32 research outputs found

    Appalachian Transition: A cross sector approach to regional transition.

    Get PDF
    Appalachia is made up of many mountains, many communities and many different sectors of work. The Appalachian Transition Fellows based out of the Highlander Education Center have spent 9 months working throughout central Appalachia to build cross sector bridges and to help further a positive growth in the region’s economy. Through the fellowship people are working with different models of transition, including value chains, worker owner cooperatives, local food initiatives, policy making, etc. In this session we will be breaking out into different groups each led by one or two fellows to talk about various ways these different models could be beneficial in different communities in Appalachia. There is value in working not only across county and state lines, but also working across economic sector boundaries. This is a workshop to understand the different models being used and to further discuss how to growth between these models for a more diverse and stronger Appalachian economy

    Cost effectiveness analysis of Year 2 of an elementary school-located influenza vaccination program–Results from a randomized controlled trial

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: School-located vaccination against influenza (SLV-I) has the potential to improve current suboptimal influenza immunization coverage for U.S. school-aged children. However, little is known about SLV-I’s cost-effectiveness. The objective of this study is to establish the cost-effectiveness of SLV-I based on a two-year community-based randomized controlled trial (Year 1: 2009–2010 vaccination season, an unusual H1N1 pandemic influenza season, and Year 2: 2010–2011, a more typical influenza season). METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis on a two-year randomized controlled trial of a Western New York SLV-I program. SLV-I clinics were offered in 21 intervention elementary schools (Year 1 n = 9,027; Year 2 n = 9,145 children) with standard-of-care (no SLV-I) in control schools (Year 1 n = 4,534 (10 schools); Year 2 n = 4,796 children (11 schools)). We estimated the cost-per-vaccinated child, by dividing the incremental cost of the intervention by the incremental effectiveness (i.e., the number of additionally vaccinated students in intervention schools compared to control schools). RESULTS: In Years 1 and 2, respectively, the effectiveness measure (proportion of children vaccinated) was 11.2 and 12.0 percentage points higher in intervention (40.7 % and 40.4 %) than control schools. In year 2, the cost-per-vaccinated child excluding vaccine purchase (59.88in2010US59.88 in 2010 US ) consisted of three component costs: (A) the school costs (8.25);(B)theprojectcoordinationcosts(8.25); (B) the project coordination costs (32.33); and (C) the vendor costs excluding vaccine purchase (16.68),summedthroughMonteCarlosimulation.ComparedtoYear1,thetwocomponentcosts(A)and(C)decreased,whilethecomponentcost(B)increasedinYear2.Thecostpervaccinatedchild,excludingvaccinepurchase,was16.68), summed through Monte Carlo simulation. Compared to Year 1, the two component costs (A) and (C) decreased, while the component cost (B) increased in Year 2. The cost-per-vaccinated child, excluding vaccine purchase, was 59.73 (Year 1) and 59.88(Year2,statisticallyindistinguishablefromYear1),higherthanthepublishedcostofprovidinginfluenzavaccinationinmedicalpractices(59.88 (Year 2, statistically indistinguishable from Year 1), higher than the published cost of providing influenza vaccination in medical practices (39.54). However, taking indirect costs (e.g., averted parental costs to visit medical practices) into account, vaccination was less costly in SLV-I (23.96inYear1,23.96 in Year 1, 24.07 in Year 2) than in medical practices. CONCLUSIONS: Our two-year trial’s findings reinforced the evidence to support SLV-I as a potentially favorable system to increase childhood influenza vaccination rates in a cost-efficient way. Increased efficiencies in SLV-I are needed for a sustainable and scalable SLV-I program

    Effects of Once-Weekly Exenatide on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes.

    Get PDF
    Abstract BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular effects of adding once-weekly treatment with exenatide to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes are unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes, with or without previous cardiovascular disease, to receive subcutaneous injections of extended-release exenatide at a dose of 2 mg or matching placebo once weekly. The primary composite outcome was the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The coprimary hypotheses were that exenatide, administered once weekly, would be noninferior to placebo with respect to safety and superior to placebo with respect to efficacy. RESULTS: In all, 14,752 patients (of whom 10,782 [73.1%] had previous cardiovascular disease) were followed for a median of 3.2 years (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.4). A primary composite outcome event occurred in 839 of 7356 patients (11.4%; 3.7 events per 100 person-years) in the exenatide group and in 905 of 7396 patients (12.2%; 4.0 events per 100 person-years) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.00), with the intention-to-treat analysis indicating that exenatide, administered once weekly, was noninferior to placebo with respect to safety (P<0.001 for noninferiority) but was not superior to placebo with respect to efficacy (P=0.06 for superiority). The rates of death from cardiovascular causes, fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, and the incidence of acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, medullary thyroid carcinoma, and serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes with or without previous cardiovascular disease, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between patients who received exenatide and those who received placebo. (Funded by Amylin Pharmaceuticals; EXSCEL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01144338 .)
    corecore