Iowa Department for the Blind Performance Report, FY 2006

Agency Performance Report

Iowa Department for the Blind Performance Report, FY 2007

Agency Performance Report

Iowa Department for the Blind Performance Report, FY 2008

Agency Performance Report

Iowa Department for the Blind Performance Report, FY 2009

Agency Performance Report

Iowa Department for the Blind Performance Report, FY 2010

Agency Performance Report

Iowa Department for the Blind Performance Report, FY 2011

Agency Performance Report

Iowa Department for the Blind Performance Report, FY 2012

Agency Performance Report

Iowa Department for the Blind Performance Report, FY 2013

Agency Performance Report

Iowa Department for the Blind State Strategic Plan, July 1, 2011-June 30, 2014

The Iowa Department for the Blind is the means for persons who are blind to obtain for themselves universal accessibility and full participation as citizens in whatever roles they may choose, including roles that increase family income, create jobs, improve educational outcomes, and reduce reliance on public services.

Iowa Department for the Blind Agency Performance Plan, 2014

Agency Performance Plan

Safety and efficacy of the peptide-based therapeutic vaccine for HIV-1, Vacc-4x: a phase 2 randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Present combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) alone does not cure HIV infection and requires lifelong drug treatment. The potential role of HIV therapeutic vaccines as part of an HIV cure is under consideration. Our aim was to assess the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of Vacc-4x, a peptide-based HIV-1 therapeutic vaccine targeting conserved domains on p24(Gag), in adults infected with HIV-1. METHODS: Between July, 2008, and June, 2010, we did a multinational double-blind, randomised, phase 2 study comparing Vacc-4x with placebo. Participants were adults infected with HIV-1 who were aged 18-55 years and virologically suppressed on cART (viral load <50 copies per mL) with CD4 cell counts of 400 × 10(6) cells per L or greater. The trial was done at 18 sites in Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, and the USA. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to Vacc-4x or placebo. Group allocation was masked from participants and investigators. Four primary immunisations, weekly for 4 weeks, containing Vacc-4x (or placebo) were given intradermally after administration of adjuvant. Booster immunisations were given at weeks 16 and 18. At week 28, cART was interrupted for up to 24 weeks. The coprimary endpoints were cART resumption and changes in CD4 counts during treatment interruption. Analyses were by modified intention to treat: all participants who received one intervention. Furthermore, safety, viral load, and immunogenicity (as measured by ELISPOT and proliferation assays) were assessed. The 52 week follow-up period was completed in June, 2011. For the coprimary endpoints the proportion of participants who met the criteria for cART resumption was analysed with a logistic regression model with the treatment effect being assessed in a model including country as a covariate. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00659789. FINDINGS: 174 individuals were screened; because of slow recruitment, enrolment stopped with 136 of a planned 345 participants and 93 were randomly assigned to receive Vacc-4x and 43 to receive placebo. There were no differences between the two groups for the primary efficacy endpoints in those participants who stopped cART at week 28. Of the participants who resumed cART, 30 (34%) were in the Vacc-4x group and 11 (29%) in the placebo group, and percentage changes in CD4 counts were not significant (mean treatment difference -5·71, 95% CI -13·01 to 1·59). However, a significant difference in viral load was noted for the Vacc-4x group both at week 48 (median 23 100 copies per mL Vacc-4x vs 71 800 copies per mL placebo; p=0·025) and week 52 (median 19 550 copies per mL vs 51 000 copies per mL; p=0·041). One serious adverse event, exacerbation of multiple sclerosis, was reported as possibly related to study treatment. Vacc-4x was immunogenic, inducing proliferative responses in both CD4 and CD8 T-cell populations. INTERPRETATION: The proportion of participants resuming cART before end of study and change in CD4 counts during the treatment interruption showed no benefit of vaccination. Vacc-4x was safe, well tolerated, immunogenic, seemed to contribute to a viral-load setpoint reduction after cART interruption, and might be worth consideration in future HIV-cure investigative strategies. FUNDING: Norwegian Research Council GLOBVAC Program and Bionor Pharma ASA.

Randomized double-blind controlled Phase I/IIa trial to assess the efficacy of malaria vaccine PfCS102 to protect against challenge with P. falciparum.

The aim of this Phase I/IIa double-blind controlled trial was to test the efficacy of the sporozoite-based malaria vaccine PfCS 282-383 (PfCS102) to protect against Plasmodium falciparum parasitaemia. 16 volunteers were randomized to receive twice 30 μg of PfCS102 formulated in Montanide ISA 720 or ISA 720 alone (control). Two weeks after 2nd immunization, volunteers were challenged using 5 infected mosquitoes. All vaccinees developed antibodies against PfCS102 versus none control. 8/8 vaccinees and 6/6 controls challenged developed malaria parasitaemia. The duration from infection to onset of patent parasitaemia was similar in both groups (214 h in vaccinees and 216 in controls). PfCS102 is safe and immunogenic but provides no protection against artificial challenge in its current formulation.

Effect of interleukin-6 receptor inhibition with tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (OPTION study): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Interleukin 6 is involved in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis via its broad effects on immune and inflammatory responses. Our aim was to assess the therapeutic effects of blocking interleukin 6 by inhibition of the interleukin-6 receptor with tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel group phase III study, 623 patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis were randomly assigned with an interactive voice response system, stratified by site with a randomisation list provided by the study sponsor, to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg (n=205), tocilizumab 4 mg/kg (214), or placebo (204) intravenously every 4 weeks, with methotrexate at stable pre-study doses (10-25 mg/week). Rescue therapy with tocilizumab 8 mg/kg was offered at week 16 to patients with less than 20% improvement in both swollen and tender joint counts. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with 20% improvement in signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis according to American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20 response) at week 24. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00106548. FINDINGS: The intention-to-treat analysis population consisted of 622 patients: one patient in the 4 mg/kg group did not receive study treatment and was thus excluded. At 24 weeks, ACR20 responses were seen in more patients receiving tocilizumab than in those receiving placebo (120 [59%] patients in the 8 mg/kg group, 102 [48%] in the 4 mg/kg group, 54 [26%] in the placebo group; odds ratio 4.0 [95% CI 2.6-6.1], p<0.0001 for 8 mg/kg vs placebo; and 2.6 [1.7-3.9], p<0.0001 for 4 mg/kg vs placebo). More people receiving tocilizumab than those receiving placebo had at least one adverse event (143 [69%] in the 8 mg/kg group; 151 [71%] in the 4 mg/kg group; 129 [63%] in the placebo group). The most common serious adverse events were serious infections or infestations, reported by six patients in the 8 mg/kg group, three in the 4 mg/kg group, and two in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Tocilizumab could be an effective therapeutic approach in patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche, Chugai Pharmaceutical.

Comparison of transhiatal laparoscopy versus blind closed-chest cervicotomy and laparotomy for esophagectomy in children.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal replacement for caustic stenosis in children poses a challenging surgical problem. Blind removal of the injured esophagus without thoracotomy through a left cervical and transhiatal approach followed by an orthotopic esophageal replacement using either the colon or the stomach is a difficult procedure and can be dangerous in children. We performed our first total laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy in February 2007. We aim to compare this new technique to the previously applied method of blind closed-chest esophagectomy through a cervicotomy and laparotomy. METHODS: We analyzed the surgery and follow-up of 40 children operated upon for extensive irreversible caustic burns of the esophagus. The first 20 esophageal replacements were performed following a blind dissection of the mediastinum through a cervical incision and a laparotomy for esophagectomy (Group I). The last 20 esophageal replacements were performed after laparoscopic transhiatal dissection in the mediastinum and cervicotomy in the neck for esophagectomy (Group II). All operations were performed under the supervision of the same senior surgeon. RESULTS: Average age at the time of surgery was the same in both groups. Total esophagectomy was achieved in 45.0% of cases in Group I versus in 90.0% of cases in Group II. Colon was used in 80.0% of cases in Group I and in 90.0% in Group II. The mean duration of surgery was one hour longer in the laparoscopy group. One vascular injury was reported in the blind laparotomy group. Pneumothorax was more frequent in Group II without significant consequences besides drainage. Average time of extubation was about the same in both groups (1.8days). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy for caustic burns before esophageal replacement in children is safe and effective. It could avoid vascular and bronchial mediastinal injuries as the dissection is performed under direct visual control. The routine use of laparoscopic assistance by a senior surgeon improves the safety of esophageal dissection and reduces life-threatening complications.

Design, conduct, and analyses of Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98: a randomized, double-blind, phase-III study comparing letrozole and tamoxifen as adjuvant endocrine therapy for postmenopausal women with receptor-positive, early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Aromatase inhibitors provide superior disease control when compared with tamoxifen as adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer. PURPOSE: To present the design, history, and analytic challenges of the Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 trial: an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase-III study comparing the aromatase inhibitor letrozole with tamoxifen in this clinical setting. METHODS: From 1998-2003, BIG 1-98 enrolled 8028 women to receive monotherapy with either tamoxifen or letrozole for 5 years, or sequential therapy of 2 years of one agent followed by 3 years of the other. Randomization to one of four treatment groups permitted two complementary analyses to be conducted several years apart. The first, reported in 2005, provided a head-to-head comparison of letrozole versus tamoxifen. Statistical power was increased by an enriched design, which included patients who were assigned sequential treatments until the time of the treatment switch. The second, reported in late 2008, used a conditional landmark approach to test the hypothesis that switching endocrine agents at approximately 2 years from randomization for patients who are disease-free is superior to continuing with the original agent. RESULTS: The 2005 analysis showed the superiority of letrozole compared with tamoxifen. The patients who were assigned tamoxifen alone were unblinded and offered the opportunity to switch to letrozole. Results from other trials increased the clinical relevance about whether or not to start treatment with letrozole or tamoxifen, and analysis plans were expanded to evaluate sequential versus single-agent strategies from randomization. LIMITATIONS: Due to the unblinding of patients assigned tamoxifen alone, analysis of updated data will require ascertainment of the influence of selective crossover from tamoxifen to letrozole. CONCLUSIONS: BIG 1-98 is an example of an enriched design, involving complementary analyses addressing different questions several years apart, and subject to evolving analytic plans influenced by new data that emerge over time.