DESCARGAR MISAL 2012 PDF

Please, help me to find this misal romano pdf descargar programa. I’ll be really very . kkpq: Posts: Joined: Fri Sep 25, pm. Horarios de Misa de España y otros países, e información de iglesias y sobre la liturgia para asistir a la Eucaristía. Descargar The King of Fighters-A La versión gratuita de The King of Fighters-A IMPORTANTE: Es imprescindible instalar esta aplicación a.

Author: Tygotilar Mulmaran
Country: Burkina Faso
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Software
Published (Last): 18 September 2015
Pages: 390
PDF File Size: 9.47 Mb
ePub File Size: 15.95 Mb
ISBN: 984-5-99944-398-1
Downloads: 23072
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Taujind

Overall symptomatic hypoglycemia in the maintenance A and full treatment B periods, nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemia in the maintenance C and full treatment D periods, and severe hypoglycemia in the maintenance E and full treatment F periods. Data are observed mean number of hypoglycemic episodes per patient for the safety analysis set. Data are observed mean level of hemoglobin A 1c for the full analysis set. See eFigure 1 in Supplement 1 for the design of the treatment periods.

Fasting plasma glucose A and pre-breakfast self-measured blood glucose B over time.

misal romano completo pdf creator

Multiple imputation tipping analysis for primary endpoint. The trial was conducted at US centers between January and December in adults with type 2 diabetes and at least 1 hypoglycemia risk factor who were previously treated with basal insulin with or without oral antidiabetic drugs.

Secondary end points were the rate of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes severe or blood glucose confirmed, occurring between During the maintenance period, the rates of overall symptomatic hypoglycemia for insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U were The rates of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemia with insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U were The proportions of patients experiencing severe hypoglycemia during the maintenance period were 1.

Statistically significant reductions in overall and nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemia for insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U were also seen for the full treatment period.

Hypoglycemia and concerns regarding hypoglycemia are acknowledged as the main limiting factors for achieving tight glycemic control. The insulin degludec phase 3a program included 5 open-label trials in patients with T2D comparing insulin degludec with insulin glargine U Written informed consent was obtained from all participating patients.

This randomized, double-blind, 2-period crossover, multicenter, treat-to-target trial was conducted in patients with T2D treated with basal insulin with or without oral antidiabetic drugs OADs Figure 1 and eFigure 1 in Supplement 1across sites in the United States between January and December Each week treatment period consisted of a week titration period to reduce potential carryover effects and obtain stable glycemic control and a week maintenance period to compare the difference in hypoglycemia when glycemic control and dose were stable.

To include a broader population of patients with T2D treated with basal insulin compared with the phase 3a trials, which excluded patients with recurrent severe hypoglycemia or hypoglycemia unawareness better resembling that encountered in clinical practice, patients had to fulfill at least 1 of the following risk criteria for developing hypoglycemia: Patients treated with bolus or premixed insulin or with sulfonylurea or meglitinide within 26 weeks before the first visit were not included.

The determination of race and ethnicity was self-reported by the participant based on fixed categories.

The trial protocol is available in Supplement 2and the statistical analysis plan is available in Supplement 3.

Misal | iPhone Lifestyle apps | by Innox

Patients were randomized using a trial-specific, interactive-voice, web-response system using a simple sequential allocation from a blocked randomization schedule without stratifying factors. Patients were randomized 1: Within each treatment sequence, patients were randomized 1: Assigned administration timing was maintained throughout the trial.

The trial was double blinded, and all involved parties were blinded to insulin degludec and insulin glargine U treatment sequence allocation throughout the trial.

The starting dose for treatment period 2 was the dose from the end descartar treatment period 1. Patients were supplied with a blood glucose monitor and instructed to measure their blood glucose level before breakfast on the 3 days before a visit or telephone contact weekly and also whenever a hypoglycemic episode was suspected.

All pretrial OADs were continued at the pretrial dose throughout the trial. The secondary end points were the rate of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes severe or blood glucose confirmed, descargarr between Other hypoglycemic end points included the rates of overall symptomatic, nocturnal symptomatic, and severe hypoglycemia for the full treatment period, the rate of severe hypoglycemia, and the proportion of patients experiencing 1 or more overall or nocturnal symptomatic episodes in the maintenance period and the full treatment period.

The hypoglycemia definition is illustrated in eFigure 2 in Supplement 1. All severe episodes reported by investigators or identified via a predefined Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities version Efficacy end points measured were change in HbA 1c level, fasting plasma glucose misa, and prebreakfast self-measured blood glucose level after 32 weeks of treatment. Other safety end points included daily insulin dose, change from baseline in body weight after 32 weeks, incidence of adverse events, vital signs including blood pressure and pulseophthalmoscopy, electrocardiography, and standard biochemical parameters.

  CHLOROSCOMBRUS CHRYSURUS PDF

Analyses of all end points were based on the full analysis set all randomized patients following the intention-to-treat principle. Full details of the statistical analysis plan are in Supplement 3. All analyses were conducted using SAS version 9. Statistical superiority testing of the primary and secondary end points was performed following a hierarchical testing procedure eFigure 3 in Supplement 1 to control the type I error rate in descartar strong sense ie, the error rate was controlled whether or not the global null hypothesis was true.

Noninferiority in HbA 1c level was a prerequisite for both treatment periods before testing the primary end point. The primary and secondary analyses were prespecified to be tested using a 1-sided test on a 2. The trial was powered to evaluate superiority of the primary end point. A Miaal model with patients as random effect; treatment, period, sequence, and dosing time as fixed effects; and logarithm of the observation time years as offset was prespecified as the primary analysis to estimate the rate ratio of overall symptomatic hypoglycemia during the maintenance period.

Only patients with positive observation time during the first maintenance period contributed to the estimated treatment miasl. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results for the primary end point and for the secondary end point nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemia, using a Poisson model on the subset of patients exposed in both maintenance periods, using a Poisson model on completers only, and using a negative binomial model. Missing data were explored to ascertain whether the patients who dropped out before the first maintenance period differed from those exposed during the first maintenance period, as these patients did not contribute to the primary analysis, and whether there were any differences between the 2 treatments in patients who dropped out.

The effects of missing data on the primary analysis were investigated with a post hoc tipping-point analysis. Missing data were imputed assuming that the rate of hypoglycemia for a noncompleter was similar to that for a patient completing the same treatment period who had a similar number of episodes before the time of withdrawal.

The imputed number of episodes for a patient withdrawing while receiving insulin degludec was gradually increased until the treatment contrast between the 2 insulins was no longer significant. McNemar nonparametric test was prespecified to compare the proportion of patients experiencing severe hypoglycemia with the 2 treatments. Change misl baseline in HbA 1c level after 32 weeks of treatment was analyzed separately for each treatment period, using a mixed model for repeated measurements with an unstructured covariance matrix, including treatment period, visit, sex, antidiabetic therapy at screening, and dosing time morning vs evening as fixed effects and age and baseline HbA 1c level as covariates.

All fixed factors and covariates are nested within visit. For the first treatment period, the analysis was conducted using data from all sescargar with observation time in the first maintenance period.

el misal romano pdf merge – PDF Files

For the second treatment period, the analysis was repeated and all patients with an HbA 1c measurement after crossover contributed to the analysis. A post hoc analysis of insulin dose was conducted for patients with observation time in maintenance descaragr 1, using a log-linear mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, period, dosing time morning or eveningand visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect, and the log-transformed baseline dose as a covariate.

Of patients screened, mean age, Overall, patients descargae The proportion of patients withdrawing and the reasons for withdrawal were similar for both treatment sequences Figure 1.

The most common reasons for withdrawal were withdrawal desvargar patient and protocol violation eg, not meeting the inclusion criteria, meeting the exclusion criteria, noncompliance, or participation in other trials. Patients discontinuing prior to the first maintenance period were similar to patients with observation time in the first maintenance period.

The full analysis set comprised patients; 1 patient was excluded because of an unsigned casebook. Baseline characteristics, insulin treatment at screening, and pretrial regimen are summarized in Table 1. At screening, 59 patients 8. The rate of overall symptomatic hypoglycemia during the maintenance period was statistically significantly lower with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U The post hoc tipping-point analysis showed that the statistically significant difference between the 2 treatments remained until each noncompleter receiving insulin degludec was assumed to experience an additional 4 hypoglycemic episodes compared with 0 episodes for noncompleters receiving insulin glargine U The rate of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemia was also statistically significantly lower with insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U during the maintenance period The proportion of patients experiencing at least 1 severe hypoglycemic episode during the maintenance period was 1.

For the full treatment period, there were statistically significant reductions in the rates of both overall symptomatic hypoglycemia and nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemia with insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U overall symptomatic hypoglycemia: The proportions of patients experiencing overall symptomatic hypoglycemia and nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemia Table 2 were both statistically significantly lower with insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U in the maintenance period overall symptomatic hypoglycemia: These results were consistent with the full treatment period Table 2.

  1N4733 DATASHEET PDF

The observed mean SD HbA 1c level at the end of treatment period 1 was 7. Noninferiority of insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U for HbA 1c levels was confirmed for both treatment periods Figure 3. At the end of treatment period 1, the observed mean SD fasting plasma glucose level decreased in the group treated with insulin degludec followed by insulin glargine U from A decrease in the mean SD fasting plasma glucose level was also observed in treatment period 1 of the group treated with insulin glargine U followed by insulin degludec, from The mean prebreakfast self-measured blood glucose level used for dose adjustment decreased during the first 16 weeks of the trial in both study treatment groups and then remained stable for the duration of the trial eFigure 5B in Supplement 1.

At the end of treatment period 1, the observed mean SD dose increased in the group treated with insulin degludec followed by insulin glargine U from 40 22 U at baseline to 70 41 U, with a further increase when switched to insulin glargine U in treatment period 2 mean [SD], 83 [50] U.

An increase in dose was also observed in treatment period 1 of the group treated with insulin glargine U followed by insulin degludec, from 43 26 U at baseline to 74 41 U, with a further increase when switched to insulin degludec in treatment period 2 mean [SD], 83 [54] U eTable 4 in Supplement 1.

Mean SD weight changes were not significantly different between insulin degludec and insulin glargine U in treatment period 1 1. In the safety analysis set, of patients For insulin degludec and insulin glargine U, adverse event rates were There were 7 deaths during the trial, comprising 2 with insulin degludec both cardiovascular-related deaths and 5 with insulin glargine U 1 cardiovascular-related death, 1 with undetermined cause, 1 due to hepatobiliary causes, and 2 due to malignant neoplasms.

One death sepsis and hepatobiliary causes was assessed by the investigator as possibly product related insulin glargine U There were a total of 17 major adverse cardiovascular events, comprising 8 with insulin degludec 5 myocardial infarctions and 3 strokes and 9 with insulin glargine U 4 myocardial infarctions, 1 stroke, 1 death with undetermined cause, and 3 cases of unstable angina pectoris. During follow-up, an additional 5 confirmed major adverse cardiovascular events occurred insulin degludec: There were no clinically relevant differences in physical examination results, blood pressure, pulse, electrocardiogram findings, ophthalmoscopic examination findings, or biochemical parameters between treatments.

Cities xl 2012 serial key yahoo

In this double-blind, randomized, treat-to-target crossover trial, treatment with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U resulted in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful 20 reduction in the rate of overall symptomatic hypoglycemia and nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemia during the week maintenance period.

The hypoglycemia findings were consistent when analyzed over the full treatment period, and they showed a statistically significantly lower rate of severe hypoglycemia with insulin degludec.

The magnitude of the hypoglycemia reduction observed with insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U is comparable to that reported in earlier trials comparing NPH insulin with insulin detemir or insulin glargine U Hypoglycemia is a problem for many insulin-treated patients with T2D, 12 and its frequency and severity tend to increase with disease progression. Overall, the hypoglycemia results achieved in this trial confirm those from the randomized, parallel, open-label, treat-to-target trials in the phase 3a program for insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U Moreover, the trial was conducted in a patient population more closely descaragr that encountered in clinical practice, including individuals with moderate chronic renal failure, hypoglycemia unawareness, and recurrent hypoglycemia.

Thus, the rates of severe hypoglycemia observed in this trial were higher than in the phase 3a program. This trial has several limitations. First, the intensive monitoring in the trial setting may have increased the frequency with which hypoglycemia data were collected and reported compared with an actual clinical setting.

However, this intensive monitoring may have provided a more accurate representation of hypoglycemia rates in the population, including those with recurrent hypoglycemia, than those derived from observational studies 22 or randomized clinical trials from which such patients are typically excluded. Second, the first choice of treatment for the trial population in a clinical setting may not have been once-daily basal insulin.

However, during the maintenance period, glycemic control dedcargar the guideline targets. Fourth, the higher-than-expected withdrawal rate may have resulted from the demanding nature of the trial, including the week duration, 2 20122 treatments, and the use of vials and syringes.

Fifth, the crossover design may induce a potential carryover effect.

Back to top