A model for use by local public health departments to evaluate pandemic influenza plans

The events of the 1990's and early 2000's demonstrated the need for effective planning and response to natural and man-made disasters. One of those potential natural disasters is pandemic flu. Once defined, the CDC stated that program, or plan, effectiveness is improved through the process of program evaluation. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1999) Program evaluation should be accomplished not only periodically, but in the course of routine administration of the program. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1999) Accomplishing this task for a "rare, but significant event" is challenging. (Herbold, John R., PhD., 2008) To address this challenge, the RAND Corporation (under contract to the CDC) developed the "Facilitated Look-Backs" approach that was tested and validated at the state level. (Aledort et al., 2006).^ Nevertheless, no comprehensive and generally applicable pandemic influenza program evaluation tool or model is readily found for use at the local public health department level. This project developed such a model based on the "Facilitated Look-Backs" approach developed by RAND Corporation. (Aledort et al., 2006) Modifications to the RAND model included stakeholder additions, inclusion of all six CDC program evaluation steps, and suggestions for incorporating pandemic flu response plans in seasonal flu management implementation. Feedback on the model was then obtained from three LPHD's—one rural, one suburban, and one urban. These recommendations were incorporated into the final model. Feedback from the sites also supported the assumption that this model promotes the effective and efficient evaluation of both pandemic flu and seasonal flu response by reducing redundant evaluations of pandemic flu plans, seasonal flu plans, and funding requirement accountability. Site feedback also demonstrated that the model is comprehensive and flexible, so it can be adapted and applied to different LPHD needs and settings. It also stimulates evaluation of the major issues associated with pandemic flu planning. ^ The next phase in evaluating this model should be to apply it in a program evaluation of one or more LPHD's seasonal flu response that incorporates pandemic flu response plans.^

Retrospective assesment of the levonorgestrel intrauterine device to treat complex atypical hyperplasia and early endometrioid endometrial cancer

Objective: The primary objective of this project was to describe the efficacy of the Levonorgestrel Intrauterine Device (LIUD) for treatment of Complex Endometrial Cancer (CAH) and Grade 1 Endometrial Cancer (G1EEC) in terms of rate of Complete Response (CR) and Partial Response (PR) after 6 months of therapy. Finally, we assessed if any clinical or pathologic features were associated with response to the LIUD. ^ Methods: This study was a retrospective case series designed to report the response rate of patients with CAH or G1EEC treated with LIUD therapy. In addition, this study has a laboratory component to assess molecular predictors of response to LIUD therapy. Retrospective data already collected from patients diagnosed with CAH or EEC grade 1 and treated with LIUD therapy at MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) were used for this study. Patients from all ethnic and race groups were included. A Complete Response (CR) was defined in patients diagnosed with CAH if pathologic report at 6 months demonstrated either no evidence of hyperplasia or no atypia in the setting of simple or complex hyperplasia. Partial Response (PR) was recorded if disease downgraded to only CAH from G1EEC. No Response (NR) was recorded if pathologic report demonstrates no change (Stable Disease, SD) or progression to cancer (Progressive Disease, PD). We calculated the proportion of patients with complete response to LIUD therapy with 95% confidence interval. We compared the response rates (CR/PR vs NR) by obesity status (Obese if BMI > 40 kg/m2 vs non-obese if BMI <= 40 kg/m2) as well as other clinical and pathologic factors, such as age, uterine size (median size), and presence of exogenous progesterone effect. ^ Results: There were 39 patients diagnosed with either CAH or G1EEC treated with the LIUD. Of 39 patients, 12 did not have pathological results of biopsy at 6months time period. Of 27 evaluable patients, 17 were diagnosed with CAH and 10 with G1EEC. Overall response rate (RR) was 78% (95% CI = 62-94%) at 6 months, 18 patients had CR (4 in G1EEC; 14 in CAH), 3 patients had PR (3 in G1EEC), 3 had SD (1 in CAH; 2 in G1EEC), 3 had PD (2 in CAH; 1 in G1EEC). After histology stratification, RR at 6 months was 82.35% (14/17; 95%CI = 67.4-97.3%) in CAH and 70% (7/10; 95% CI = 41-98.4%) in G1EEC. ^ There was no difference in response (R) and no response (NR) based on BMI (p=0.56). He observed a trend showing association between age with response (p=0.1). There was no association between uterine size and response to therapy (p=0.17). We recorded strong association between exogenous progesterone effect and response. ^ Conclusion: LIUD therapy for the treatment of CAH and G1EEC may be effective and safe. Presence of exogenous progesterone effect may predict the response to LIUD therapy at earlier time points. There is need of further studies with larger sample size to explore the relationship of response with other clinical and pathologic factors^