The Experts below are selected from a list of 34965 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Donald B Sanders - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
david vs goliath two competing us trials of 3 4 diaminopyridine 3 4 dap in lambert eaton myasthenic syndrome lems p4 271
Neurology, 2014Co-Authors: Donald B SandersAbstract:OBJECTIVE: To inform neurologists about two ongoing trials of 3,4-DAP. BACKGROUND: 3,4-DAP (amifampridine) blocks potassium channels in motor nerve terminals, thus enhancing neurotransmitter release. An orphan drug, it has been used to treat patients with LEMS and congenital myasthenic syndromes (CMS) for more than 30 years and the reported experience consistently indicates that it is a safe, effective and valuable treatment for these conditions. The phosphate salt of amifampridine was licensed as Firdapse in Europe in 2010. Two competing trials for FDA approval of 3,4-DAP for LEMS in the US are currently in progress. One, sponsored by Catalyst, a “specialty pharmaceutical company focused on licensing ⋯and commercializing novel prescription drugs to treat rare neuromuscular diseases” is seeking US approval for Firdapse. When licensed in Europe, the price of Firdapse was set at $60,000/year (This was subsequently reduced by 10%.). Jacobus Pharmaceutical Co., a small family-owned company in New Jersey that has provided 3,4-DAP to US patients with LEMS and CMS for more than 20 years at no cost under a “compassionate use” IND, is sponsoring a competing trial. In regard to Future Pricing, Jacobus has stated, “We believe that pharmaceutical companies should price their drugs to ensure the company9s sustainability, support research and ensure manufacturing quality standards and regulatory compliance. We believe that medications should be affordable regardless of the payor.” The formulation of 3,4-DAP that is ultimately licensed in the US will be the only one available in the US. American neurologists (and their patients) may not know how the outcome of these two competing trials could affect Future access to and cost of 3,4-DAP. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians should be aware of, and inform their patients about the potential financial consequences of participating in these clinical trials. They should also be aware of potential costs to our health care system. Disclosure: Dr. Sanders has received personal compensation for activities with Athena Diagnostics as a speaker, and with Accordant Health Services, Jacobus Pharmaceuticals, CytoKinetics, GlaxoSmithKline Inc., Alexion, and UCB Pharma as a consultant.
Hyun Seok Lee - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
LIVING WITH TERMINAL CAPITALIZATION RATES: A LOOK at REAL ESTATE VALUATIONMODEL PARAMETER SETTING LIVING WITH TERMINAL CAPITALIZATION RATES: A LOOK at REAL ESTATE VALUATION MODEL PARAMETER SETTING
2020Co-Authors: Jack Corgel, Hyun Seok LeeAbstract:Abstract This paper examines assumptions about Future prices used in real estate applications of DCF models. We confirm both the widespread reliance on an ad hoc rule of increasing period-zero capitalization rates by 50 to 100 basis points to obtain terminal capitalization rates and the inability of the rule to project Future real estate Pricing. To understand how investors form expectations about Future prices, we model the spread between the contemporaneously period-zero going-in and terminal capitalization rates and the spread between terminal rates assigned in period zero and going-in rates assigned in period N. Our regression results confirm statistical relationships between the terminal and next holding period going-in capitalization rate spread and the period-zero discount rate, although other economically significant variables are statistically insignificant. Linking terminal capitalization rates by assumption to going-in capitalization rates implies investors view Future real estate Pricing with myopic expectations. We discuss alternative specifications devoid of such linkage that align more with a rational expectations view of Future real estate Pricing. The general assumption, RT 0 = R 0 , comes from a belief that Future space and asset markets conditions will be the same in period N as they exist in period zero. For some time, real estate industry analysts have relied on the specific assumption, RT 0 > R 0 , which comes from fundamentally-based ideas about handicapping terminal values relative to period zero values. Conceptually, this ratio of space and capital market financial performance measures indicates the Pricing of commercial real estate at a point in time. By attaching an assumption about Future Pricing, R 0 serves as a useful starting point for estimating property sale price at the end of a holding period. The resultant period N capitalization rate assigned in period zero, RT 0 , has several common names including the 'going-out,' 'exit,' 'resale,' 'residual,' 'reversion,' and 'terminal' capitalization rate. Justifications for handicapping the Future come from (1) the need to build in greater uncertainty associated with forecasting NOIs during a distant holding period relative to the initial holding period and; (2) the likelihood that because properties will be N-years older they will be less competitive against constructed property by the end of the forthcoming 4 If systemic income growth also is assumed, the estimated sale price in period N after capitalizing the projected NOI N+1 by RT 0 may exceed the period zero price. 4 | P a g e holding period. Motivation for this paper comes from the recognition that real estate investors rely s
Jack Corgel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
LIVING WITH TERMINAL CAPITALIZATION RATES: A LOOK at REAL ESTATE VALUATIONMODEL PARAMETER SETTING LIVING WITH TERMINAL CAPITALIZATION RATES: A LOOK at REAL ESTATE VALUATION MODEL PARAMETER SETTING
2020Co-Authors: Jack Corgel, Hyun Seok LeeAbstract:Abstract This paper examines assumptions about Future prices used in real estate applications of DCF models. We confirm both the widespread reliance on an ad hoc rule of increasing period-zero capitalization rates by 50 to 100 basis points to obtain terminal capitalization rates and the inability of the rule to project Future real estate Pricing. To understand how investors form expectations about Future prices, we model the spread between the contemporaneously period-zero going-in and terminal capitalization rates and the spread between terminal rates assigned in period zero and going-in rates assigned in period N. Our regression results confirm statistical relationships between the terminal and next holding period going-in capitalization rate spread and the period-zero discount rate, although other economically significant variables are statistically insignificant. Linking terminal capitalization rates by assumption to going-in capitalization rates implies investors view Future real estate Pricing with myopic expectations. We discuss alternative specifications devoid of such linkage that align more with a rational expectations view of Future real estate Pricing. The general assumption, RT 0 = R 0 , comes from a belief that Future space and asset markets conditions will be the same in period N as they exist in period zero. For some time, real estate industry analysts have relied on the specific assumption, RT 0 > R 0 , which comes from fundamentally-based ideas about handicapping terminal values relative to period zero values. Conceptually, this ratio of space and capital market financial performance measures indicates the Pricing of commercial real estate at a point in time. By attaching an assumption about Future Pricing, R 0 serves as a useful starting point for estimating property sale price at the end of a holding period. The resultant period N capitalization rate assigned in period zero, RT 0 , has several common names including the 'going-out,' 'exit,' 'resale,' 'residual,' 'reversion,' and 'terminal' capitalization rate. Justifications for handicapping the Future come from (1) the need to build in greater uncertainty associated with forecasting NOIs during a distant holding period relative to the initial holding period and; (2) the likelihood that because properties will be N-years older they will be less competitive against constructed property by the end of the forthcoming 4 If systemic income growth also is assumed, the estimated sale price in period N after capitalizing the projected NOI N+1 by RT 0 may exceed the period zero price. 4 | P a g e holding period. Motivation for this paper comes from the recognition that real estate investors rely s
Ayman Chit - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
cost effectiveness of alternate strategies for childhood immunization against meningococcal disease with monovalent and quadrivalent conjugate vaccines in canada
PLOS ONE, 2017Co-Authors: Thomas E Delea, Derek Weycker, Mark Atwood, Dion Neame, Fabian P Alvarez, Evelyn L Forget, Joanne M Langley, Ayman ChitAbstract:BACKGROUND Public health programs to prevent invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) with monovalent serogroup C meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV-C) and quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccines (MCV-4) in infancy and adolescence vary across Canadian provinces. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of various vaccination strategies against IMD using current and anticipated Future Pricing and recent epidemiology. METHODS A cohort model was developed to estimate the clinical burden and costs (CAN$2014) of IMD in the Canadian population over a 100-year time horizon for three strategies: (1) MCV-C in infants and adolescents (MCV-C/C); (2) MCV-C in infants and MCV-4 in adolescents (MCV-C/4); and (3) MCV-4 in infants (2 doses) and adolescents (MCV-4/4). The source for IMD incidence was Canadian surveillance data. The effectiveness of MCV-C was based on published literature. The effectiveness of MCV-4 against all vaccination regimens was assumed to be the same as for MCV-C regimens against serogroup C. Herd effects were estimated by calibration to estimates reported in prior analyses. Costs were from published sources. Vaccines prices were projected to decline over time reflecting historical procurement trends. RESULTS Over the modeling horizon there are a projected 11,438 IMD cases and 1,195 IMD deaths with MCV-C/C; expected total costs are $597.5 million. MCV-C/4 is projected to reduce cases of IMD by 1,826 (16%) and IMD deaths by 161 (13%). Vaccination costs are increased by $32 million but direct and indirect IMD costs are projected to be reduced by $46 million. MCV-C/4 is therefore dominant vs. MCV-C/C in the base case. Cost-effectiveness of MCV-4/4 was $111,286 per QALY gained versus MCV-C/4 (2575/206 IMD cases/deaths prevented; incremental costs $68 million). CONCLUSIONS If historical trends in Canadian vaccines prices continue, use of MCV-4 instead of MCV-C in adolescents may be cost-effective. From an economic perspective, switching to MCV-4 as the adolescent booster should be considered.
Afshin Parvardeh - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Pricing of commodity Futures contract by using of spot price jump diffusion process
International journal of business, 2016Co-Authors: Hossein Esmaeili Razi, Rahim Dallali Esfahani, Saeid Samadi, Afshin ParvardehAbstract:Futures contract is one of the most important derivatives that is used in financial markets in all over the world to buy or sell an asset or commodity in the Future. Pricing of this tool depends on expected price of asset or commodity at the maturity date. According to this, theoretical Futures Pricing models try to find this expected price in order to use in the Futures contract. So in this article, three Futures Pricing models have been considered. In the first model, one-factor Pricing model without spot price jump has been presented. In this model Futures price of commodity is a function of spot price and remaining time to maturity. In the others, the models have been expanded by using jump-diffusion processes and stochastic jump in spot price. Then, to empirically study the models, NYMEX WTI crude oil Futures price data has been used and parameters have been estimated with Kalman filter algorithm. The empirical results show that the one factor model with uniform jump is suitable to explain the crude oil spot price behavior and its Futures price. This model and estimated parameters provide the useful tool to predict NYMEX WTI oil Future prices.
