Clinical Trials The studies, tests and preclinical and clinical trials conducted by or on behalf of, or sponsored by, the Company, or in which the Company has participated, that are described in the Registration Statement, the Time of Sale Disclosure Package or the Prospectus, or the results of which are referred to in the Registration Statement, the Time of Sale Disclosure Package or the Prospectus, were and, if still pending, are being conducted in all material respects in accordance with protocols, procedures and controls pursuant to, where applicable, accepted professional and scientific standards for products or product candidates comparable to those being developed by the Company and all applicable statutes, rules and regulations of the FDA, the EMEA, Health Canada and other comparable drug and medical device (including diagnostic product) regulatory agencies outside of the United States to which they are subject; the descriptions of the results of such studies, tests and trials contained in the Registration Statement, the Time of Sale Disclosure Package or the Prospectus do not contain any misstatement of a material fact or omit a material fact necessary to make such statements not misleading; the Company has no knowledge of any studies, tests or trials not described in the Disclosure Package and the Prospectus the results of which reasonably call into question in any material respect the results of the studies, tests and trials described in the Registration Statement, the Time of Sale Disclosure Package or Prospectus; and the Company has not received any notices or other correspondence from the FDA, EMEA, Health Canada or any other foreign, state or local governmental body exercising comparable authority or any Institutional Review Board or comparable authority requiring or threatening the termination, suspension or material modification of any studies, tests or preclinical or clinical trials conducted by or on behalf of, or sponsored by, the Company or in which the Company has participated, and, to the Company’s knowledge, there are no reasonable grounds for the same. Except as disclosed in the Registration Statement, the Time of Sale Disclosure Package and the Prospectus, there has not been any violation of law or regulation by the Company in its respective product development efforts, submissions or reports to any regulatory authority that could reasonably be expected to require investigation, corrective action or enforcement action.
Study An application for leave of absence for professional study must be supported by a written statement indicating what study or research is to be undertaken, or, if applicable, what subjects are to be studied and at what institutions.
Study Area The study area focused on the Bulk Power System in South-Eastern New York between Albany and New York City, and voltages underlying systems at 115 kV and above in the lower Xxxxxx Valley (Zones G, H & I). In the PSS™E power flow base case provided by NYISO, facilities rated at 115 kV and above in PSS™E designated areas 6 through 11 are monitored in the study. These areas are: • Capital District • Xxxxxx • Millwood • Xxxxxxxxx • Con Ed • Long Island
Trials The Ship shall run the following test and trials:
Re-Study If Re-Study of the Interconnection Facilities Study is required due to a higher queued project dropping out of the queue or a modification of a higher queued project pursuant to Section 4.4, Transmission Provider shall so notify Interconnection Customer in writing. Such Re-Study shall take no longer than sixty (60) Calendar Days from the date of notice. Any cost of Re-Study shall be borne by the Interconnection Customer being re-studied.
Clinical 2.1 Provides comprehensive evidence based nursing care to patients including assessment, intervention and evaluation.
Study Population The study was based at the San Francisco KPNC Anal Cancer Screening Clinic. We enrolled men who were identified as positive for HIV through the Kaiser HIV registry, who were aged ≥ 18 years, who were not diag- nosed with anal cancer before enrollment, and who pro- vided informed consent. In total, 363 men were enrolled between August 2009 and June 2010. The study was reviewed and approved by the institutional review boards at KPNC and at the National Cancer Institute. All partici- pants were asked to complete a self-administered ques- tionnaire to collect risk factor information. Additional information regarding HIV status and medication, sexu- ally transmitted diseases, and histopathology results were abstracted from the KPNC clinical database. For 87 of the 271 subjects without biopsy-proven AIN2 or AIN3 at the time of enrollment, follow-up infor- mation concerning outcomes from additional clinic visits up to December 2011 was available and included in the analysis to correct for the possible imperfect sensitivity of high-resolution anoscopy (HRA).13,15 Clinical Examination, Evaluation, and Results During the clinical examination, 2 specimens were col- lected by inserting a wet flocked nylon swab16 into the anal canal up to the distal rectal vault and withdrawing with rotation and lateral pressure. Both specimens were trans- ferred to PreservCyt medium (Hologic, Bedford, Mass). A third specimen was collected for routine testing for Chla- mydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhea. After specimen collection, participants underwent a digital anorectal ex- amination followed by HRA. All lesions that appeared sus- picious on HRA were biopsied and sent for routine histopathological review by KPNC pathologists, and were subsequently graded as condyloma or AIN1 through AIN3. No cancers were observed in this study population. From the first specimen, a ThinPrep slide (Hologic) was prepared for routine Xxxxxxxxxxxx staining and xxxxx- xxxxx. Two pathologists (T.D. and D.T.) reviewed the slides independently. Cytology results were reported anal- ogous to the Bethesda classification17 for cervical cytology except when otherwise noted. The following categories were used: negative for intraepithelial lesion or malig- xxxxx (NILM); ASC-US; atypical squamous cells cannot rule out high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) (ASC-H); low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL); HSIL, favor AIN2 (HSIL-AIN2); and HSIL-AIN3. ASC-H, HSIL-AIN2, and HSIL-AIN3 were combined into a single high-grade cytology category for the current analysis. Biomarker Testing Using the residual specimen from the first collection, mtm Laboratories AG (Heidelberg, Germany) performed the p16INK4a/Ki-67 dual immunostaining (‘‘p16/Ki-67 staining’’) using their CINtec Plus cytology kit according to their specifications. A ThinPrep 2000 processor (Holo- gic) was used to prepare a slide, which then was stained according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The CINtec Plus cytology kit was then applied to the unstained cytol- ogy slide for p16/Ki-67 staining. On the second collected specimen, Roche Molecular Systems (Pleasanton, Calif) tested for HR-HPV, includ- ing separate detection of HPV-16, and HPV-18 DNA, using their cobas 4800 HPV test. To prepare DNA for the cobas test, automated sample extraction was per- formed as follows: 500 lL of the PreservCyt specimen was pipetted into a secondary tube (Falcon 5-mL polypropyl- ene round-bottom tube, which measured 12-mm-by-75- mm and was nonpyrogenic and sterile). The tube was capped, mixed by vortexing, uncapped, placed on the x-480 specimen rack, and loaded onto the x-480 sample extraction module of the cobas 4800 system. The x-480 extraction module then inputs 400 lL of this material into the specimen preparation process. The extracted DNA was then tested as previously described.16 NorChip AS (Klokkarstua, Norway) also tested the second specimen for HPV-16, -18, -31, -33, and -45 HPV E6/E7 mRNA using their PreTect HPV-Proofer assay according to their specifications. All testing was per- formed masked to the results of the other assays, clinical outcomes, and patient characteristics.
Development Phase contractual phase initiated with the approval of ANP for the Development Plan and which is extended during the Production Phase while investments in xxxxx, equipment, and facilities for the Production of Oil and Gas according to the Best Practices of the Oil Industry are required.
System Impact Study An assessment by the Transmission Provider of (i) the adequacy of the Transmission System to accommodate a Completed Application, an Interconnection Request or an Upgrade Request, (ii) whether any additional costs may be incurred in order to provide such transmission service or to accommodate an Interconnection Request, and (iii) with respect to an Interconnection Request, an estimated date that an Interconnection Customer’s Customer Facility can be interconnected with the Transmission System and an estimate of the Interconnection Customer’s cost responsibility for the interconnection; and (iv) with respect to an Upgrade Request, the estimated cost of the requested system upgrades or expansion, or of the cost of the system upgrades or expansion, necessary to provide the requested incremental rights.
