High scale impact in alignment and decoupling in two-Higgs doublet models

The two-Higgs doublet model (2HDM) provides an excellent benchmark to study physics beyond the Standard Model (SM). In this work we discuss how the behaviour of the model at high energy scales causes it to have a scalar with properties very similar to those of the SM -- which means the 2HDM can be seen to naturally favor a decoupling or alignment limit. For a type II 2HDM, we show that requiring the model to be theoretically valid up to a scale of 1 TeV, by studying the renormalization group equations (RGE) of the parameters of the model, causes a significant reduction in the allowed magnitude of the quartic couplings. This, combined with $B$-physics bounds, forces the model to be naturally decoupled. As a consequence, any non-decoupling limits in type II, like the wrong-sign scenario, are excluded. On the contrary, even with the very constraining limits for the Higgs couplings from the LHC, the type I model can deviate substantially from alignment. An RGE analysis similar to that made for type II shows, however, that requiring a single scalar to be heavier than about 500 GeV would be sufficient for the model to be decoupled. Finally, we show that not only a 2HDM where the lightest of the CP-even scalars is the 125 GeV one does not require new physics to be stable up to the Planck scale but this is also true when the heavy CP-even Higgs is the 125 GeV and the theory has no decoupling limit for the type I model.Comment: 28 pages, 19 figure

Economic analysis comparing induction of labour and expectant management for intrauterine, growth restriction at term (DIGITAT trial)

<p>Objective: Pregnancies complicated by intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) are at increased risk for neonatal morbidity and mortality. The Dutch nationwide disproportionate intrauterine growth intervention trial at term (DIGITAT trial) showed that induction of labour and expectant monitoring were comparable with respect to composite adverse neonatal outcome and operative delivery. In this study we compare the costs of both strategies.</p><p>Study design: A cost analysis was performed alongside the DIGITAT trial, which was a randomized controlled trial in which 650 women with a singleton pregnancy with suspected IUGR beyond 36 weeks of pregnancy were allocated to induction or expectant management. Resource utilization was documented by specific items in the case report forms. Unit costs for clinical resources were calculated from the financial reports of participating hospitals. For primary care costs Dutch standardized prices were used. All costs are presented in Euros converted to the year 2009.</p><p>Results: Antepartum expectant monitoring generated more costs, mainly due to longer antepartum maternal stays in hospital. During delivery and the postpartum stage, induction generated more direct medical costs, due to longer stay in the labour room and longer duration of neonatal high care/medium care admissions. From a health care perspective, both strategies generated comparable costs: on average (sic)7106 per patient for the induction group (N = 321) and (sic)6995 for the expectant management group (N = 329) with a cost difference of (sic)111 (95%CI: (sic)-1296 to 1641).</p><p>Conclusion: Induction of labour and expectant monitoring in IUGR at term have comparable outcomes immediately after birth in terms of obstetrical outcomes, maternal quality of life and costs. Costs are lower, however, in the expectant monitoring group before 38 weeks of gestation and costs are lower in the induction of labour group after 38 weeks of gestation. So if induction of labour is considered to preempt possible stillbirth in suspected IUGR, it is reasonable to delay until 38 weeks, with watchful monitoring. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.</p>