M1 demand and volatility

The reasons for the instability within the M1 market during the 1970s and 1980s have been attributed to an actual breakdown in the M1 market, multicollinearity, or an inappropriate specification. The present paper offers a more general reason: increased volatility within the money demand determinants produced an econometric environment which made estimation of the relationship problematic. In order to investigate this possibility, the traditional demand vector is re-estimated with additional generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity representation for income, inflation, and interest rate volatility as conditioning variables. The rolling regression results highlight a significant stability within the M1 demand vector and its long- and short-run parameters. I wish to thank, without implicating, two anonymous referees for helpful comments and suggestions     

Multiclass Corporate Failure Prediction by Adaboost.M1

Predicting corporate failure is an important management science problem. This is a typical classification question where the objective is to determine which indicators are involved in the failure or success of a corporation. Despite the complexity of the matter, a two-class problem has usually been considered to tackle this classification task. The objective of this paper is twofold. On the one hand, we apply the Adaboost.M1 algorithm to improve the accuracy of a classification tree in a multiclass corporate failure prediction problem using a set of European firms. On the other, we introduce novel discerning measures to rank independent variables in a generic classification task.

Stability of the demand for M1 and harmonized M3 in Finland

We derive a theoretical model for the demand for money using the adjustment cost augmented money-in-the-utility-function approach. The steady-state-utility function-parameters of the model of narrow money (M1) estimated with cointegration techniques are stable over the foreign exchange rate regime shift; whereas in the model of harmonized M3 (M3H) they arenot stable. The theoretical model fits the M1 data. The adjustment cost parameters of the M1 model describing the dynamics of the demand for money might indicate technological improvements in banking and payments during the sample period. These results suggest that from the Finnish point of view M1 would be a more appropriate intermediate target for monetary policy than harmonized M3.The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily the views of the Bank of Finland. I thank Juha Tarkka, Jouko Vilmunen, Pekka Ilmakunnas, Erkki Koskela, Paolo Paruolo, Anders Rahbek, Pentti Saikkonen, Juha Seppälä, Matti Virén and the participants of ESEM96 meeting and Money Demand in Europe conference (October 1997, Berlin) for useful comments and discussions and two anonymous referees and the editors for profound and constructive comments. The usual disclaimer applies. The data may be obtained from the internet, http://wotan.wiwi.hu-berlin.de/oekonometrie/engl/data.html     

Economic evaluation of ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir and dasabuvir for the treatment of chronic genotype 1 hepatitis c virus infection

Objectives: To estimate clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir and dasabuvir?±?ribavirin (OMB/PTV/r?+?DSV?±?RBV) compared with treatment regimens including pegylated interferon (PegIFN) for patients with chronic genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection.

Methods: An Excel spreadsheet Markov model tracking progression through stages of liver disease was developed. Costs and patient utilities for liver disease stages were taken from published studies. Rates of disease progression were based on studies of untreated HCV infection and long-term follow-up of those achieving sustained virologic response (SVR) after drug treatment. Impact of OMB/PTV/r?+?DSV?±?RBV and other drug regimens on progression was estimated through SVR rates from clinical trials. Analyses were performed for treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients. Impact of alternative scenarios and input parameter uncertainty on the results were tested.

Results: For genotype 1 treatment-naive HCV patients, for OMB/PTV/r?+?DSV?±?RBV, PegIFN?+?ribavirin (PegIFN/RBV), sofosbuvir?+?PegIFN/RBV, telaprevir?+?PegIFN/RBV, boceprevir?+?PegIFN/RBV, lifetime risk of decompensated liver disease was 5.6%, 18.9%, 7.4%, 11.7%, and 14.9%; hepatocellular carcinoma was 5.4%, 9.2%, 5.7%, 7.0%, and 7.4%; and death from liver disease was 8.7%, 22.2%, 10.4%, 14.8%, and 17.6%, respectively. Estimates of the cost-effectiveness of OMB/PTV/r?+?DSV?±?RBV for treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients indicated that it dominated all other regimens except PegIFN/RBV. Compared with PegIFN/RBV, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were £13,864 and £10,258 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients, respectively. The results were similar for alternative scenarios and uncertainty analyses.

Limitations: A mixed-treatment comparison for SVR rates for the different treatment regimens was not feasible, because many regimens did not have comparator arms; instead SVR rates were based on those from recent trials.

Conclusions: OMB/PTV/r?+?DSV?±?RBV is a cost-effective oral treatment regimen for chronic genotype 1 HCV infection compared with standard treatment regimens and is estimated to reduce the lifetime risks of advanced liver disease.     

Cost-effectiveness of G5 Mobile continuous glucose monitoring device compared to self-monitoring of blood glucose alone for people with type 1 diabetes from the Canadian societal perspective

Aims: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) compared to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) alone in people with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) using multiple daily injections (MDI) from the Canadian societal perspective.

Methods: The IMS CORE Diabetes Model (v.9.0) was used to assess the long-term (50 years) cost-effectiveness of real-time CGM (G5 Mobile CGM System; Dexcom, Inc., San Diego, CA) compared with SMBG alone for a cohort of adults with poorly-controlled T1DM. Treatment effects and baseline characteristics of patients were derived from the DIAMOND randomized controlled clinical trial; all other assumptions and costs were sourced from published research. The accuracy and clinical effectiveness of G5 Mobile CGM is the same as the G4 Platinum CGM used in the DIAMOND randomized clinical trial. Base case assumptions included (a) baseline HbA1c of 8.6%, (b) change in HbA1c of –1.0% for CGM users vs –0.4% for SMBG users, and (c) disutilities of –0.0142 for non-severe hypoglycemic events (NSHEs) and severe hypoglycemic events (SHEs) not requiring medical intervention, and –0.047 for SHEs requiring medical resources. Treatment costs and outcomes were discounted at 1.5% per year.

Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the base case G5 Mobile CGM vs SMBG was $33,789 CAD/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Sensitivity analyses showed that base case results were most sensitive to changes in percentage reduction in hypoglycemic events and disutilities associated with hypoglycemic events. The base case results were minimally impacted by changes in baseline HbA1c level, incorporation of indirect costs, changes in the discount rate, and baseline utility of patients.

Conclusions: The results of this analysis demonstrate that G5 Mobile CGM is cost-effective within the population of adults with T1DM using MDI, assuming a Canadian willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 CAD per QALY.