Despite the increasing level of interest in CSR issues, it is not yet clear what real value the market assigns to social reporting. By applying the value relevance analysis to a sample of 130 European‐listed banks, the present work proposes a key to understanding the relationship between social reporting and the value that the market attributes to banks that publicize their commitment to CSR through social reporting. The analysis for the entire sample does not provide evidence that investors attribute value relevance to social reporting (i.e. there is not a significant correlation between the publication of a social report and the stock price). Cross‐country analysis shows that in some countries the social report is value‐relevant, and positively affects the stock price; in others it remains value‐relevant but negatively affects the stock price. Our findings could have several implications for banks, investors, and policymakers. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Background Although international guidelines support the administration of hormone therapies with or without targeted therapies in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, upfront use of chemotherapy remains common even in the absence of visceral crisis. Because first-line or second-line treatments, or both, based on chemotherapy and on hormone therapy have been scarcely investigated in head-to-head randomised controlled trials, we aimed to compare these two different approaches. Methods We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis with a systematic literature search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, Web of Science, and online archives of the most relevant international oncology conferences. We included all phase 2 and 3 randomised controlled trials investigating chemotherapy with or without targeted therapies and hormone therapies with or without targeted therapies as firstline or second-line treatments, or both, in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, published between Jan 1, 2000, and Dec 31, 2017. Additional recently published randomised controlled trials relevant to the topic were also subsequently added. No language restrictions were adopted for our search. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was done to compare hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (the primary outcome), and to compare odds ratios (ORs) for the proportion of patients achieving an overall response (the secondary outcome). All treatments were compared to anastrozole and to palbociclib plus letrozole. This study is registered in the Open Science Framework online public database, registration DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/496VR. Findings We identified 2689 published results and 140 studies (comprising 50 029 patients) were included in the analysis. Palbociclib plus letrozole (HR 0•42; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0•25-0•70), ribociclib plus letrozole (0•43; 0•24-0•77), abemaciclib plus anastrozole or letrozole (0•42; 0•23-0•76), palbociclib plus fulvestrant (0•37; 0•23-0•59), ribociclib plus fulvestrant (0•48; 0•31-0•74), abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (0•44; 0•28-0•70), everolimus plus exemestane (0•42; 0•28-0•67), and, in patients with a PIK3CA mutation, alpelisib plus fulvestrant (0•39; 0•22-0•66), and several chemotherapy-based regimens, including anthracycline and taxane-containing regimens, were associated with better progression-free survival than was anastrozole alone. No chemotherapy or hormone therapy regimen was significantly better than palbociclib plus letrozole for progression-free survival. Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab was the only clinically relevant regimen that was significantly better than palbociclib plus letrozole in terms of the proportion of patients achieving an overall response (OR 8•95; 95% CrI 1•03-76•92). Interpretation In the first-line or second-line setting, CDK4/6 inhibitors plus hormone therapies are better than standard hormone therapies in terms of progression-free surv...

BackgroundIron deficiency is very common in a number of medical conditions. Ferric carboxymaltose is a new stable iron preparation that can be administered in single infusions over short periods of time. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the efficacy and safety of the novel complex compared with other iron formulations. In addition, the feasibility of a network meta-analysis for indirect comparisons was investigated.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed for published RCTs on the use of ferric carboxymaltose in iron deficiency between July and October 2014. Indirect comparisons were also addressed using terms referring to competing iron formulations. We further supported the qualitative results of the systematic review by a network meta-analysis that allows pooling the evidence around different intervention outcomes in the absence of trials involving a direct comparison.ResultsThe initial search yielded 1027 citations, which was decreased to 21 studies eligible for inclusion in the review. Studies were heterogeneous in the number of patients randomised, iron deficiency-related conditions addressed, trial inclusion criteria, time horizon, treatment dosage and outcomes assessed. Six studies with the same time horizon (i.e. 6 weeks) were included in the network meta-analysis. Considering the differences between final and initial outcome values for each iron formulation, the mean difference of these differences (delta) was estimated for each couple of treatments involving ferric carboxymaltose. Significant improvements in serum ferritin (µg/l) were obtained with ferric carboxymaltose compared to oral iron (delta 172.8; 95 % CI 66.7–234.4) and in haemoglobin (g/dl) with respect to ferric gluconate (delta 0.6; 95 % CI 0.2–0.9), oral iron (delta 0.8; 95 % CI 0.6–0.9) and placebo (delta 2.1; 95 % CI 1.2–3.0).ConclusionsAll currently available intravenous iron preparations appear to be safe and effective, but ferric carboxymaltose seems to provide a better and quicker correction of haemoglobin and serum ferritin levels in iron-deficient patients.

Background Tocilizumab blocks pro-inflammatory activity of interleukin-6 (IL-6), involved in pathogenesis of pneumonia the most frequent cause of death in COVID-19 patients. Methods A multicenter, single-arm, hypothesis-driven trial was planned, according to a phase 2 design, to study the effect of tocilizumab on lethality rates at 14 and 30 days (co-primary endpoints, a priori expected rates being 20 and 35%, respectively). A further prospective cohort of patients, consecutively enrolled after the first cohort was accomplished, was used as a secondary validation dataset. The two cohorts were evaluated jointly in an exploratory multivariable logistic regression model to assess prognostic variables on survival. Results In the primary intention-to-treat (ITT) phase 2 population, 180/301 (59.8%) subjects received tocilizumab, and 67 deaths were observed overall. Lethality rates were equal to 18.4% (97.5% CI: 13.6–24.0, P = 0.52) and 22.4% (97.5% CI: 17.2–28.3, P < 0.001) at 14 and 30 days, respectively. Lethality rates were lower in the validation dataset, that included 920 patients. No signal of specific drug toxicity was reported. In the exploratory multivariable logistic regression analysis, older age and lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio negatively affected survival, while the concurrent use of steroids was associated with greater survival. A statistically significant interaction was found between tocilizumab and respiratory support, suggesting that tocilizumab might be more effective in patients not requiring mechanical respiratory support at baseline. Conclusions Tocilizumab reduced lethality rate at 30 days compared with null hypothesis, without significant toxicity. Possibly, this effect could be limited to patients not requiring mechanical respiratory support at baseline. Registration EudraCT (2020-001110-38); clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04317092).