Read the article and make a powerpoint

Anonymous
timer Asked: Mar 29th, 2019
account_balance_wallet $40

Question Description

Read the article and make a power point addressing all the points in the grading evaluation and use the presentation I had started and answer all the questions posted for the evaluation.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

PHAR 9942 / PSCI 6602 JOURNAL CLUB ACTIVITY GRADING EVALUATION Presenter:_______________________________________________ Date:_____________ Reviewer:_______________________________________________ STYLE / PRESENTATION 2 points Presentation Exhibited professional appearance and demeanor, and spoke clearly throughout the presentation Mannerisms Eye Contact Slides Handout TOTAL Comments Adapted from Am J Pharm Educ. 2007;71(4):Article 63. 1 point SOMEWHAT exhibited professional appearance and demeanor, was difficult to hear or understand SOME things spoken Few (or no) distracting mannerisms (e.g., um) Maintained eye contact throughout the presentation Slides were organized, easy to read, and aesthetically pleasing Handout was organized, easy to read, and aesthetically pleasing 0 points Did NOT exhibit professional appearance and demeanor, was difficult to hear or understand MOST things spoken Score /2 Had distracting mannerisms /1 Did NOT maintain eye contact /1 Slides were NOT organized and difficult to read Handout was NOT organized and difficult to read /1 /1 /6 PHAR 9942 / PSCI 6602 JOURNAL CLUB ACTIVITY GRADING EVALUATION CONTENT / CRITICAL EVALUATION Study Overview Introduction - Authors’ affiliations/study support - Study objective(s) & rationale Methods – Design - Case-control, cohort, controlled experiment, etc. - Type of design (cross-over, parallel, etc.) - Type of assignment used - Blinding Methods – Patients/Subjects - How enrolled/from where? - Inclusion/exclusion criteria - # enrolled per group Methods – Treatment Regimen - Treatments used - Dosages/administration - Therapy duration Methods – Outcome Measures - Primary measures - Secondary measures Methods – Data Handling - Intention to treat, per protocol, etc. - # lost to follow-up - Reasons for dropouts Methods – Statistics - Tests used - Power of study Results - Results for each outcome measure - Confidence intervals - P-values - Compliance - Adverse effects Conclusion – Authors’ conclusion Adapted from Am J Pharm Educ. 2007;71(4):Article 63. 2 points 1 point 0 points Score Accurately and completely reported ALL relevant introduction, study design, and patients/subject components Accurately and completely reported MOST of the relevant introduction, study design, and patients/subject components Did NOT accurately and completely report most of the relevant introduction, study design, and patients/subject components /2 Accurately and completely reported ALL relevant treatment regimens, outcome measures, and data handling components Accurately and completely reported MOST of the relevant treatment regimens, outcome measures, and data handling components Did NOT accurately and completely most of the relevant treatment regimens, outcome measures, and data handling components /2 Accurately and completely reported ALL relevant statistics, results, and authors’ conclusion components Accurately and completely reported MOST of the relevant statistics, results, and authors’ conclusion components Did NOT accurately and completely most of the relevant statistics, results, and authors’ conclusion components /2 PHAR 9942 / PSCI 6602 JOURNAL CLUB ACTIVITY GRADING EVALUATION STUDY OVERVIEW TOTAL /6 Comments Analysis Analyzed all parts of study 4 points ALL parts appropriately critiqued with ALL relevant questions accurately addressed with strengths, weaknesses and their impact described 3 points Missed only ONE or TWO considerations or relevant questions in critique, with the rest appropriately addressed with strengths, weaknesses, and their impact described TOTAL Comments Adapted from Am J Pharm Educ. 2007;71(4):Article 63. 2 points 1 point 0 points MOST parts appropriately critiqued, some relevant questions with strengths, weaknesses, and their impact overlooked or inaccurate Only SOME parts appropriately critiqued, most relevant questions with strengths, weaknesses, and their impact overlooked or inaccurate Failed to appropriately critique any part, all relevant questions with strengths, weaknesses, and their impact overlooked or inaccurate Score /4 PHAR 9942 / PSCI 6602 JOURNAL CLUB ACTIVITY GRADING EVALUATION Conclusion Clear, concise conclusion stated 1 point Summarized accurately & completely: key points to be taken from study (which reflected limitations), drug’s role in therapy or clinical practice implications, and need for any further research in area 0 points Did NOT summarize accurately & completely a conclusion OR conclusion completely inaccurate TOTAL Comments Preparedness Response to questions TOTAL Comments Score /1 /1 1 point Correctly answered questions in a confident manner STYLE / PRESENTATION TOTAL POINTS: Score /1 /1 ______/6 CONTENT / CRITICAL EVALUATION TOTAL POINTS: ______/12 Adapted from Am J Pharm Educ. 2007;71(4):Article 63. 0 points Did NOT correctly answer questions OR handled questions unprofessionally DIABETICMedicine DOI: 10.1111/dme.13003 Research: Treatment Open-label randomized non-inferiority trial of a fixed-dose combination of glimepiride and atorvastatin for the treatment of people whose Type 2 diabetes is uncontrolled on metformin P. Ambery1, A. Stylianou2, G. Atkinson3, C. Dott3, L. Baylor Curtis3, N. Haque3, K. LaCroix4 and K. W. Min5 on behalf of the Glimepiride/Atorvastatin Investigational Team 1 Department of Medicine, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, 2Clinical Statistics, GlaxoSmithKline, Stevenage, 3Alternative Discovery and Development, GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK, 4Global Clinical Safety and Pharmacovigilance, GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA and 5Diabetes Centre, Eulji Hospital, Eulji University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea Accepted 15 October 2015 Abstract Aims To evaluate, in a randomized, open-label study, the non-inferiority of a bioequivalent fixed-dose combination of glimepiride and atorvastatin vs. separately co-administered tablets in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods Participants with HbA1c ≥ 53 to < 80 mmol/mol (≥ 7.0 to < 9.5%), average fasting blood glucose > 7.0 mmol/l, who were on metformin for ≥ 3 months, were randomized to combination (n = 215) or co-administered glimepiride and atorvastatin (n = 212) once daily for 20 weeks. Up-titration of glimepiride (1–4 mg) and atorvastatin (10–20 mg) were based on average fasting blood glucose and LDL cholesterol, respectively. Co-primary endpoints were change from baseline to week 20 in HbA1c and LDL cholesterol. Non-inferiority was demonstrated for both co-primary endpoints: the upper limits of 95% CIs for differences (combination-reference) were less than the prespecified margins of 3.3 mmol/mol (0.3%) for change from baseline in HbA1c [difference 0.1 mmol/mol (95% CI 1.6, 1.9); 0.01% (95% CI 0.15, 0.17)] and 6% for percentage change from baseline in LDL cholesterol [difference 0.87% (95% CI 2.47, 4.21)]. Similar proportions of participants on combination and reference had treatment-emergent adverse events (64 vs. 61%). More participants on combination had hypoglycaemia (21 vs. 13%); most events were considered by the treating physician to be unrelated to study drug. Results Conclusions The combination was non-inferior to separately co-administered tablets and the safety profile was consistent with the known profiles of glimepiride and atorvastatin. The observed increase in hypoglycaemia on the combination cannot be explained, but may be attributable to non-systematic collectiof glucose readings and may have been influenced by reporting bias in this open-label trial. Diabet. Med. 33, 1084–1093 (2016) Introduction Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care, self-management and support. A stepwise approach to management is recommended, starting with advice concerning diet, exercise and weight reduction [1]. If glucose targets are not met by lifestyle interventions, treatment with metformin is recommended [1]. Other glucose-lowering therapies, such as a sulphonylurea, may then be added if glycaemic control is not achieved [1]. As Correspondence to: Anastasia Stylianou. E-mail: anastasia.2.stylianou@gsk.com 1084 people with Type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease [2], predominantly driven by risk factors such as dyslipidaemia and hypertension [3], multifactorial risk reduction strategies beyond glycaemic control are required; therefore, consensus treatment guidelines now recommend antihypertensives and lipid-lowering therapy for most people with Type 2 diabetes [1,4,5]. Persistence and adherence to therapy are critical in improving outcomes in Type 2 diabetes, but many people do not meet their personalized targets; for example, almost half of the surveyed adults with diagnosed diabetes participating in a national surveillance programme in the USA did not meet the ª 2015 Diabetes UK Research article What’s new? • We evaluated a bioequivalent fixed-dose combination of glimepiride plus atorvastatin versus separately coadministered tablets in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus on metformin. • The combination was non-inferior to separately coadministered tablets with respect to reductions in HbA1c and LDL cholesterol after 20 weeks. • The safety profile of the combination was consistent with the known profiles of glimepiride and atorvastatin. • More participants on the combination reported hypoglycaemia. This cannot be explained but may be attributable to non-systematic collection of glucose readings and may have been influenced by reporting bias in this open-label trial. recommended goals for glycaemic control, blood pressure and lipids [6]. Simplification of dosage regimens, by combining medications in a single dosage form, is likely to improve compliance [7–9], thereby improving clinical outcomes. The aim of the present study was to demonstrate the noninferiority of a fixed-dose combination of glimepiride plus atorvastatin, compared with both agents taken concomitantly as separate tablets, in improving glucose control and lipid profiles in Type 2 diabetes. Glimepiride and atorvastatin are well-established medicines, with substantial clinical trials and post-marketing experience [10–12]. In a previous trial in healthy people, the glimepiride-atorvastatin formulation was shown to be bioequivalent to separately administered glimepiride and atorvastatin tablets, in terms of rate and extent of exposure (data on file). Participants and methods Study design and ethics This was an open-label, randomized, two-arm, parallel group study conducted at 33 centres in six countries (Malaysia, Mexico, Philippines, Russia, South Korea and Thailand) between December 2011 and September 2013. The study protocol (ATG115317) was approved by the relevant independent ethics committee for each centre and written informed consent was obtained from each participant. The procedures followed were in accordance with guidelines for good clinical practice and the Declaration of Helsinki. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01495013). Participants Men and women aged ≥ 18 years with Type 2 diabetes on a stable dose of metformin for ≥ 3 months, with HbA1c ≥ 53 ª 2015 Diabetes UK DIABETICMedicine to < 80 mmol/mol (≥ 7.0 to < 9.5%) and average fasting blood glucose > 7.0 mmol/l, taken on 4 days in the week before enrolment, were eligible. Participants had to be statinna€ıve or have no statin use for 2 months before screening and be eligible for statin therapy (history of cardiovascular disease; ≥ 40 years with a cardiovascular risk factor; < 40 years with LDL cholesterol > 100 mg/dl). Exclusions were: other lipid-lowering or antidiabetic agents; Type 1 diabetes or current need for insulin therapy; concurrent myalgia; symptomatic hyperglycaemia requiring therapy; hypertriglyceridaemia; clinically significant cardiovascular disease; end-stage renal disease; cancer in the past 3 years; a clinically significant abnormality on physical examination or laboratory tests; receiving drug therapy to treat liver disease; antiviral or immunosuppressive therapy; haemoglobinopathy that could interfere with the assessment of HbA1c; and hereditary lactose intolerance, lactase deficiency or glucose-galactose malabsorption. Interventions Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive web response system to receive glimepiride-atorvastatin fixed-dose combination or co-administration of glimepiride and atorvastatin (reference) once daily for 20 weeks. Block randomization was used and the randomization list was computer-generated using statistical software. The combination tablets (1/10, 2/10, 3/10, 4/10, 1/20, 2/20, 3/20 and 4/20 mg of glimepiride/atorvastatin, respectively) were manufactured by Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (Hyderabad, India). Glimepiride (1, 2, 3 and 4 mg) and atorvastatin (10 and 20 mg) tablets were sourced from commercial supplies (Amaryl; Sanofi Aventis, Anagni, Italy; Lipitor; Pfizer, Berlin, Germany). All participants started on 10 mg atorvastatin and 1 mg glimepiride, either as combination or separate tablets. Participants were advised to take study drug(s) shortly before or during a substantial breakfast or the first main meal. Glimepiride was up-titrated at weeks 2, 4, 6 and 10 if average fasting blood glucose was > 7 mmol/l in the preceding week and no individual value was < 4.5 mmol/l. Atorvastatin was up-titrated at weeks 6 or 12 if LDL cholesterol at the preceding visit was > 2.6 mmol/l. The study was designed to achieve rapid titration to enable participants to have exposure at the higher doses; thus, participants who required down-titration were to be withdrawn. Assessments The co-primary efficacy endpoints were change from baseline to week 20 in HbA1c and percent change from baseline to week 20 in LDL cholesterol. Secondary efficacy endpoints were change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c and percent change from baseline to weeks 4 and 10 in LDL cholesterol. 1085 DIABETICMedicine Fixed-dose combination of glimepiride and atorvastatin for type 2 diabetes  P. Ambery et al. Safety assessments included monitoring of adverse events (AEs), hypoglycaemia and liver function tests. Blood samples were taken at screening, baseline and during the treatment period for measurement of HbA1c (weeks 12 and 20), lipids (weeks 4, 10 and 20) and liver function tests (weeks 2, 6, 16 and 20). HbA1c and lipids were measured at a central laboratory. Liver function tests were measured at each centre’s laboratory. Participants were assigned a glucometer to measure blood glucose. They were trained to identify symptoms of hypoglycaemia and to document these in a diary card, together with the accompanying blood glucose reading. Participants also recorded their fasting blood glucose for at least 4 days in the week preceding a potential up-titration visit. Glucometer readings were examined by investigators and categorized using American Diabetes Association working group criteria for hypoglycaemia [13]. All values ≤ 3.9 mmol/l were recorded as hypoglycaemia, regardless of symptoms. The AE information was collected from the start of treatment until the last follow-up contact. Drug compliance was determined by counting returned tablets. Change from baseline in HbA1c and percentage change from baseline in LDL cholesterol were separately analysed for the observed case dataset using a mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation. The baseline values for HbA1c and LDL cholesterol were included as covariates in the respective models. In case of drop-out, HbA1c and LDL cholesterol values at the early withdrawal visit were included in the analysis. Analyses were performed using SAS v. 9.2 or later. HbA1c results were reported as percentages and converted to mmol/mol as follows: HbA1c (mmol/mol)=[HbA1c (%) 2.15]910.93. Standard deviation and change from baseline values in mmol/mol were calculated by multiplying the percentage value by 10.93. Safety variables were summarized descriptively. Compliance was defined as: 100 9 total number of tablets consumed/(days of study drug exposure)*(number of tablets prescribed per day). Results Study population Statistical methods A non-inferiority hypothesis was used to show that participants taking the combination were not disadvantaged compared with participants taking the separate agents. Assessment of non-inferiority was based on the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between groups for each coprimary endpoint. If the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference in change from baseline to week 20 for HbA1c was < 3.3 mmol/mol (< 0.3%), and percentage change from baseline to week 20 in LDL cholesterol was < 6%, then non-inferiority was to be concluded. Non-inferiority margins were selected based on regulatory guidance for diabetes [14] and previous lipid studies [15]. A sample size of 191 evaluable participants in each group provided 90% power for the comparison between groups for change from baseline in HbA1c (based on a non-inferiority margin of 0.3% assuming standard deviation of 0.9%) and 83% power for the comparison between groups for percentage change from baseline in LDL cholesterol (based on a non-inferiority margin of 6% assuming standard deviation of 20%) and a one-sided test with 2.5% significance level. Assuming up to 10% of participants would be nonevaluable, 424 participants were to be randomized (212 per group). The primary non-inferiority analysis was conducted on the per-protocol population (all participants without major protocol deviations). Analysis of the intention-to-treat population (all randomized participants with at least one postbaseline HbA1c or LDL cholesterol value) was conducted as a sensitivity analysis. The safety population comprised all participants who took at least one dose of study drug. 1086 A total of 427 participants were randomized (215 and 212 in combination and reference groups, respectively) and 393 (92%) participants completed the study (Fig. 1). Over 90% of participants were included in the per-protocol populations for the analysis of HbA1c (391/427, 92%) and LDL cholesterol (393/427, 92%). The most common reasons for exclusion from per-protocol populations were incorrect dose titration (six and seven participants in the combination and reference groups, respectively) and inadequate treatment compliance (four and six participants, respectively; Fig. 1). The two groups were well matched with regard to demographic and baseline characteristics (Table 1). In both groups, mean age was 57–58 years and there was a predominance of women (59 and 64%, respectively). Exposure and treatment compliance At the end of the 20-week treatment period or at premature discontinuation, 19 and 20% of participants in the combination and reference groups, respectively, remained on the lowest combination of glimepiride/atorvastatin 1/10 mg and 10% of participants in each group were on the highest combination of 4/20 mg (Table S1). Glimepiride 4 mg, irrespective of atorvastatin dose, was received by 42 and 44% of participants, respectively, with 34 and 35% of participants titrated to this dose at week 6. Atorvastatin 20 mg was received by 19 and 21% of participants, respectively, with 10 and 14% of participants titrated to this dose at week 6. Compliance with study drug was 98% in each group. ª 2015 Diabetes UK 768 assessed for eligibility 427 randomised Analysis Follow-up Enrollment DIABETICMedicine Allocation Research article 341 excluded • 327 did not meet eligibility criteria • 11 withdrew consent • 3 other reasons 215 allocated to combination group • 215 received allocated intervention 212 allocated to reference group • 212 received allocated intervention 199 completed the study to Week 20 16 discontinued prematurely: • 1 down-titration of study drug • 1 change in treatment f ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

stevengtharvey
School: Cornell University

Hello there!😀 Please find attached work and in case you have any issue let me know.Cheers!!🙏

introduction
Type 2 Diabetes is a type of illness that fundamentally requires a lot of management, care and support. It is
essentially advisable that step by step approach is entirely recommended and this should be able to start by
providing best piece of advice concerning diet intake, weight reduction and most importantly undertaking
exercises. It is also important to note that if the glucose interventions are not able to be met by the lifestyle
then it clearly means that the treatment of Metformin is highly recommended.

Study objective


The main objective is to essentially evaluate particularly in a randomized
manner when it comes to non-inferiority of bioequivalent dose that is fixed.
The dose combination should be that of atorvastatin and glimepiride verses
tablets that are separately co-administered in people with Type 2 diabetes
Mellitus

Authors affiliation/study support


GlaxoSmithKline were able to sponsor the study and they provided the
funding that was very important for the study, They also ensured the
development and the publication of the manuscript. All the authors of the
study were entirely involved in entirely all the stages of the study conduct,
interpretation, analysis, approving of the final manuscript and finally
publishing the finds of the same study.

Method/study design


It is important to note that this is a randomized, open-label, parallel group
and two arm study that was conducted in six diverse countries specifically ...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Top quality work from this guy! I'll be back!

Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors