Search

College athletes can earn significant income from promotions and the sale of promotional items that bear their name, image, or likeness (NIL). The short and long term impact of NIL remains a topic of debate among coaches and athletic observers and is proving to be a fertile new area for academic researchers. The purpose of this research was to better understand the impact of NIL at the consumer level. A purposive sample of 404 students from five American universities in three states provided feedback regarding their perceptions of nine NIL-related considerations: the impact that the new NIL rules have had on several potential beneficiaries of the new rules, college sports, the school, and the athletes who participate in collegiate sports. Several interesting findings emerged: (1) university students generally have a favorable impression of the benefits that NIL provides to student athletes, recruiting efforts and the institution. (2) There was considerably less agreement about the impact of NIL on Title IX considerations. (3) Results were mixed regarding the impact of NIL on amateur sports. These data begin to offer insight into the kinds of issues surrounding this dramatic shift in amateur sports with a particular focus on intercollegiate sports. The overall sense that athletes should be able to capitalize on their NIL was consistent across multiple institutions. Future research m ight consider this preliminary effort an early data point in an attempt to better understand the mid and long-range effects of this SCOTUS ruling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

College athletes can earn significant income from promotions and the sale of promotional items that bear their name, image, or likeness (NIL). The short-and-long term impact of NIL remains a topic of debate among coaches and athletic observers and is proving to be a fertile new area for academic researchers. The purpose of this research was to better understand the impact of NIL at the consumer level. A purposive sample of 404 students from five American universities in three states provided feedback regarding their perceptions of nine NIL-related considerations: the impact that the new NIL rules have had on several potential beneficiaries of the new rules, college sports, the school, and the athletes who participate in collegiate sports. Several interesting findings emerged: (1) university students generally have a favorable impression of the benefits that NIL provides to student athletes, recruiting efforts and the institution. (2) There was considerably less agreement about the impact of NIL on Title IX considerations. (3) Results were mixed regarding the impact of NIL on amateur sports. These data begin to offer insight into the kinds of issues surrounding this dramatic shift in amateur sports with a particular focus on intercollegiate sports. The overall sense that athletes should be able to capitalize on their NIL was consistent across multiple institutions. Future research might consider this preliminary effort an early data point in an attempt to better understand the mid and long-range effects of this SCOTUS ruling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In clinical trials, exenatide improved glycemic control and was associated with weight reduction and improvement in several cardiovascular risk factors. In this retrospective analysis using a large, national commercial health care claims database, we describe changes in concomitant diabetes therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes who had a prescription claim for exenatide in the first 13 months following FDA approval. A total of 1637 patients were ≥18 years old, had type 2 diabetes, had an initial (index) claim for exenatide between May 1,2005 and May 31, 2006, and had 12 months of pre-index and 6 months of post-index eligibility. Baseline diabetes therapies were defined as prescriptions filled 100 days pre-index through 15 days post-index; post-index therapies were defined as any prescriptions filled ≥16 days to 180 days post-index. In the post-index period, the number of patients with prescription claims for metformin, thiazolidinediones, and sulfonylureas decreased by 14.3% (P<0.0001), 16.0% (P<0.0001), and 25.0% (P<0.0001), respectively. Patients with prescription claims for both metformin and a sulfonylurea declined by 25.9% (P<0.0001) and patients with prescriptions claims for the combination of metformin, a thiazolidinedione, and a sulfonylurea decreased by 40.1% (P<0.0001). The percentage of patients with prescription claims for insulin was similar between baseline and post-index periods. This study provides the first nonclinical trial population analysis of changes in concomitant diabetes therapies following initiation of exenatide therapy, and demonstrates that exenatide initiation was associated with a significant reduction in prescription claims for other diabetes therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Traditional antidiabetic therapies often fail to maintain glycemic control over time. In this retrospective analysis using a large, national commercial health care claims database, we describe baseline characteristics, comorbidities, and concomitant therapies in patients prescribed exenatide in the first 13 months following FDA approval. A total of 3578 patients were identified who had a prescription claim for exenatide between May 1, 2005 and May 31,2006, ≥12 months of pre-index eligibility (first claim defined as index date), and were ≥18 years old. Of these, 3454 patients (96.5%) had a pre-index diagnosis for type 2 diabetes based on diagnosis code and/or meditation use. Mean (±SD) age was 54.24±10.0 years; 49.7% were female and 12.7% were ≥65 years of age. Baseline A1C values obtained within 100 days before the index date were available for 340 patients (mean±SD = 8.04±1.6%). The most common comorbidities associated with diabetes reported in the 12 months prior to the index date were dyslipidemia (87.7%), hypertension (64.3%), other cardiovascular disease (27.7%), and obesity (17.7%). Most patients analyzed (94.2%) were treated with at least one other antidiabetic medication at baseline; 22.1% with one drug, 34.3% with 2 drugs, and 37.8% with ≥3 drugs. Metformin was the most common baseline therapy (74.5%), followed by thiazolidinediones (50.6%), sulfonylureas (49.0%), and insulin (29.7%). This study provides the first nonclinical trial population analysis of the baseline A1C, demographics, comorbidities, and concomitant diabetes therapies in patients initiated on exenatide. The mean baseline A1C indicates that these patients were not achieving glycemic control as defined by current guidelines, supporting the notion that diabetes remains a difficult disease in which to achieve therapeutic goals. In the first 13 months since FDA approval, exenatide was predominantly prescribed to patients with type 2 diabetes who were failing to achieve glycemic control with prior antidiabetic therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]