New Method for the Estimation of Viscosity of Pure and Mixtures of Ionic Liquids Based on the UNIFAC–VISCO Model

A modified UNIFAC–VISCO group contribution method was developed for the correlation and prediction of viscosity of ionic liquids as a function of temperature at 0.1 MPa. In this original approach, cations and anions were regarded as peculiar molecular groups. The significance of this approach comes from the ability to calculate the viscosity of mixtures of ionic liquids as well as pure ionic liquids. Binary interaction parameters for selected cations and anions were determined by fitting the experimental viscosity data available in literature for selected ionic liquids. The temperature dependence on the viscosity of the cations and anions were fitted to a Vogel–Fulcher–Tamman behavior. Binary interaction parameters and VFT type fitting parameters were then used to determine the viscosity of pure and mixtures of ionic liquids with different combinations of cations and anions to ensure the validity of the prediction method. Consequently, the viscosities of binary ionic liquid mixtures were then calculated by using this prediction method. In this work, the viscosity data of pure ionic liquids and of binary mixtures of ionic liquids are successfully calculated from 293.15 K to 363.15 K at 0.1 MPa. All calculated viscosity data showed excellent agreement with experimental data with a relative absolute average deviation lower than 1.7%.

New Method Based on the UNIFAC–VISCO Model for the Estimation of Ionic Liquids Viscosity Using the Experimental Data Recommended by Mathematical Gnostics

The viscosity of ionic liquids (ILs) has been modeled as a function of temperature and at atmospheric pressure using a new method based on the UNIFAC–VISCO method. This model extends the calculations previously reported by our group (see Zhao et al. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2016, 61, 2160–2169) which used 154 experimental viscosity data points of 25 ionic liquids for regression of a set of binary interaction parameters and ion Vogel–Fulcher–Tammann (VFT) parameters. Discrepancies in the experimental data of the same IL affect the quality of the correlation and thus the development of the predictive method. In this work, mathematical gnostics was used to analyze the experimental data from different sources and recommend one set of reliable data for each IL. These recommended data (totally 819 data points) for 70 ILs were correlated using this model to obtain an extended set of binary interaction parameters and ion VFT parameters, with a regression accuracy of 1.4%. In addition, 966 experimental viscosity data points for 11 binary mixtures of ILs were collected from literature to establish this model. All the binary data consist of 128 training data points used for the optimization of binary interaction parameters and 838 test data points used for the comparison of the pure evaluated values. The relative average absolute deviation (RAAD) for training and test is 2.9% and 3.9%, respectively.

A systematic literature review of university technology transfer from a quadruple helix perspective: Towards a research agenda

Within recent years, there has been a rapid expansion of the University's role in economic development. This has resulted in University Technology Transfer (UTT) taking place within an increasingly complex network of regional stakeholders. This complexity has resulted in quadruple helix models where the triple helix model of academia, industry and regional government now includes societal based innovation users as a fourth helix. Despite this development, extant research is fragmented and lacks coherent frameworks and conceptualisations which fully depict the dynamic and evolving nature of UTT. Accordingly, this article reviews Mode 2 UTT from a quadruple helix perspective to identify key themes to develop a research agenda which reflects progression from a triple into a quadruple helix ecosystem.

Cabazitaxel for Hormone-Relapsed Metastatic Prostate Cancer Previously Treated With a Docetaxel-Containing Regimen: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures cabazitaxel (Jevtana(®), Sanofi, UK) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of cabazitaxel for treatment of patients with metastatic hormone-relapsed prostate cancer (mHRPC) previously treated with a docetaxel-containing regimen. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology based upon the company's submission to NICE. Clinical evidence for cabazitaxel was derived from a multinational randomised open-label phase III trial (TROPIC) of cabazitaxel plus prednisone or prednisolone compared with mitoxantrone plus prednisone or prednisolone, which was assumed to represent best supportive care. The NICE final scope identified a further three comparators: abiraterone in combination with prednisone or prednisolone; enzalutamide; and radium-223 dichloride for the subgroup of people with bone metastasis only (no visceral metastasis). The company did not consider radium-223 dichloride to be a relevant comparator. Neither abiraterone nor enzalutamide has been directly compared in a trial with cabazitaxel. Instead, clinical evidence was synthesised within a network meta-analysis (NMA). Results from TROPIC showed that cabazitaxel was associated with a statistically significant improvement in both overall survival and progression-free survival compared with mitoxantrone. Results from a random-effects NMA, as conducted by the company and updated by the ERG, indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between the three active treatments for both overall survival and progression-free survival. Utility data were not collected as part of the TROPIC trial, and were instead taken from the company's UK early access programme. Evidence on resource use came from the TROPIC trial, supplemented by both expert clinical opinion and a UK clinical audit. List prices were used for mitoxantrone, abiraterone and enzalutamide as directed by NICE, although commercial in-confidence patient-access schemes (PASs) are in place for abiraterone and enzalutamide. The confidential PAS was used for cabazitaxel. Sequential use of the advanced hormonal therapies (abiraterone and enzalutamide) does not usually occur in clinical practice in the UK. Hence, cabazitaxel could be used within two pathways of care: either when an advanced hormonal therapy was used pre-docetaxel, or when one was used post-docetaxel. The company believed that the former pathway was more likely to represent standard National Health Service (NHS) practice, and so their main comparison was between cabazitaxel and mitoxantrone, with effectiveness data from the TROPIC trial. Results of the company's updated cost-effectiveness analysis estimated a probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £45,982 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, which the committee considered to be the most plausible value for this comparison. Cabazitaxel was estimated to be both cheaper and more effective than abiraterone. Cabazitaxel was estimated to be cheaper but less effective than enzalutamide, resulting in an ICER of £212,038 per QALY gained for enzalutamide compared with cabazitaxel. The ERG noted that radium-223 is a valid comparator (for the indicated sub-group), and that it may be used in either of the two care pathways. Hence, its exclusion leads to uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results. In addition, the company assumed that there would be no drug wastage when cabazitaxel was used, with cost-effectiveness results being sensitive to this assumption: modelling drug wastage increased the ICER comparing cabazitaxel with mitoxantrone to over £55,000 per QALY gained. The ERG updated the company's NMA and used a random effects model to perform a fully incremental analysis between cabazitaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide and best supportive care using PASs for abiraterone and enzalutamide. Results showed that both cabazitaxel and abiraterone were extendedly dominated by the combination of best supportive care and enzalutamide. Preliminary guidance from the committee, which included wastage of cabazitaxel, did not recommend its use. In response, the company provided both a further discount to the confidential PAS for cabazitaxel and confirmation from NHS England that it is appropriate to supply and purchase cabazitaxel in pre-prepared intravenous-infusion bags, which would remove the cost of drug wastage. As a result, the committee recommended use of cabazitaxel as a treatment option in people with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 whose disease had progressed during or after treatment with at least 225 mg/m(2) of docetaxel, as long as it was provided at the discount agreed in the PAS and purchased in either pre-prepared intravenous-infusion bags or in vials at a reduced price to reflect the average per-patient drug wastage.