Following the approval by the FDA of two COVID-19 vaccines, which are administered in two doses three to four weeks apart, we simulate the effects of various vaccine distribution policies on the cumulative number of infections and deaths in the United States in the presence of shocks to the supply of vaccines. Our forecasts suggest that allocating more than 50% of available doses to individuals who have not received their first dose can significantly increase the number of lives saved and significantly reduce the number of COVID-19 infections. We find that a 50% allocation saves on average 33% more lives, and prevents on average 32% more infections relative to a policy that guarantees a second dose within the recommended time frame to all individuals who have already received their first dose. In fact, in the presence of supply shocks, we find that the former policy would save on average 8, 793 lives and prevents on average 607, 100 infections while the latter policy would save on average 6, 609 lives and prevents on average 460, 743 infections.

Background: With multimorbidity becoming the norm rather than the exception, the management of multiple chronic diseases is a major challenge facing healthcare systems worldwide.
Methods: Using a large, nationally representative database of electronic medical records from the United Kingdom spanning the years 2005–2016 and consisting over 4.5 million patients, we apply statistical methods and network analysis to identify comorbid pairs and triads of diseases and identify clusters of chronic conditions across different demographic groups. Unlike many previous studies, which generally adopt cross-sectional designs based on single snapshots of closed cohorts, we adopt a longitudinal approach to examine temporal changes in the patterns of multimorbidity. In addition, we perform survival analysis to examine the impact of multimorbidity on mortality.
Results: The proportion of the population with multimorbidity has increased by approximately 2.5 percentage points over the last decade, with more than 17% having at least two chronic morbidities. We find that the prevalence and the severity of multimorbidity, as quantified by the number of co-occurring chronic conditions, increase progressively with age. Stratifying by socioeconomic status, we find that people living in more deprived areas are more likely to be multimorbid compared to those living in more affluent areas at all ages. The same trend holds consistently for all years in our data. In general, hypertension, diabetes, and respiratory-related diseases demonstrate high in-degree centrality and eigencentrality, while cardiac disorders show high out-degree centrality.
Conclusions: We use data-driven methods to characterize multimorbidity patterns in different demographic groups and their evolution over the past decade. In addition to a number of strongly associated comorbid pairs (e.g., cardiac-vascular and cardiac-metabolic disorders), we identify three principal clusters: a respiratory cluster, a cardiovascular cluster, and a mixed cardiovascular-renal-metabolic cluster. These are supported by established pathophysiological mechanisms and shared risk factors, and largely confirm and expand on the results of existing studies in the medical literature. Our findings contribute to a more quantitative understanding of the epidemiology of multimorbidity, an important pre-requisite for developing more effective medical care and policy for multimorbid patients.

Disease-focused foundations have used venture philanthropy (VP) for decades to develop interventions that have patient impact and generate revenue to support their mission. We articulate the distinguishing motives and features of VP funds and their distinct role in the life sciences innovation ecosystem. In particular, we focus on how entrepreneurs and VP funds can work together to help patients and generate economic value. We recommend that entrepreneurs seeking VP support understand a fund’s mission and objectives, and position themselves to fit the fund’s strategic and financial portfolio needs. Finally, we provide case studies of three specific initiatives — the JDRF T1D Fund, targeting type 1 (juvenile) diabetes; MPM Capital’s Oncology Impact Fund; and the American Heart Association’s Cardeation Capital — to showcase these efforts and benefits in practice.

Using survey data gathered from grantees of the nonprofit Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF), we investigated the commercial and non-commercial impacts of their research funding. We found significant impact in both domains. Commercially, 19.5% of BCRF grantees filed patents, 35.9% had a project that has reached clinical development, and 12 companies have or will be spun off from existing projects, thus creating 127 new jobs. Non-commercially, 441 graduate students have been trained by 116 grantees, 767 postdoctoral fellows have been trained by 137 grantees, 66%of grantees have used funding for faculty salaries, 93% have achieved collaboration with other researchers, and 42.7% have enacted process improvements in research methodology.  Econometric analysis identifies BCRF funding and associated process improvements as key factors associated with the likelihood to file patents. However, we also found that the involvement of more than one institution in a collaborative project had a negative impact on subsequent development. This may point to frictions introduced by multi-university interactions.

We represent risk factors as sums of orthogonal components capturing fluctuations with cycles of different length. The representation leads to novel spectral factor models in which systematic risk is allowed—without being forced—to vary across frequencies. Frequency- specific systematic risk is captured by a notion of spectral beta. We show that traditional factor models restrict the spectral betas to be constant across frequencies. The restriction can hide horizon-specific pricing effects that spectral factor models are designed to re- veal. We illustrate how the methods may lead to economically meaningful dimensionality reduction in the factor space.

Development of curative treatments for glioblastoma (GBM) has been stagnant in recent decades largely because of significant financial risks. A portfolio-based strategy for the parallel discovery of breakthrough therapies can effectively reduce the financial risks of potentially transformative clinical trials for GBM. Using estimates from domain experts at the National Brain Tumor Society (NBTS), we analyze the performance of a portfolio of 20 assets being developed for GBM, diversified across different development phases and therapeutic mechanisms. We find that the portfolio generates a 14.9% expected annualized rate of return. By incorporating the adaptive trial platform GBM AGILE in our simulations, we show that at least one drug candidate in the portfolio will receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval with a probability of 79.0% in the next decade.

We propose a heuristic approach to modeling investor behavior by simulating combinations of simpler systematic investment strategies associated with well-known behavioral biases—in functional forms motivated by an extensive review of the behavioral finance literature—using parameters calibrated from historical data. We compute the investment performance of these heuristics individually and in pairwise combinations using both simulated and historical asset-class returns. The mean-reversion or momentum nature of a heuristic can often explain its effect on performance, depending on whether asset returns are consistent with such dynamics. These algorithms show that seemingly irrational investor behavior may, in fact, have been shaped by evolutionary forces and can be effective in certain environments and maladaptive in others.

Background. Parkinson's disease (PD) is neurodegenerative, causing motor, cognitive, psychological, somatic, and autonomic symptoms. Understanding PD patients' preferences for novel neurostimulation devices may help ensure that devices are delivered in a timely manner with the appropriate level of evidence. Our objective was to elicit preferences and willingness-to-wait for novel neurostimulation devices among PD patients to inform a model of optimal trial design. Methods. We developed and administered a survey to PD patients to quantify the maximum levels of risks that patients would accept to achieve potential benefits of a neurostimulation device. Threshold technique was used to quantify patients' risk thresholds for new or worsening depression or anxiety, brain bleed, or death in exchange for improvements in "on-time," motor symptoms, pain, cognition, and pill burden. The survey elicited patients' willingness to wait to receive treatment benefit. Patients were recruited through Fox Insight, an online PD observational study. Results. A total of 2740 patients were included and a majority were White (94.6%) and had a 4-year college degree (69.8%). Risk thresholds increased as benefits increased. Threshold for depression or anxiety was substantially higher than threshold for brain bleed or death. Patient age, ambulation, and prior neurostimulation experience influenced risk tolerance. Patients were willing to wait an average of 4 to 13 years for devices that provide different levels of benefit. Conclusions. PD patients are willing to accept substantial risks to improve symptoms. Preferences are heterogeneous and depend on treatment benefit and patient characteristics. The results of this study may be useful in informing review of device applications and other regulatory decisions and will be input into a model of optimal trial design for neurostimulation devices.

We compare and contrast the expected duration and number of infections and deaths averted among several designs for clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccine candidates, including traditional and adaptive randomized clinical trials and human challenge trials. Using epidemiological models calibrated to the current pandemic, we simulate the time course of each clinical trial design for 756 unique combinations of parameters, allowing us to determine which trial design is most effective for a given scenario. A human challenge trial provides maximal net benefits—averting an additional 1.1M infections and 8,000 deaths in the U.S. compared to the next best clinical trial design—if its set-up time is short or the pandemic spreads slowly. In most of the other cases, an adaptive trial provides greater net benefits.