% vs. 1.0%; hsTnT: 11.8% vs. 1.4%; P‐trend <0.001). Dapagliflozin consistently reduced the relative risk of CV death/HHF regardless of baseline NT‐proBNP (P‐interaction 0.72) or hsTnT quartiles (P‐interaction 0.93). Given their higher baseline risk, patients with NT‐proBNP and/or hsTnT levels above the median derived larger absolute risk reductions with dapagliflozin (NT‐proBNP 1.9% vs. 0%, P‐interaction 0.010; hsTnT 1.8% vs. 0.1%, P‐interaction 0.026). Conclusion: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and higher NT‐proBNP or hsTnT levels are at increased risk of CV death and HHF. Dapagliflozin reduced the relative risk of CV death/HHF irrespective of NT‐proBNP and hsTnT levels, with greater absolute risk reductions seen in patients with higher baseline biomarker levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To assess the associations between baseline glucose‐lowering agents (GLAs) and cardiorenal outcomes with dapagliflozin versus placebo in the DECLARE‐TIMI 58 study. Materials and methods: DECLARE‐TIMI 58 assessed the cardiorenal outcomes of dapagliflozin versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes. This post hoc analysis elaborates the efficacy and safety outcomes by baseline GLA for treatment effect and GLA‐based treatment interaction. Results: At baseline, 14 068 patients (82.0%) used metformin, 7322 (42.7%) sulphonylureas, 2888 (16.8%) dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibitors, 750 (4.4%) glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists (GLP‐1 RAs) and 7013 (40.9%) insulin. Dapagliflozin reduced the composite of cardiovascular death (CVD) and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) versus placebo regardless of baseline GLA, with greater benefit in the small group of patients with baseline use of GLP‐1 RAs (HR [95% CI] 0.37 [0.18, 0.78] vs. 0.86 [0.75, 0.98] in GLP‐1 RA users vs. non‐users, Pinteraction =.03). The overall HR for major adverse cardiovascular events (CVD, myocardial infarction or ischaemic stroke) was 0.93 (95% CI 0.84, 1.03) with dapagliflozin versus placebo, with no interaction by baseline GLA (Pinteraction >.05). The renal‐specific outcome was reduced with dapagliflozin versus placebo in the overall cohort (HR [95%CI] 0.53[0.43‐0.66]), with no interaction by baseline GLA (Pinteraction >.05). All of these outcomes were similar in those with versus those without baseline metformin use. Conclusions: The effects of dapagliflozin on cardiorenal outcomes were generally consistent regardless of baseline GLA, with consistent benefits regardless of baseline metformin use. The potential clinical benefit of combining sodium‐glucose co‐transporter‐2 inhibitors with GLP‐1 RAs, given some evidence of cardiovascular risk reduction with both classes, should be explored further. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To evaluate comprehensively the safety of dapagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM), with emphasis placed on potential safety concerns related to the sodium‐glucose co‐transporter‐2 inhibitor class. Methods: In the Dapagliflozin Effect on Cardiovascular Events – Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 58 (DECLARE‐TIMI 58) study, 17 160 patients with T2DM were randomized to dapagliflozin or placebo and followed for a median of 4.2 years. Safety was evaluated in 17 143 patients receiving at least one dose of study drug. Results: Acute kidney injury occurred less frequently with dapagliflozin, and adverse events suggestive of volume depletion were balanced between treatment groups, both irrespective of baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate, blood pressure, diuretic or loop diuretic use (interaction P values >0.05). Fractures and malignancies were balanced between the groups, irrespective of sex, diabetes duration or smoking (interaction P values >0.05) and fewer cases of bladder cancer occurred in the dapagliflozin versus the placebo group. Diabetic ketoacidosis was very rare, but more frequent with dapagliflozin versus placebo (27 vs. 12 patients with events; P = 0.02), yet signs, symptoms and contributing factors were similar in the two groups. Major hypoglycaemia occurred less frequently with dapagliflozin versus placebo, regardless of baseline use of either insulin or sulphonylureas (interaction P values >0.05). There were more adverse events of genital infections leading to discontinuation of study drug in the dapagliflozin versus the placebo group, but serious genital infections were few and balanced between treatment groups. Urinary tract infections, acute pyelonephritis and urosepsis were also balanced between treatment groups. Conclusions: Dapagliflozin was well tolerated. The long duration and large number of patient‐years in DECLARE‐TIMI 58 comprehensively addressed previous safety questions, confirming the robust safety profile of dapagliflozin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Data regarding the effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in the elderly (age ≥65 years) and very elderly (age ≥75 years) are limited.Research Design and Methods: The Dapagliflozin Effect on Cardiovascular Events (DECLARE)-TIMI 58 assessed cardiac and renal outcomes of dapagliflozin versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes. Efficacy and safety outcomes were studied within age subgroups for treatment effect and age-based treatment interaction.Results: Of the 17,160 patients, 9,253 were <65 years of age, 6,811 ≥65 to <75 years, and 1,096 ≥75 years. Dapagliflozin reduced the composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure consistently, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.88 (95% CI 0.72, 1.07), 0.77 (0.63, 0.94), and 0.94 (0.65, 1.36) in age-groups <65, ≥65 to <75, and ≥75 years, respectively (interaction P value 0.5277). Overall, dapagliflozin did not significantly decrease the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events, with HR 0.93 (95% CI 0.81, 1.08), 0.97 (0.83, 1.13), and 0.84 (0.61, 1.15) in age-groups <65, ≥65 to <75, and ≥75 years, respectively (interaction P value 0.7352). The relative risk reduction for the secondary prespecified cardiorenal composite outcome ranged from 18% to 28% in the different age-groups with no heterogeneity. Major hypoglycemia was less frequent with dapagliflozin versus placebo, with HR 0.97 (95% CI 0.58, 1.64), 0.50 (0.29, 0.84), and 0.68 (0.29, 1.57) in age-groups <65, ≥65 to <75, and ≥75 years, respectively (interaction P value 0.2107). Safety outcomes, including fractures, volume depletion, cancer, urinary tract infections, and amputations were balanced with dapagliflozin versus placebo, and acute kidney injury was reduced, all regardless of age. Genital infections that were serious or led to discontinuation of the study drug and diabetic ketoacidosis were uncommon, yet more frequent with dapagliflozin versus placebo, without heterogeneity (interaction P values 0.1058 and 0.8433, respectively).Conclusions: The overall efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin are consistent regardless of age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Review of African Political Economy is the property of Review of Political Economy (ROAPE) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Since the 1970s international law has tried to provide protection for traditional knowledge (TK) and traditional cultural expressions (TCEs). Academics, activists and policymakers have discussed how to apply a legal framework based on Western norms of authorship on various forms of creativity that exist in different traditional communities. While aiming to acknowledge indigenous rights, this discourse also reflects assumptions and distinctions regarding differences between indigenous and non-indigenous cultures, relating to concepts of commons as well as individual and collective authorship. Here certain norms of cultural creativity are taken for granted, not only with regards to indigenous cultures but also regarding a Western cultural heritage. This article questions these assumptions by analyzing international legislation regarding the protection of TCEs and comparing them to the articulation of creativity and cultural entitlements in European cultural and legal discourses. It takes a particular paragraph in the Swedish copyright law, regarding the so called "protection of classics", as a case study to discuss the inconsistencies between individual authorship and collective cultural entitlements within Western copyright law. Eventually it takes a decolonizing perspective on dichotomies between concepts such as: Western/non-Western; modern/traditional; authored/non-authored and intellectual property/cultural property. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article investigates how resources that are perceived as common are turned into property through different interventions of extractivism, and how this provokes counter-activism from groups and actors who see their rights and living conditions threatened by the practices of extraction. The article looks at how extraction is enacted through three distinct practices: prospecting, enclosure and unbundling, studied through three different cases. The cases involve resources that are material and immaterial, renewable as well as non-renewable, ‘natural’ as well as man-made. Prospecting is exemplified by patenting of genetic resources and traditional knowledge, enclosure is exemplified by debates over copyright expansionism and information commons, and unbundling through conflicts over mining and gas extraction. The article draws on fieldwork involving interviews and participant observation with protesters at contested mining sites in Australia and with digital rights activists from across the world who protest against how the expansion of copyright limits public access to culture and information. The article departs from an understanding of &#x2018.commons’ not as an open access resource, but as a resource shared by a group of people, often subjected to particular social norms that regulate how it can be used. Enclosure and extraction are both social processes, dependent on recognising some and downplaying or misrecognising other social relations when it comes to resources and processes of property creation. These processes are always, regardless of the particular resources at stake, cultural in the sense that the uses of the commons are regulated through cultural norms and contracts, but also that they carry profound cultural and social meanings for those who use them. Finally, the commonalities and heterogeneities of these protest movements are analysed as ‘working in common’, where the resistance to extraction in itself represents a process of commoning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article takes the politicisation of copyright and file sharing as a starting point to discuss the concept of the commons and the construction of property. Empirically, the article draws on a series of interviews with Pirate Party members in Sweden, Australia, Germany, the UK and USA; placed in the theoretical framework of the commons. We argue that piracy, as an act and an ideology, interrogates common understandings of property as something self-evident, natural and uncontestable. Such constructions found liberal market ideology. The article has two broad aims: to briefly outline how the enclosure of the commons can be applied to different kinds of resources, from the physical commons, to the institutional and finally the cultural commons.; and to discuss the way that piracy highlights the emergent crisis in private property rights, brought to the fore by the global financial crisis and ongoing privatization of public resources. We conclude by questioning what new modes of enclosure are emerging in a digital economy driven by excessive data mining and centralized streaming services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A political battle is being waged over the use and control of culture and information. While copyright organisations and most established media companies argue for stricter intellectual property laws, a growing body of citizens, and parts of the new media industry, challenge the contemporary IP-regime. This has resulted in a political mobilisation of piracy. This mobilisation is most evident in the formation of pirate parties, which see themselves as a digital civil rights movement, defending the public domain and the citizen's right to privacy against copyright expansionism and increased surveillance. Since the first pirate party was formed in Sweden in 2006, similar parties have emerged across the world. This article draws on a study of the culture and ideology of copyright resistance, through a series of interviews with representatives of pirate parties in Europe and North America. It focuses on democracy and citizenship in the context of pirate politics. In particular, this article examines challenges to democracy, and the distinction between public and private property and spaces, in the wake of the war on terror and the global financial crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article draws on a series of interviews with members of the Pirate Party, a political party focusing on copyright and information politics, in different countries. It discusses the interviewees' visions of democracy and technology and explains that copyright is seen as not only an obstacle to the free consumption of music and movies but a threat to the freedom of speech, the right to privacy, and a thriving public sphere. The first part of this article briefly sketches how the Pirate Party's commitment to the democratic potential of new communication technologies can be interpreted as a defense of a digitally expanded lifeworld against the attempts at colonization by market forces and state bureaucracies. The second part problematizes this assumption by discussing the interactions between the Pirate movement and the tech industry in relation to recent theories on the connection between political agency and social media. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article approaches the recent debates about copyright and piracy from a cultural and historical perspective, discussing how problems surrounding intellectual property rights (IPR) reflect cultural conflicts that are central to cultural studies. It sets out with a study of how international copyright norms developed in nineteenth-century Europe were implemented in two different national contexts: Sweden and the USA. This historical background shows how copyright has been embedded in the cultural history of Europe and intertwined with the idea of an evolving Western civilization. The examples from the past are thus used to highlight the underlying cultural implications that affect the contemporary discussions. Particular interest is paid to how the historical association between the spread of copyright and the development of civilization affects the understanding of Asian piracy and Western file sharing today, and how a multitude of social movements both in the West and the Third World simultaneously challenge the cultural legitimacy of the current system of IPR. Eventually this is also taken as an example of how law and culture intersect and how the broad, interdisciplinary field of copyright studies that has emerged over the last decade can be seen as an extension of the cultural studies tradition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article engages with the resistance against the global erosion of seed diversity following the modernization and industrialization of agriculture over the 20th century. This resistance spans from local farming communities that preserve and safeguard traditional landraces to international movements which oppose proprietary seed regulations and promote free sharing of seeds. The article focuses on the latter and presents a study of the open source seed movement: an initiative to apply strategies from the open source software movement to ensure the free circulation of seeds. The erosion of seed diversity can be seen not only as a loss of genetic diversity but also a memory loss where traditional, collective knowledge about how to grow certain landraces is forgotten. Consequently, the open source seed movement is not only about saving seeds but also about preserving and revitalizing local and traditional ecological knowledge against privatization and enclosure through intellectual property rights. The aim of this article is, thus, to analyze the open source seed movement as an act of revitalization in relation to intellectual property rights and in the context of information politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

SGLT2 inhibitors may lead to short term decrease in eGFR, with later stabilization and long-term reduction in the risk for end stage kidney disease. Fast decline (FD) in eGFR can be defined as a reduction of ≥3 ml/min/1.73m2/year and is associated with poor long-term renal prognosis. In this post-hoc analysis we studied the effect of dapagliflozin (dapa) on the risk for FD in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial. In DECLARE-TIMI 58, 17,160 patients with T2D and established or increased risk for CVD, with mean baseline eGFR of 85.2 ml/min/1.73m2, were randomized to dapa vs. placebo and followed for a median of 4.2 years. The risk for FD was compared between treatment arms. In the time frame of 0.5 years (after stabilization) to 4 years, the proportion of patients with FD was reduced with dapa vs. placebo (26.8% vs. 37.1% respectively, p<0.0001). This observation was persistent in all subgroups assessed (Table). The mean (SD) reduction in eGFR per year was 6.3 (3.7) vs. 0.0 (2.5) ml/min/1.73m2/year in the FD (N=4,788) vs. non-FD (N=10,224) patients. The proportion of patients with FD during the entire study period (i.e., 0-4 years) was reduced with dapa vs. placebo as well (33.6% vs. 37.0% respectively, p<0.0001). Dapagliflozin reduced the risk for FD in eGFR in a broad population of patients with T2D and either established or increased risk for CVD, but relatively preserved renal function, irrespective of patients' baseline characteristics. Disclosure: I. Raz: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. Consultant; Self; AstraZeneca, BOL, CamerEyes Ltd, Concenter BioPharma, DarioHealth, Diabot, Exscopia, GlucoMe, Insuline Medical, Medial EarlySIgn, Orgenesis Inc. Speaker's Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. Stock/Shareholder; Self; BOL, CamerEyes Ltd, DarioHealth, Diabot, GlucoMe, Orgenesis Inc. S.D. Wiviott: Consultant; Self; Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Allergan, Angelmed, Arena Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Boston Clinical Research Institute, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, ICON Clinical, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Servier, St. Jude Medical, XOMA Corporation. Employee; Spouse/Partner; Merck & Co., Inc. Research Support; Self; Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Sanofi-Aventis. Other Relationship; Self; See other relationships for list. H.L. Heerspink: Consultant; Self; AbbVie Inc., AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, CSL Behring, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Mundipharma International, Retrophin, Inc. J.P. Dwyer: Advisory Panel; Self; Bayer AG, Bird Rock Bio. Consultant; Self; US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Employee; Self; Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Other Relationship; Self; Akcea Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, CSL Behring, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Praetego, Sanofi. A. Cahn: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk Inc. Consultant; Self; GlucoMe, Medial EarlySign. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. E.L. Goodrich: Other Relationship; Self; AstraZeneca. S. Murphy: Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca. Other Relationship; Self; Abbott, Amgen, Aralez, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Intarcia, Janssen, The Medicines Company, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Poxel, Quark Pharma. A. Rozenberg: None. I. Yanuv: None. J. Wilding: Advisory Panel; Self; Astellas Pharma Inc., AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Mundipharma International, Napp Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk A/S, Wilmington Healthcare. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk A/S. Speaker's Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi. L.A. Leiter: Advisory Panel; Self; Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd., Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, HLS Therapeutics, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi, Servier. Research Support; Self; Amgen, AstraZeneca, Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., Medicines Company. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, HLS Therapeutics, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Medscape, Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi, Servier. D.L. Bhatt: Research Support; Self; Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin Corporation, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cardax, Chiesi USA, Inc., CSL Behring, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Fractyl Laboratories, Inc., Idorsia, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Ischemix, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lilly Diabetes, Medtronic, Pfizer Inc., PhaseBio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., PLx Pharma Inc., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Roche Pharma, Sanofi-Aventis, Synaptic. D.K. McGuire: Consultant; Self; Afimmune, Applied Therapeutics, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Metavant. Other Relationship; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eisai Co., Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk A/S, Pfizer Inc., Sanofi-Aventis. R.C. Ma: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca. Stock/Shareholder; Self; GemVCare. Other Relationship; Self; AstraZeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk A/S, Pfizer Inc., Sanofi-Aventis, Tricida Inc. T. Tankova: Board Member; Self; Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Mundipharma International, Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi. Speaker's Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Sanofi, Servier. M. Fredriksson: Employee; Self; AstraZeneca. I.A. Gause-Nilsson: Employee; Self; AstraZeneca. A. Langkilde: Employee; Self; AstraZeneca. Stock/Shareholder; Self; AstraZeneca. M.S. Sabatine: Consultant; Self; Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CVS Caremark, DalCor Pharmaceuticals, Dyrnamix Inc., Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., IFM Therapeutics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Medicines Company, MedImmune, Merck < Co., Inc. Research Support; Self; Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer U.S., Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai Inc., Intarcia Therapeutics, Janssen Research and Development, Medicines Company, MedImmune, Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis AG, Pfizer Inc., Quark Pharmaceuticals. O. Mosenzon: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk A/S. Speaker's Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Funding: AstraZeneca [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the Dapagliflozin Effect on Cardiovascular Events (DECLARE)-TIMI 58 study 17160 patients (pts) with T2DM were randomized to the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (DAPA) or placebo (PBO) for a median follow up of 4.2 years. At baseline 14068 pts used metformin, 7322 sulfonylureas, 2888 DPP-4 inhibitors, 750 GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) and 7013 insulin. DAPA reduced the composite of CV death and hospitalization for heart failure (CVD/HHF) vs. PBO regardless of baseline glucose lowering agents (GLA), though the effect appeared to be particularly large in the small group of pts with baseline use of GLP-1 RA (Figure). The overall HR for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; CVD, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke) was 0.93 (95% CI 0.84-1.03) with DAPA vs. PBO, with no interaction by non-insulin GLA, yet a tendency toward greater benefit with DAPA vs. PBO was observed in baseline insulin users (Figure). The renal specific outcome (sustained decrease of ≥40% in eGFR to <60 ml/min/1.73m2, new end stage renal disease, or renal death) was overall reduced with DAPA vs. PBO (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.43-0.66) with no interaction by baseline GLA (p interaction >0.05). The effects of DAPA on CV and renal outcomes were generally consistent regardless of baseline GLA. Use or non-use of metformin did not alter outcomes. Additional studies defining the clinical benefit of combining CV risk reducing GLAs will be helpful. Disclosure: A. Cahn: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk Inc. Consultant; Self; GlucoMe, Medial EarlySign. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. S.D. Wiviott: Consultant; Self; Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Allergan, Angelmed, Arena Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Boston Clinical Research Institute, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, ICON Clinical, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Servier, St. Jude Medical, XOMA Corporation. Employee; Spouse/Partner; Merck & Co., Inc. Research Support; Self; Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Sanofi-Aventis. Other Relationship; Self; See other relationships for list. O. Mosenzon: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk A/S. Speaker's Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. S. Murphy: Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca. Other Relationship; Self; Abbott, Amgen, Aralez, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Intarcia, Janssen, The Medicines Company, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Poxel, Quark Pharma. E.L. Goodrich: Other Relationship; Self; AstraZeneca. I. Yanuv: None. A. Rozenberg: None. J. Wilding: Advisory Panel; Self; Astellas Pharma Inc., AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Mundipharma International, Napp Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk A/S, Wilmington Healthcare. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk A/S. Speaker's Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi. L.A. Leiter: Advisory Panel; Self; Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd., Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, HLS Therapeutics, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi, Servier. Research Support; Self; Amgen, AstraZeneca, Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., Medicines Company. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, HLS Therapeutics, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Medscape, Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi, Servier. D.L. Bhatt: Research Support; Self; Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin Corporation, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cardax, Chiesi USA, Inc., CSL Behring, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Fractyl Laboratories, Inc., Idorsia, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Ischemix, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lilly Diabetes, Medtronic, Pfizer Inc., PhaseBio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., PLx Pharma Inc., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Roche Pharma, Sanofi-Aventis, Synaptic. D.K. McGuire: Consultant; Self; Afimmune, Applied Therapeutics, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Metavant. Other Relationship; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eisai Co., Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk A/S, Pfizer Inc., Sanofi-Aventis. L. Litwak: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. A. Kooy: Advisory Panel; Self; Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis Pharma K.K. Consultant; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Daiichi Sankyo, Mundipharma International. I.A. Gause-Nilsson: Employee; Self; AstraZeneca. M. Fredriksson: Employee; Self; AstraZeneca. A. Langkilde: Employee; Self; AstraZeneca. Stock/Shareholder; Self; AstraZeneca. M.S. Sabatine: Consultant; Self; Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CVS Caremark, DalCor Pharmaceuticals, Dyrnamix Inc., Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., IFM Therapeutics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Medicines Company, MedImmune, Merck & Co., Inc. Research Support; Self; Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer U.S., Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai Inc., Intarcia Therapeutics, Janssen Research and Development, Medicines Company, MedImmune, Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis AG, Pfizer Inc., Quark Pharmaceuticals. I. Raz: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. Consultant; Self; AstraZeneca, BOL, CamerEyes Ltd, Concenter BioPharma, DarioHealth, Diabot, Exscopia, GlucoMe, Insuline Medical, Medial EarlySIgn, Orgenesis Inc. Speaker's Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. Stock/Shareholder; Self; BOL, CamerEyes Ltd, DarioHealth, Diabot, GlucoMe, Orgenesis Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors were previously shown to improve renal parameters. In this predefined analysis of DECLARE-TIMI 58, we report the effects of dapagliflozin (dapa) on albuminuria in a broad population of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and either multiple risk factors (MRF) for or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), according to patients' baseline albuminuria status. Methods: We randomized 17,160 patients with T2DM and either MRF 10,186 (59%) or ASCVD 6974 (41%) to dapa 10 mg or placebo in addition to standard of care, including 13,950 (81%) patients on ACEI/ARB. We report urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) change over the median follow-up of 4 years for dapa vs. placebo, according to albuminuria at baseline. Results: At baseline there were 11,644 (69%) patients w/normo-albuminuria (UACR <30 mg/g), 4,030 (24%) w/microalbuminuria (UACR ≥30 to ≤300 mg/g); and 1,169 (7%) w/macroalbuminuria (UACR >300 mg/g). Dapa blunted the increase in UACR over time by -29.0 mg/g (95% CI -44.0, -14.0; P=0.0002). This benefit was observed in patients with normo-, micro-, and macro-albuminuria: 3.2 mg/g (95% CI -6.4 to 0.03; P=0.052), -51.3 mg/g (95% CI -67.6 to -35.1; P<0.0001) and 262.3 mg/g (95% CI -480.7 to -43.9; P=0.019), respectively. Dapa also significantly increased the likelihood that patients improved from micro to normo-albuminuria (hazard ratio [HR] 1.35, 95% CI [1.24, 1.47]; p<.0001) and from macro to micro or normo-albuminuria (HR 1.55, 95% CI [1.34, 1.8]; p<.0001). Dapa decreased the likelihood that patients deteriorated from normo to micro or macroalbuminuria (HR 0.84, 95% CI [0.79, 0.89]; p<.0001). Conclusion: In a broad population of patients with T2DM, long-term treatment with dapagliflozin blunts the rise in urinary albumin excretion, in all stratum of baseline albuminuria. Disclosure: I. Raz: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. Consultant; Self; AstraZeneca, BOL, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, CameraEyes Ltd, DarioHealth, Diabot, Exscopia, GlucoMe Ltd., Insuline Medical, Medial EarlySign, Orgenesis Ltd. Speaker's Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. Stock/Shareholder; Self; BOL, CameraEyes Ltd, DarioHealth, Diabot, GlucoMe Ltd., Orgenesis Ltd. S.D. Wiviott: Consultant; Self; Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Allergan, Angel Medical Systems, Inc., Arena Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Boston Clinical Research Institute, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited, Eisai Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Icon Clinical, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Servier, St. Jude Medical, XOMA Corporation. Employee; Spouse/Partner; Merck & Co., Inc. Research Support; Self; Amgen Inc., Arena Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited, Eisai Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Sanofi-Aventis. I. Yanuv: Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca. A. Rozenberg: Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca. T.A. Zelniker: None. A. Cahn: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, GlucoMe Ltd., Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi. Speaker's Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk A/S. Stock/Shareholder; Self; GlucoMe Ltd. H.L. Heerspink: Consultant; Self; AbbVie Inc., Astellas Pharma Inc., AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Fresenius Medical Care, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Janssen Research & Development, Merck & Co., Inc., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation. J.P. Dwyer: Consultant; Self; Akcea Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bird Rock Bio, Eisai Inc., Goldfinch Bio, Sanofi-Aventis. E. Goodrich: None. D.L. Bhatt: Research Support; Self; Abbott, Amarin Corporation, Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca, Bayer Vital GmbH, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Chiesi USA, Inc., Eisai Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Ethicon, Inc., FlowCo, Forest Laboratories, Inc., Idorsia, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ischemix, Medicines Company, Medtronic, Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Pfizer Inc., PhaseBio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., PLx Pharma, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Roche Pharma, Sanofi, Synaptic, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited. L.A. Leiter: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi, Servier. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline plc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. Speaker's Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. D.K. McGuire: Consultant; Self; Eisai Co., Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Pfizer Inc. Research Support; Self; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Other Relationship; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi-Aventis. J.P. Wilding: Consultant; Self; Astellas Pharma Europe Ltd., AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, NAPP Pharmaceuticals Limited, Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk A/S. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Eli Lilly and Company, WebMD. I.A. Gause-Nilsson: Employee; Self; AstraZeneca. M. Fredriksson: Employee; Self; AstraZeneca. P.A. Johansson: None. A. Langkilde: Employee; Self; AstraZeneca. Stock/Shareholder; Self; AstraZeneca. M.S. Sabatine: Consultant; Self; Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, CVS/Caremark, Dyrnamix, Esperion, Intarcia Therapeutics, Inc., Janssen Research and Development, Medicines Company, MedImmune, Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis. Research Support; Self; Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited, Eisai Co., Ltd., GlaxoSmithKline plc., Intarcia Therapeutics, Inc., Janssen Research and Development, Medicines Company, MedImmune, Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer Inc., Takeda. O. Mosenzon: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk Inc. Speaker's Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi-Aventis. Funding: AstraZeneca [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]