BackgroundAtrial fibrillation is associated with higher mortality. Identification of causes of death and contemporary risk factors for all‐cause mortality may guide interventions.Methods and ResultsIn the Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET AF) study, patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation were randomized to rivaroxaban or dose‐adjusted warfarin. Cox proportional hazards regression with backward elimination identified factors at randomization that were independently associated with all‐cause mortality in the 14 171 participants in the intention‐to‐treat population. The median age was 73 years, and the mean CHADS 2 score was 3.5. Over 1.9 years of median follow‐up, 1214 (8.6%) patients died. Kaplan–Meier mortality rates were 4.2% at 1 year and 8.9% at 2 years. The majority of classified deaths (1081) were cardiovascular (72%), whereas only 6% were nonhemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism. No significant difference in all‐cause mortality was observed between the rivaroxaban and warfarin arms (P=0.15). Heart failure (hazard ratio 1.51, 95% CI 1.33–1.70, P<0.0001) and age ≥75 years (hazard ratio 1.69, 95% CI 1.51–1.90, P<0.0001) were associated with higher all‐cause mortality. Multiple additional characteristics were independently associated with higher mortality, with decreasing creatinine clearance, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, male sex, peripheral vascular disease, and diabetes being among the most strongly associated (model C‐index 0.677).ConclusionsIn a large population of patients anticoagulated for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, ≈7 in 10 deaths were cardiovascular, whereas <1 in 10 deaths were caused by nonhemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism. Optimal prevention and treatment of heart failure, renal impairment, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes may improve survival.Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT00403767.

Capitalist agriculture is highly exploitative of both producers and the environment. Fair trade is a movement attempting to mitigate this exploitation, partly by baiting corporate actors into the arena of "ethical production." In the coffee industry, major corporations are responding by discrediting fair trade and branding themselves as ethical. While falling well short of addressing the real demands of the movement, the proliferation of "ethical" labels resulting from this response threatens to destroy fair trade's own ethical brand.JEL classification: B51, O13, P16

MPR was associated with symptom-onset in initially asymptomatic patients with AS, but with moderate accuracy and was not superior to symptom-limited exercise testing. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01658345).

For Marx, commodity fetishism is the tendency of people to see the product of their labor in terms of relationships between things, rather than social relationships between people. In other words, people viewthe commodity only in terms of the characteristics of the final product while the process through which it was created remains obscured and, therefore, unconsidered. This has crucial implications for our collective ability to see and address the ongoing processes of social and environmental destruction under capitalism. This article examines one effort to lift the veil obscuring the relations and processes of commodity production. Fair trade attempts to make visible the social and environmental relations of production and exchange that lie behind the commodity. This assists producers in making a shift in the qualitative nature of production, particularly in terms of its impacts on producers and on the environment. The purpose of this article is to determine the extent to which fair trade can address the problem of commodity fetishism and to identify the barriers it encounters in attempting to do so.

Economic impact studies have been an important component of the debate surrounding the merits of subsidizing professional sports teams. However, various studies have arrived at remarkably different conclusions about the size of a sports team’s economic impact on the region in which they are located. The purpose of this study is to determine the causes of the wide variance of economic impact estimates between different studies. A meta-analysis was used on the 13 studies to determine the causes of the differing impacts. Although some of the variance is due to understandable differences in the size of the geographical region and sports team in question, differing assumptions about whether the expenditure of locals should be included accounted for a substantial variance in the impact.