Search

As in other post-Soviet countries, carceral collectivism characterizes penal institutions in Lithuania. In these institutions, prisoners’ interactions are minimally controlled and convicts are responsible for the maintenance of order; hence, the informal rules of the criminal subculture prevail in Lithuanian correctional facilities. In this article, we examine the prison subculture and adaptation to imprisonment as a significant part of inmates’ social world in post-Soviet Lithuania. By using semi-structured interviews with male prisoners, semi-structured interviews with prison staff, and data from the inmates’ criminal records, we conceptualize both men’s adaptation to imprisonment and current transformations in the Lithuanian prison subculture. As our research shows, the importance of this subculture has decreased in recent years. This process has been influenced by structural changes such as stronger administrative control of convicts, their differentiation and division into smaller groups that limit their mutual contacts, and convicts’ motivation to obtain parole and participate in various rehabilitation programs. The prison subculture has also experienced transformations because of the increasing impact of financial resources on social life, subcultural rules, and interprisoner relationships. Despite these processes, the subculture still plays an important role in inmates’ attempts to choose different daily coping styles and types of adaptation to imprisonment. In this article, we argue that in reforming post-Soviet correctional institutions, a gradual transition to the system of individual cell–type confinement with some remaining elements of collective imprisonment would be desirable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The AUC (area under the concentration time curve) is considered the pharmacokinetic exposure parameter best associated with clinical effects. Unfortunately, no prospective studies of clinical outcomes have been conducted in adult transplant recipients to investigate properly the potential benefits of AUC(0–12) monitoring compared to the C0-guided therapy. The aim of the present study was to compare two methods, C0 (through level) and AUC(0–12) (area under the concentration time curve), for assessing cyclosporine and tacrolimus concentrations. The study included 340 kidney recipients. The AUC(0–12) was estimated using a Bayesian estimator and a three-point limited sampling strategy. Therapeutic drug monitoring of tacrolimus performed by using AUC(0–12) and C0 showed that tacrolimus in most cases is overdosed when considering C0, while determination of the AUC(0–12) showed that tacrolimus is effectively dosed for 27.8–40.0% of patients receiving only tacrolimus and for 25.0–31.9% of patients receiving tacrolimus with MMF (mycophenolate mofetil). In the 1–5 years post-transplantation group, 10% higher CsA (cyclosporine) dose was observed, which was proportionate with a 10% higher AUC(0–12) exposure value. This indicates good compatibility of the dosage and the AUC(0–12) method. The Bland–Altman plot demonstrated that C0 and AUC(0–12) might be interchangeable methods, while the ROC (receiver operating characteristic) curve analysis of the C0/AUC(0–12) ratio in the tacrolimus-receiving patient group demonstrated reliable performance to predict IFTA (interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy) after kidney transplantation, with an ROC curve of 0.660 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.576–0.736), p < 0.01. Moreover, AUC(0–12) and C0 of tacrolimus depend on concomitant medication and adjustment of the therapeutic range for AUC(0–12) might influence the results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]