Audit report on Mills County, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2006.

Audit report on Mills County, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2006.

Audit report on the City of Center Point, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2006.

Audit report on the City of Center Point, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2006.

Audit report on the City of Schaller, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2006.

Audit report on the City of Schaller, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2006.

Audit report on Decatur County, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2006.

Audit report on Decatur County, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2006.

Audit report on the City of Clarinda, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2006.

Audit report on the City of Clarinda, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2006.

Audit report on the City of Fairfield, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2006.

Audit report on the City of Fairfield, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2006.

Audit report on the Fremont County Landfill Commission for the year ended June 30, 2006.

Audit report on the Fremont County Landfill Commission for the year ended June 30, 2006.

Audit report on Ida County, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2006.

Audit report on Ida County, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2006.

Efficacy and Safety of Canakinumab Vs Triamcinolone Acetonide in Patients with Gouty Arthritis Unable to Use Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs and Colchicine, and On Stable Urate Lowering Therapy (ULT) or Unable to Use ULT

Background/Purpose: The primary treatment goals for gouty arthritis (GA) are rapid relief of pain and inflammation during acute attacks, and long-term hyperuricemia management. A post-hoc analysis of 2 pivotal trials was performed to assess efficacy and safety of canakinumab (CAN), a fully human monoclonal anti-IL-1_ antibody, vs triamcinolone acetonide (TA) in GA patients unable to use NSAIDs and colchicine, and who were on stable urate lowering therapy (ULT) or unable to use ULT. Methods: In these 12-week, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled studies (_-RELIEVED and _-RELIEVED II), patients had to have frequent attacks (_3 attacks in previous year) meeting preliminary GA ACR 1977 criteria, and were unresponsive, intolerant, or contraindicated to NSAIDs and/or colchicine, and if on ULT, ULT was stable. Patients were randomized during an acute attack to single dose CAN 150 mg s.c. or TA 40 mg i.m. and were redosed "on demand" for each new attack. Patients completing the core studies were enrolled into blinded 12-week extension studies to further investigate on-demand use of CAN vs TA for new attacks. The subpopulation selected for this post-hoc analysis was (a) unable to use NSAIDs and colchicine due to contraindication, intolerance or lack of efficacy for these drugs, and (b) currently on ULT, or contraindication or previous failure of ULT, as determined by investigators. Subpopulation comprised 101 patients (51 CAN; 50 TA) out of 454 total. Results: Several co-morbidities, including hypertension (56%), obesity (56%), diabetes (18%), and ischemic heart disease (13%) were reported in 90% of this subpopulation. Pain intensity (VAS 100 mm scale) was comparable between CAN and TA treatment groups at baseline (least-square [LS] mean 74.6 and 74.4 mm, respectively). A significantly lower pain score was reported with CAN vs TA at 72 hours post dose (1st co-primary endpoint on baseline flare; LS mean, 23.5 vs 33.6 mm; difference _10.2 mm; 95% CI, _19.9, _0.4; P_0.0208 [1-sided]). CAN significantly reduced risk for their first new attacks by 61% vs TA (HR 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17-0.91, P_0.0151 [1-sided]) for the first 12 weeks (2nd co-primary endpoint), and by 61% vs TA (HR 0.39; 95% CI, 0.19-0.79, P_0.0047 [1-sided]) over 24 weeks. Serum urate levels increased for CAN vs TA with mean change from baseline reaching a maximum of _0.7 _ 2.0 vs _0.1 _ 1.8 mg/dL at 8 weeks, and _0.3 _ 2.0 vs _0.2 _ 1.4 mg/dL at end of study (all had GA attack at baseline). Adverse Events (AEs) were reported in 33 (66%) CAN and 24 (47.1%) TA patients. Infections and infestations were the most common AEs, reported in 10 (20%) and 5 (10%) patients treated with CAN and TA respectively. Incidence of SAEs was comparable between CAN (gastritis, gastroenteritis, chronic renal failure) and TA (aortic valve incompetence, cardiomyopathy, aortic stenosis, diarrohea, nausea, vomiting, bicuspid aortic valve) groups (2 [4.0%] vs 2 [3.9%]). Conclusion: CAN provided superior pain relief and reduced risk of new attack in highly-comorbid GA patients unable to use NSAIDs and colchicine, and who were currently on stable ULT or unable to use ULT. The safety profile in this post-hoc subpopulation was consistent with the overall _-RELIEVED and _-RELIEVED II population.

Audit report on Appanoose County, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2006.

Audit report on Appanoose County, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2006.

Audit report on Jasper County, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2006.

Audit report on Jasper County, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2006.

Audit report on Poweshiek County, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2006.

Audit report on Poweshiek County, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2006.

Audit report on the Hardin County Sanitary Solid Waste Disposal Commission for the year ended June 30, 2006.

Audit report on the Hardin County Sanitary Solid Waste Disposal Commission for the year ended June 30, 2006.

Audit report on the Westory Fire Agency for the year ended June 30, 2006.

Audit report on the Westory Fire Agency for the year ended June 30, 2006.

Iowa NAPIS (National Aging Program Information System) Activity Report State Fiscal Year 2004

INAPIS (National Aging Program Information System) Activity Report collects and reports service/performance data and related program management information to the federal and state government. This report shows the number of older Iowans who receive services and the number of units by service category from Title III funding of the Older Americans Act, the Administration on Aging (AoA) and limited state general fund dollars. Additionally, it shows the number of persons served by individual services and total "unduplicated" client count across all services. In other words, if you add the total number of clients from all services it is higher than the actual number of persons served across all services, because some people need and receive more than one service.