Alternative Mutual Funds: An Initial Approach to Analyzing the Impact of Regulation on Fund Performance

This study seeks to examine the performance differences between regulated and unregulated investment funds. The funds studied are called alternative mutual funds by federal regulators, and are different than traditional mutual funds. Sponsors of these alternative mutual funds have increased their offerings to the investing public which has attracted regulators’ attention. Regulators are assessing whether the current regulatory framework is sufficient for protecting investors. The objective of this empirical analysis is to determine the effect of regulations on the performance of these alternative mutual funds relative to unregulated funds of similar character. This type of study is a first step in examining the possible cost of operational regulation on investment fund performance. This thesis begins with a history of investment fund regulation in the United States. The discussion moves to a review of the theoretical underpinnings of financial regulation for investment funds. After establishing the historical environment for the regulation, the report moves to an explanation of alternative investment strategies and follows with a description of their significant growth. The report summarizes the results of the empirical tests, and concludes with suggestions for future policymaker inquiry. While the limitations of the data set constrict the explanatory power of this study, the results are indicative of the potential impact that regulations can have on the benefits that alternative mutual funds provide to investors. The SEC may be well advised to execute a large-scale analysis on the effect of the operational restrictions on alternative mutual funds versus comparable unregulated private funds. Insights gained might guide improvements in the regulatory structure for this growing sector.Honors Thesi

Anticonvulsant hypersensitivity syndrome: Is there a role for immunomodulation?

The anticonvulsant hypersensitivity syndrome (AHS) is an idiosyncratic immunologic reaction to certain anticonvulsant medications, in which internal organ involvement may lead to fatal multisystemic failure. This syndrome has been associated with the use of aromatic ring-containing agents such as phenytoin, carbamazepine, or phenobarbitone. Clinically, this condition presents with the classic triad of fever, rash, and lymphadenopathy. We review the existing literature on AHS pathogenesis and illustrate a case complicated by liver dysfunction where the use of N-acetylcysteine (N-AC) and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) may have altered the course of the disease. The rationale of suggesting N-AC and IVIG for the treatment of this syndrome relies on the theoretical synergistic effects of the two agents. Although treatment for this syndrome remains controversial and relies heavily on anecdotal evidence, the progression of hepatic injury may be prevented by the addition of N-AC. The scavenging properties of N-AC may palliate and possibly prevent free radical-mediated liver damage. In addition, IVIG may effectively modulate the overreactive immune system in AHS. We discuss the possible role of using immunomodulating agents for the treatment of this syndrome and suggest that alternative regimens should be given special consideration especially in those critical clinical situations where supportive measures appear to be unsuccessful.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/65590/1/j.1528-1167.2008.01720.x.pd

AKL1, a botanical mixture for the treatment of asthma: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study

BACKGROUND: Despite effective treatments, asthma outcomes remain suboptimal. Interest exists in complementary therapies, particularly in herbal remedies for asthma treatment, currently with inconclusive evidence of efficacy. The encapsulated botanical mixture AKL1 has anecdotal evidence of effectiveness in asthma. METHODS: We performed a randomised controlled cross over study comparing the effectiveness of AKL1 with indistinguishable placebo as add-on therapy in patients uncontrolled on standard asthma treatment. Thirty two adult asthmatics completed a 36 week trial consisting of a 4 week single blind run in period, during which placebo was added to usual treatment, a 12 week double blind active phase in which subjects received AKL1 or placebo, a single blind 8 week washout period receiving placebo and a final 12 week double blind cross-over active treatment phase. Daily diaries were kept of peak expiratory flow and symptoms, and spirometry, validated symptom and health status questionnaire scores and adverse events were monitored at study visits. Paired T tests were used to compare the effects of placebo and AKL1 on outcomes. Changes in outcome measures over treatment phases are presented as means and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of means. RESULTS: No significant differences in lung function (active-placebo) were found (Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 second: mean difference [95% CI] = 0.01 [-0.12 to 0.14] L, p = 0.9. Peak Expiratory Flow: -4.08 [-35.03 to 26.89]. L/min, p = 0.8). Trends to clinical improvements favouring active treatment were however consistently seen in the patient-centered outcomes: Asthma Control Questionnaire mean difference (active – placebo) [95% CI] = -0.35 [-0.78 to 0.07], p = 0.10, Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire mean difference 0.42 [-0.08 to 0.93], p = 0.09, Leicester Cough Questionnaire mean difference 0.49, [-0.18 to 1.16], p = 0.15. Nine exacerbations occurred during placebo treatment and five whilst on AKL1. No significant adverse events were noted. CONCLUSION: AKL1 treatment was well tolerated. No significant improvements in lung function, symptoms, or quality of life were seen, although consistent trends were seen to improvements in patient-centered outcomes. Further studies are needed