Search

A business development company (BDC) is a type of closed-end investment fund with certain relaxed requirements that allow it to raise money in the public equity and debt markets, and can be used to fund multiple early-stage biomedical ventures, using financial diversification to de-risk translational medicine. By electing to be a “Regulated Investment Company” for tax purposes, a BDC can avoid double taxation on income and net capital gains distributed to its shareholders. BDCs are ideally suited for long-term investors in biomedical innovation, including: (i) investors with biomedical expertise who understand the risks of the FDA approval process, (ii) “banking entities,” now prohibited from investing in hedge funds and private equity funds by the Volcker Rule, but who are permitted to invest in BDCs, subject to certain restrictions, and (iii) retail investors, who traditionally have had to invest in large pharmaceutical companies to gain exposure to similar assets. We describe the history of BDCs, summarize the requirements for creating and managing them, and conclude with a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the BDC structure for funding biomedical innovation

Although opening an occluded infarct-related artery >24 hours after myocardial infarction in stable patients in the Occluded Artery Trial (OAT) did not reduce events over 7 years, there was a suggestion that the effect of treatment might differ by patient age. Baseline characteristics and outcomes by treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus optimal medical therapy alone were compared by prespecified stratification at age 65 years. A p value <0.01 was prespecified as significant for OAT secondary analyses. The primary outcome was death, myocardial infarction, or New York Heart Association class IV heart failure. Patients aged >65 years (n = 641) were more likely to be female, to be nonsmokers, and to have hypertension, lower estimated glomerular filtration rates, and multivessel disease compared to younger patients (aged ≤65 years, n = 1,560) (p <0.001). There was no significant observed interaction between treatment assignment and age for the primary outcome after adjustment (p = 0.10), and there was no difference between PCI and optimal medical therapy observed in either age group. At 7-year follow-up, younger patients tended to have angina more often compared to the older group (hazard ratio 1.21, 99% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.46, p = 0.01). The 7-year composite primary outcome was more common in older patients (p <0.001), and age remained significant after covariate adjustment (hazard ratio 1.42, 99% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.84). The rate of early PCI complications was low in the 2 age groups. The trend toward a differential effect of PCI in the young versus the old for the primary outcome was likely driven by measured and unmeasured confounders and by chance. PCI reduces angina to a similar degree in the young and old. In conclusion, there is no indication for routine PCI to open a persistently occluded infarct-related artery in stable patients after myocardial infarction, regardless of age. © 2012 Elsevier Inc.

Background We analyzed a prespecified hypothesis of the Occluded Artery Trial (OAT) that late percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the infarct-related artery (IRA) would be most beneficial for patients with anterior myocardial infarction (MI). Methods Two thousand two hundred one stable, high-risk patients with total occlusion of the IRA (793 left anterior descending [LAD]) on days 3 to 28 (minimum of 24 hours) after MI were randomized to PCl and stenting with optimal medical therapy (1, 10 1 patients) or to optimal medical therapy alone (1, 100 patients). The primary end point was a composite of death, recurrent MI, or hospitalization for class IV heart failure. Results The 5-year cumulative primary end point rate was more frequent in the LAD group (19.5%) than in the non-LAD group (16.4%) (HR 1.34, 99% Cl 1.00-1.81, P = .01). Within the LAD group, the HR for the primary end point in the PCI group (22.7%) compared with the medical therapy group (16.4%) was 1.35 (99% Cl 0.86-2.13, P = .09), whereas in the non-LAD group the HR for the primary end point in PCI (116.9%) compared with medical therapy (15.8%) was 1.03 (99% CI 0.70-1.52, P = .83) (interaction P = .24). The results were similar when the effect of PCI was assessed in patients with proximal LAD occlusion. Conclusions In stable patients, persistent total occlusion of the LAD post MI is associated with a worse prognosis compared with occlusion of the other IRAs. A strategy of PCI of occluded LAD IRA >24 hours post MI in stable patients is not beneficial and may increase risk of adverse events in comparison to optimal medical treatment alone. (Am Heart J 2009; 157:724-32.)

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether stable, high-risk patients with persistent total occlusion of the infarct-related coronary artery identified after the currently accepted period for myocardial salvage has passed should undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in addition to receiving optimal medical therapy to reduce the risk of subsequent events. METHODS: We conducted a randomized study involving 2166 stable patients who had total occlusion of the infarct-related artery 3 to 28 days after myocardial infarction and who met a high-risk criterion (an ejection fraction of <50% or proximal occlusion). Of these patients, 1082 were assigned to routine PCI and stenting with optimal medical therapy, and 1084 were assigned to optimal medical therapy alone. The primary end point was a composite of death, myocardial reinfarction, or New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV heart failure. RESULTS: The 4-year cumulative primary event rate was 17.2% in the PCI group and 15.6% in the medical therapy group (hazard ratio for death, reinfarction, or heart failure in the PCI group as compared with the medical therapy group, 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.45; P=0.20). Rates of myocardial reinfarction (fatal and nonfatal) were 7.0% and 5.3% in the two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.92 to 2.00; P=0.13). Rates of nonfatal reinfarction were 6.9% and 5.0%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.96 to 2.16; P=0.08); only six reinfarctions (0.6%) were related to assigned PCI procedures. Rates of NYHA class IV heart failure (4.4% vs. 4.5%) and death (9.1% vs. 9.4%) were similar. There was no interaction between treatment effect and any subgroup variable (age, sex, race or ethnic group, infarct-related artery, ejection fraction, diabetes, Killip class, and the time from myocardial infarction to randomization). CONCLUSIONS: PCI did not reduce the occurrence of death, reinfarction, or heart failure, and there was a trend toward excess reinfarcti