Financial uncertainty and interest rate movements: is Asian bond market volatility different?

The COVID-19 pandemic has given rise to a spike in financial market volatility. In this paper, we attempt to assess the effects of financial & news-driven uncertainty shocks in growing Asian economies, using country-specific bond volatility shocks as a measure of local interest rate uncertainty. Also, we contrast the effects of local uncertainty with global stock market uncertainty. Using bond market data from nine Asian markets, we uncover a transmission mechanism of uncertainty shocks via the bond market. The mechanism works as a crowding-out effect due to government-led excessive market borrowing with supply-side consequences for the private sector, as opposed to economic policy or global stock market uncertainty which works more like a demand shock as in the literature. We conclude that countries with growing fiscal deficits that entail a larger government bond market or higher current account deficits, tend to experience an increase in the cost of borrowing due to this bond market volatility or interest rate uncertainty shocks.

A Prospective, Randomized Trial of Povidone-Iodine 0.6% and Dexamethasone 0.1% Ophthalmic Suspension for Acute Bacterial Conjunctivitis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a topical ophthalmic suspension combination of povidone-iodine 0.6% (PVP-I) and dexamethasone 0.1% (DEX) for infectious and inflammatory components of bacterial conjunctivitis. DESIGN: Randomized, double-masked, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial. METHODS: Subjects of all ages (those <3 months had to be full-term) with a diagnosis of bacterial conjunctivitis were randomized 3:1:3 to either PVP-I/DEX, PVP-I alone, or placebo. The primary endpoint was clinical resolution in the study eye, and the key secondary efficacy endpoint was bacterial eradication, both at the day 5 visit. Adverse events (AEs) were documented at all visits. RESULTS: Overall, 753 subjects were randomized (intent-to-treat [ITT] population; PVP-I/DEX [n = 324]; PVP-I [n = 108]; placebo [n = 321]); mean and standard deviation (SD) age was 44.3 (22.9) years, and most were female (61.2%) and white (78.1%). In all treatment groups, mean treatment compliance was >98%. The modified ITT population for the efficacy analysis comprised 526 subjects. In the study eye at the day 5 visit, clinical resolution was achieved by 50.5% (111/220) subjects in the PVP-I/DEX group vs 42.8% (95/222) in the placebo group (P = .127), and bacterial eradication was achieved by 43.3% (94/217) and 46.8% (102/218), respectively (P = .500). Treatment-emergent AEs were experienced by 32.8% (106/323), 39.8% (43/108), and 19.0% (61/321) of subjects in the safety population treated with PVP-I/DEX, PVP-I, and placebo, respectively (most mild in severity). CONCLUSION: In this study, PVP-I/DEX did not demonstrate additional benefit in clinical efficacy compared with placebo in subjects with bacterial conjunctivitis.

Poverty index with time-varying consumption and income distributions.

Starting from a stochastic agent-based model to represent market exchange in a developing economy, we study time variations of the probability density function of income with simultaneous variation of the consumption deprivation (CD), where CD represents the shortfall in consumption from the saturation level of an essential commodity, cereal. Together, these two models combine income-expenditure-based market dynamics with time variations in consumption due to income. In this new unified theoretical structure, exchange of trade in assets is only allowed when the income exceeds consumption-deprivation while CD itself is endogenously obtained from a separate kinetic model. Our results reveal that the nature of time variation of the CD function leads to a downward trend in the threshold level of consumption of basic necessities, suggesting a possible dietary transition in terms of lower saturation level of food-grain consumption, possibly through an improvement in the level of living. The new poverty index, defined as CD, is amenable to approximate probabilistic prediction within a short time horizon. A major achievement of this work is the intrinsic independence of the poverty index from an exogenous poverty line, making it more objective for policy formulation as opposed to existing poverty indices in the literature.

A one-week comfort study of BID-dosed brinzolamide 1%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic suspension fixed combination compared to BID-dosed dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the ocular discomfort of brinzolamide 1%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic suspension fixed combination dosed twice-daily compared to dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution fixed combination dosed twice-daily. METHODS: This was a prospective, double-masked, parallel-group, randomized, clinical trial. Patients had open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension and were randomized to twice-daily therapy with either brinzolamide 1%/timolol 0.5% or dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5%. Patients completed ocular discomfort assessments (based on burning, stinging, a feeling of heat or warmth, sharp pain, or smarting pain) on their current intraocular pressure-lowering therapy at baseline and on study medication after 1 week of dosing. RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat analyses, mean ocular discomfort scores at 1 week were significantly lower in eyes receiving brinzolamide 1%/timolol 0.5% than dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% (0.77 vs. 1.53; P = 0.0003). Mean increases from baseline in ocular discomfort scores were statistically significant in both groups but were smaller in eyes receiving brinzolamide 1%/timolol 0.5% (0.49; P = 0.0028) than dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% (1.32; P < 0.0001). Over threefold more patients on brinzolamide 1%/timolol 0.5% (23/47, 49%) than dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% (7/47, 15%) reported no ocular discomfort after 1 week of therapy (P = 0.0004). CONCLUSIONS: Brinzolamide 1%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic suspension is associated with a statistically significantly less ocular discomfort profile than dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution.

A study of the safety and efficacy of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution compared to latanoprost 0.005% and timolol 0.5% dosed concomitantly in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To compare the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% in fixed combination with the unfixed combination of latanoprost 0.005% and timolol 0.5% in open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension patients with IOP levels below 18 mmHg on the unfixed combination of latanoprost 0.005% and timolol 0.5%. METHODS: Following a 30-day open-label run-in with latanoprost QD PM and timolol QD AM, subjects with intraocular pressure below 18 mmHg were randomized to continue concomitant latanoprost QD PM and timolol QD AM or switch to travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% QD AM and vehicle QD PM in masked fashion and were followed for 3 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was mean IOP reduction from baseline. RESULTS: There were no clinically relevant or statistically significant differences in mean IOP, mean IOP change from baseline, or percentage IOP change from baseline between the two treatment groups. Between-group differences in mean IOP were within +/-0.3 mmHg at all time points (p >/= 0.384), and between-group differences in mean IOP change from baseline were within +/-0.4 mmHg at all time points. Overall, 88% of patients whose IOP was less than 18 mmHg on the unfixed combination of latanoprost and timolol remained well controlled on the same regimen in the masked portion of the study, compared with 92% who remained well controlled after switching to travoprost/timolol. CONCLUSION: Travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% administered once daily and concomitant administration of timolol 0.5% and latanoprost 0.005% produce similar maintenance of IOP-lowering effect in patients who were previously well controlled on concomitant administration of latanoprost and timolol. Patients who are well controlled on latanoprost and timolol concomitant therapy can be switched to once-daily therapy with travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% with no expected compromise in the safety and efficacy of their treatment.

Pooled results of two randomized clinical trials comparing the efficacy and safety of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% in fixed combination versus concomitant travoprost 0.004% and timolol 0.5%.

PURPOSE: To compare the IOP-lowering efficacy of the fixed combination of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% dosed once daily in the morning with the concomitant administration of travoprost 0.004% dosed once daily in the evening and timolol 0.5% dosed once daily in the morning. METHODS: This was an analysis of pooled data from two similarly designed prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trials comparing the fixed combination and concomitant therapy. RESULTS: Mean IOP ranged from 15.7 to 16.8 mmHg for the fixed combination group, and from 15.1 to 16.4 mmHg for the concomitant group. Mean IOP reductions were up to 9.0 mmHg in the fixed combination group, and up to 8.8 mmHg in the concomitant group. The differences in mean IOP change between treatment groups ranged from -0.2 to +0.9 mmHg across visits and time points. The safety profile was generally similar between groups. An exception was the incidence of ocular hyperemia, which was 13.7% with the fixed combination and 20.8% with concomitant therapy (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The fixed combination of travoprost 0.004% and timolol 0.5% provides IOP-lowering efficacy that is similar to concomitant administration of travoprost 0.004% dosed once daily in the evening and timolol 0.5% dosed once daily in the morning.

Patients' and physicians' perceptions of the travoprost dosing aid: an open-label, multicenter study of adherence with prostaglandin analogue therapy for open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: This study describes patients' and physicians' perceptions of issues related to dosing adherence with topical therapies for lowering intraocular pressure before and after use of the travoprost dosing aid (Travatan Dosing Aid, Alcon Research Ltd., Fort Worth, Texas). METHODS: The study had an open-label, multicenter, single-treatment-arm design that included sequential patients with open-angle glaucoma (with or without pigment dispersion or pseudoexfoliation component) or ocular hypertension who were taking any prostaglandin analogue monotherapy. Ten participating physicians were chosen on the basis of factors such as their experience, qualifications, and previous clinical study participation. The study consisted of 2 visits: screening and week 4. Patients were asked to complete a survey about their medication adherence before study entry at the screening visit and at study exit during the week-4 visit. In addition, each physician was asked to complete an entry and exit survey on each patient as well as a survey to provide feedback on the travoprost dosing aid. RESULTS: Of the 87 enrolled patients, 6 did not complete the exit survey; therefore, 81 patients were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. Mean (SD) age at enrollment was 65.4 (11.6) years; 61.7% (50/81) of the patients were women and 60.5% (49/81) were white. Most patients (96.3% [78/81]) had open-angle glaucoma. Participating physicians perceived that problems involving dosing and adherence were reduced after patients used the dosing aid. Physicians indicated that they would recommend continued use of the travoprost dosing aid for 91.3% (73/80) of patients. All 10 participating physicians said that they would recommend the dosing aid to patients in the future. Of the 81 patients, the majority (68.8% [55/80]) indicated that they would like to continue using the travoprost dosing aid. For 67.5% (54/80) of patients, dosing adherence as recorded by the travoprost dosing aid was >70%. The dosing lever (39.7% [31/78]) and the visual alarm (29.5% [23/78]) were the 2 most favored features of the dosing aid reported by all evaluable patients. The majority of patients (58.8% [47/80]) indicated that they were "relieved" or "very relieved" that the doctor was able to monitor when they dosed their medication; few (7.5% [6/80]) were "concerned" or "very concerned" that the doctor was able to monitor their dosing. CONCLUSIONS: The travoprost dosing aid was perceived to be effective in reminding this group of patients to take their medication as prescribed. In this study, the device was well accepted by both patients and physicians.

A three-month, multicenter, double-masked study of the safety and efficacy of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution compared to travoprost 0.004% ophthalmic solution and timolol 0.5% dosed concomitantly in subjects with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study was to compare the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% fixed combination to the concomitant administration of travoprost 0.004% (TRAVATAN) and timolol 0.5% in subjects with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS: This was a randomized, multicenter, double-masked, active-controlled, parallel group study. Three hundred sixteen patients with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension were randomly assigned to travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution fixed combination once daily in the morning or concomitant administration of timolol 0.5% once daily in the morning and travoprost 0.004% ophthalmic solution once daily in the evening. The efficacy and safety of the fixed combination were compared with concomitant therapy over three months. The primary efficacy outcome measure was mean intraocular pressure. RESULTS: Both travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% fixed combination and the concomitant administration of travoprost 0.004% and timolol 0.5% produced statistically significant reductions from baseline in IOP, with mean IOP ranging from 15.2 to 16.5 mm Hg in the patients using travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% fixed combination compared with 14.7 to 16.1 mm Hg in the concomitant group. The upper 95.1% confidence limit for the differences in mean IOP (fixed combination minus concomitant) was < or =1.5 mm Hg at 7 of 9 visits, including all three 8 AM time points, 24-hours post-dose. Mean IOP reductions from baseline ranged from 7.4 to 9.4 mm Hg in the fixed combination group compared with 8.4 to 9.4 mm Hg with concomitant therapy. Safety analysis demonstrated equivalent safety between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: A fixed combination of travoprost 0.004% and timolol 0.5% produced clinically relevant IOP reductions in patients with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension that were comparable to concomitant therapy with its components. Safety and tolerability of the fixed combination were also equivalent to concomitant therapy. Travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% fixed combination offers IOP reduction equivalent to concomitant therapy, with potential benefits that include convenience (fewer bottles and drops per day), improved compliance, cost savings (based on fewer co-payments), and elimination of potential washout effects.

Efficacy and safety of a fixed combination of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution once daily for open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of a fixed combination of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% every day in the morning with a concomitant regimen of timolol 0.5% every day in the morning, plus travoprost 0.004% every day in the evening; and timolol 0.5% twice daily on the intraocular pressure (IOP) of subjects with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension over 3 months. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-masked, parallel-group, active-controlled, multicenter trial. METHODS: Patients comprised adult subjects (n = 403) of either gender with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension in at least one eye. To qualify, the IOP had to be between 22 to 36 mm Hg in the same eye at two consecutive eligibility visits. The primary outcome variable was IOP measured with a Goldmann applanation tonometer. RESULTS: Mean IOP ranged from 16.2 to 17.4 mm Hg with the combination travoprost/timolol compared with 15.4 to 16.8 mm Hg in the concomitant travoprost + timolol group, from baselines of 23.1 to 25.6 mm Hg and 22.9 to 25.0 mm Hg, respectively. The fixed combination of travoprost/timolol significantly lowered IOP by 7 to 9 mm, similar to the IOP reductions observed with concomitant therapy. The most frequent ocular adverse event was hyperemia that occurred in 14.3% and 23.4% of subjects treated with travoprost/timolol combination and concomitant travoprost + timolol, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Travoprost/timolol combination produces greater IOP reductions than the positive control, timolol 0.5%, and reductions that were similar to concomitant travoprost + timolol. This study demonstrates that the fixed combination of travoprost/timolol produces significant and clinically relevant reductions of IOP in a once-daily dosing regimen.

The safety and efficacy of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% fixed combination ophthalmic solution.

PURPOSE: To compare the safety and intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% fixed combination ophthalmic solution (Trav/Tim) to its components travoprost 0.004% ophthalmic solution, TRAVATAN, (Trav) and timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution (Tim) in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. DESIGN: Randomized multicenter, double-masked, active-controlled, parallel group study. METHODS: Two hundred sixty-three patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension were randomized to receive Trav/Tim once daily AM (and vehicle PM), Trav once daily PM (and vehicle AM), or Tim twice daily (AM and PM). Efficacy and safety were compared across treatment groups over 3 months. RESULTS: Trav/Tim produced a mean IOP decrease from baseline of 1.9 mm Hg to 3.3 mm Hg more than Tim, with a significant decrease in mean IOP at each of the nine study visits (P < or = .003). Trav/Tim decreased mean IOP by 0.9 mm Hg to 2.4 mm Hg more than Trav, with a significant decrease in mean IOP at seven of the nine study visits (P < or = .05). The adverse event profile for Trav/Tim was comparable to Trav or Tim alone. CONCLUSIONS: Over the 3 months of treatment, Trav/Tim produced clinically relevant IOP reductions in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension that were greater than those produced by either Trav or Tim alone. The clinical results that Trav/Tim was safe and well tolerated with an incidence of adverse events was comparable to the results of Trav or Tim alone. Trav/Tim provides both more effective IOP reduction than its components and the benefits of once-daily dosing.