Scholarships are available to those who qualify. There are three scholarship programs currently available. These will be awarded to a limited number of applicants meeting the following conditions: 1) United States citizens or permanent residents currently on unemployment and/or 2) from diverse populations/underrepresented backgrounds. If you apply and are found eligible for multiple, you may be able to receive the scholarships simultaneously, further reducing program costs, depending on availability.
Apply Here >
The Cybersecurity Bootcamp is a training provider program on the New York State Eligible Training Provider List (ETPL) and can be found at the ETPL. The ETPL program is used to identify training that may be federally funded under the Workforce Innovation & Opportunity Act (WIOA) meaning that you may be eligible for up to $5,000, even if you do not live in New York State through state reciprocity agreements.
Eligibility is based on several factors that are regionally specific, including if the job being trained for is identified in the local region as one in demand. It may often be true that cybersecurity is not specifically listed but IT support is and our program is good training for that kind of entry level position as well.
If interested, regardless of where you live, you will need to contact and work with your local employment counselor at your local unemployment office to assess your eligibility and apply for a grant. More information can be found at the link below even if you do not live in Monroe County, New York, and with your local employment counselor.
More Information >
TechRochester is offering $1,500 scholarships to Rochester area residents who have been displaced as a result of COVID and are pursuing an IT certification to help shift their career.
Apply Here >
All notification of cancellations or withdrawals from the programme must be sent in writing to Eruditus Executive Education. 80% can be obtained up to 30 days before the programme start date and 20% is non-refundable. Due to the costs incurred for programme preparation and administration, any cancellations or requests for transfers or deferrals received 30 days or less from the programme start, or once the programme has commenced, are ineligible for any refund. In the occurrence of a force majeure event deemed to be disruptive to the delivery of the programme, some elements of the programme may be postponed. In such cases, once the programme has commenced, we will not be able to provide refunds.
The engineering and management program consists of 32 credit hours in engineering and management, 31 credit hours in mathematics and science, 18 credit hours in electrical science, and 18 credit hours in other courses. 3 credit hours are in free electives.
All courses are 3 credits unless noted.
Clarkson Common Experience
The following courses are required for all students, irrespective of their program of study. These courses are offered during the fall semester, with FY100 First-Year Seminar being required of only first-year students. Both FY100 and UNIV190 are typically taken during the fall semester of the first year at Clarkson.
FY100 First-Year Seminar (1 credit)
UNIV190 The Clarkson Seminar (3 credits)
Engineering and Management Core Requirements
Students are required to complete the following courses:
Engineering and Management
Students are required to complete the following Professional Experience:
Internship, co-op, or directed research related to the student's professional goals
Math and Science Courses for Engineering and Management
Students must complete the following courses:
Engineering Science Courses for Engineering and Management
Students must complete the following courses:
Students must choose one of the following courses:
Business Courses for Engineering and Management
Students must complete the following courses:
A professional elective in E&M is a 3-credit course (or equivalent) that predominantly covers engineering or engineering management knowledge. Examples of such courses include any sophomore-, junior- or senior-level course in engineering; any junior- or senior-level course in a topical knowledge area(s) in the Guide to the Engineering Management Body of Knowledge, 3rd edition, ASEM, 2013; or courses focused on information technology.
Knowledge Area/University Course Electives
Students will have at least 15 credit hours available to use toward Knowledge Area and/or University Course electives to satisfy the Clarkson Common Experience requirements.
Students will have approximately 3 credit hours available to use toward courses of their choice.
History majors not only explore the past, gaining insights into how societies change over time, but also develop important reading, writing, research and interpretive skills. History represents a fascinating, flexible major that permits you to study the broadest possible range of human experience.
Study of history opens many possible professional doors, rather than preparing students to do one thing. NIU history graduates have gone on to teach in schools; conduct museum and archival work; graduate from law and other professional schools; find work in government, military and private-sector employment; and attend graduate school in a variety of disciplines.
We conducted this phase 2, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled clinical trial to test the safety and efficacy of the coronary-sinus reducing device. The trial was conducted at 11 clinical centers and was sponsored by Neovasc. The trial protocol, which is available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org, was designed by the academic authors with input from the sponsor. The data were collected, managed, and analyzed by a contract research organization paid by the sponsor. The academic authors had full access to the data and take full responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of the data and the analyses reported, as well as for the fidelity of this report to the trial protocol. Six of the academic authors wrote the first draft of the manuscript and made the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
The trial was overseen by an independent coordinating center, steering committee, clinical-events committee, and data and safety monitoring board (see the Supplementary Appendix, available at NEJM.org). The study protocol and amendments, as well as the informed-consent form, were reviewed and approved by the relevant national authority in each country and by the independent ethics committee at each participating center. The study was conducted in compliance with the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki. All the patients provided written informed consent before enrollment.
The inclusion and exclusion criteria for the COSIRA trial have been reported in detail previously9 and are listed in the Supplementary Appendix. Patients were considered for participation in the trial if they were older than 18 years of age and had Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class III or IV angina (on a scale from I to IV, with higher classes indicating greater limitations on physical activity owing to angina), despite efforts to control symptoms with medical therapy for at least 30 days before screening. Medical therapy included beta-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, nicorandil, ivabradine, and short-acting and long-acting nitrates used at maximum tolerated doses.10 All the participants were required to have evidence of reversible myocardial ischemia and a left ventricular ejection fraction of more than 25%.
Only patients who were not considered to be candidates for coronary revascularization were eligible to participate in the study, as decided by the heart team at each institution on reviewing the latest coronary angiographic videos, as detailed previously.11 Patients were excluded if they had undergone a latest revascularization procedure (≤6 months earlier), had had a latest acute coronary syndrome (≤3 months earlier), or had undergone placement of permanent pacemaker or defibrillator leads in the right heart.
Candidates meeting the inclusion criteria underwent right heart catheterization with angiography of the coronary sinus before the planned intervention. Only patients with coronary-sinus anatomy that was suitable for implantation of the device were eligible to undergo randomization (for a list of anatomical features that were criteria for exclusion, see the Supplementary Appendix).
Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio, with the use of a computer-generated random allocation sequence, to undergo either implantation of the device (treatment group) or the sham procedure (control group). Study assignments were concealed in opaque numbered, sealed envelopes. The allocation sequence remained concealed until the study groups were assigned.9
All the participants were unaware of the study assignment throughout the 6-month study period. Although the physicians performing the implantation were aware of the study assignments, the investigators responsible for assessing the angina class at follow-up, all core laboratory staff, the biostatisticians performing the analysis, and the members of the clinical-events committee were not.
The coronary-sinus reducing device that we evaluated is made of stainless steel and is available in a single model designed to fit a range of anatomies. Its diameter expands with the inflation pressure of the semicompliant balloon, which has an hourglass shape, and the device conforms to the tapering anatomy of the coronary sinus (Figure 1).
Dual antiplatelet therapy was given for at least 1 week before the procedure and for 6 months after the procedure in the two study groups. Patients randomly assigned to the treatment group were treated with intravenous heparin at the time of implantation. Participants were offered either headsets playing music or conscious sedation to mask the conversation in the room regarding the randomization and the procedure. The physicians performing the implantation were instructed to behave similarly during device implantation and the sham procedure, including spending a similar amount of procedure time per patient, regardless of the patient's study assignment.
A 6-French diagnostic catheter was introduced into the right atrium. Right atrial pressure was measured and recorded. The catheter was then introduced into the coronary sinus, and an angiogram was obtained with 30-degree left anterior oblique angulation. The implantation site was determined according to the vessel diameter; side-branch bifurcation was avoided.
In participants assigned to the control group, no additional invasive manipulation was performed. In participants assigned to the treatment group, a preshaped 9-French guiding catheter was introduced into the coronary sinus, and the device was implanted at the chosen site with the use of a 1.1:1.0 ratio of the expanded device diameter to the coronary-sinus diameter. Postimplantation angiography was performed to ensure appropriate implantation.
The prespecified primary end point was the proportion of patients with an improvement of two or more CCS angina classes from baseline to 6 months after the procedure. Secondary end points included the proportion of patients with an improvement of one or more CCS classes from baseline to 6 months and exercise tolerance as assessed with the use of a symptom-limited stress test.12,13
Cardiac regional wall motion during stress and at rest was assessed by means of dobutamine echocardiography at baseline and at 6 months. The motion of each of 16 wall segments at rest and during peak dobutamine infusion was quantified (with a score of 1 indicating normal, 2 hypokinetic, 3 akinetic, 4 dyskinetic, and 5 aneurysmal),14 and the sum of the wall-motion scores for the myocardial segments was divided by the number of segments to provide a wall-motion index. A modified wall-motion index for the left coronary artery was also calculated, with the use of 11 segments attributed to the left-coronary-artery territory.
Angina-related quality of life was assessed with the use of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, which is a 19-item questionnaire that measures five domains of health status related to coronary artery disease: angina stability, angina frequency, physical limitation, treatment satisfaction, and quality of life. Scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating fewer symptoms and better health status.15
Technical and procedural success was evaluated, and periprocedural and nonprocedural adverse events were recorded. Details of the end-point assessments are provided in the Supplementary Appendix.
An independent data and safety monitoring board was chartered to monitor and evaluate patient safety in order to identify any clinically relevant trends and advise the steering committee accordingly. Interim analyses, provided to the data and safety monitoring board by the contract research organization, took place after 30 patients had completed 30 days of follow-up and after 50% of the originally planned cohort had completed 6 months of follow-up.
The study was designed to have 80% power to test the two-sided hypothesis, at a type I error level of 0.05, that 40% of the participants assigned to the treatment group would have an improvement of two or more CCS angina classes, as compared with 15% of the participants assigned to the control group. A 10% rate of study withdrawal or loss to follow-up was assumed because of uncertainties about deliverability of the device. On the basis of these assumptions, we calculated that we would need to enroll 124 participants in the study. Owing to the longer-than-expected time to complete enrollment and the lower-than-expected rate of withdrawal or loss to follow-up, the sponsor elected to stop enrollment after 104 patients had undergone randomization. The sponsor had no knowledge of the unblinded end-point data when the decision to stop enrollment was made; the randomization code was held by the contract research organization.
Continuous variables are described as means and standard deviations or as medians and interquartile ranges, as appropriate. Between-group differences in means were compared with the use of paired Student's t-tests. Categorical variables are expressed as proportions and were compared with the use of Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate. For continuous variables in the secondary end points, analysis of covariance was used to compare the variation in the change from baseline to 6 months between the patients in the treatment group and those in the control group, after adjustment for baseline differences. All the efficacy analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. The safety analysis, which included all the patients who underwent randomization, was performed according to the actual treatment received. P values of less than 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance. No type I error adjustment for multiple comparisons was planned. All the analyses were performed with the use of SPSS software, version 21 (IBM).
The Ministry of Health set goals to screen everyone in Egypt 18 years of age or older (a target population of 62.5 million) within 1 year and to provide treatment paid for by the state to all those with HCV viremia. Planning started in May 2018. The country was divided into three screening phases, each to be screened over a period of 2 or 3 months. Each phase included 7 to 11 states, 100 to 150 administrative divisions, and a screening target population of 17.9 million to 23.3 million, as detailed in the Supplementary Appendix (Table S2 and Fig. S2).
Screening was conducted in all Ministry of Health hospitals; all primary and rural health units; Egyptian Health Insurance Organization–managed clinics, university hospitals, and military and police hospitals; and all youth centers in all screened areas. Mobile screening teams in specially outfitted vehicles augmented the screening efforts by visiting crowded areas on special occasions (mosques for Friday prayers, churches for Sunday mass, soccer stadiums during game times, and picnic areas and shopping malls on holidays), as well as factories, office buildings, train stations, and subway stations.
Each screening phase had 5800 to 8000 screening teams, each including a physician, a nurse, and a data-entry person. Screening sites were open 12 hours per day, 7 days per week. Training started 2 months before screening launch in each phase, in which 800 trainers were taught how to train the screening teams to use the rapid diagnostic test for the detection of HCV antibodies, to record data and results in the database, and to set further appointments electronically.
The World Health Organization (WHO)–approved rapid diagnostic test11 (SD Bioline HCV, Abbott) was used. Negotiations led to a price reduction to $0.58 per test, including the test kit, the safety lancet, and sharps-disposal containers; the cost also included supply-chain management and delivery to each of 380 central health facilities, which in turn distributed to the screening sites.
HCV RNA levels were measured with the use of a real-time quantitative polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) assay (Cobas AmpliPrep/Cobas TaqMan HCV Test, Roche Diagnostics). Negotiations resulted in a cost of $4.80 per test, inclusive of the machines and logistics of setting up the machines, training the technicians, connecting the machines to the central database, and transferring the equipment from one phase to the next. PCR machines were set up in one to three laboratories in each state. Samples that were collected in the district referral hospitals were transported by the supplier to the test laboratories.
Population data at the national, state, and district levels were obtained from the Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics 2017 national census.12,13 The names and national identification numbers of persons 18 years of age or older who were registered in each electoral district were obtained from the National Elections Authority,14 which automatically registers everyone 18 years of age or older for voting in the district of his or her residence and has a comprehensive database of all persons 18 years of age or older.
Persons could be screened in any phase and any site, regardless of their residence. Participation in screening was voluntary, with no financial or in-kind incentives for participating and no punitive consequences for not participating. Participation in screening was encouraged and emphasized through a massive national advertisement campaign. Television advertisements ran on all channels throughout the screening period, several popular movie and music stars were contracted for the advertising campaign, and television and radio talk shows repeatedly had the national HCV screening program as their main theme. Newspaper advertisements and billboards on many roads were part of the advertising campaign, and millions of text messages were sent to cell phones in each phase.
Immediately before screening, the person’s national identification number was electronically checked against the NCCVH database (which includes data on patients previously treated for HCV infection with direct-acting antivirals since 2014). Patients who had been previously treated were not tested for HCV antibodies.
Persons were tested for HCV antibodies with the use of a finger-prick rapid diagnostic test, with results available within 20 minutes. Seropositive patients had appointments immediately scheduled electronically for a date within 2 to 15 days in the closest assigned center for evaluation and treatment. At the center, patients received clinical evaluation, underwent abdominal ultrasonography, and had blood drawn for HCV RNA and liver-function tests, as detailed in the Supplementary Appendix. Patients returned for results after 5 days, and treatment was prescribed for those with viremia. All patients were treated with sofosbuvir (400 mg daily) plus daclatasvir (60 mg daily) with or without ribavirin for a duration of 12 or 24 weeks, depending on the presence or absence of cirrhosis and the stage of cirrhosis. The time between screening and the dispensing of medication was usually 10 days but ran to 4 weeks for some patients who were delayed in scheduling or attending follow-up appointments. The shortest time to dispensing treatment was 6 days, and the longest time was 30 days.
Turnout for evaluation was continuously monitored. A call center contacted seropositive persons who did not show up for their evaluation appointments and patients with viremia who did not return for treatment, in order to inquire about reasons for no-shows and to assign new appointments if necessary.
Continuous political support from the Egyptian presidency helped make all necessary resources available. The WHO through its local office monitored the campaign as an independent verification agent.
Baseline characteristics and treatment outcomes of patients who were treated in this program were compared with those of patients presenting for treatment before this screening program.10 (Details are provided in the Methods section in the Supplementary Appendix.)
Total costs of the HCV components of the program were calculated to estimate costs of identifying a seropositive patient and a patient with viremia. Costs of cure per patient were also estimated.
Details of data that were collected and analyzed are provided in the Supplementary Appendix. The following were calculated at country, state, and district levels: the percentage of persons in the target population who participated in screening and the prevalence of HCV seropositivity among persons screened for HCV antibodies. Confidence intervals for percentages were calculated with the use of the Wilson method in R software, version 3.6.1.
Results in each state and district were compared and analyzed according to sex, age group, and urban or rural residence. State-level prevalence was compared with that in the most latest nationwide survey, the 2015 DHS.7 Different geographic regions as detailed in Table S1 were compared. For patients with complete data, we analyzed data available as of September 30, 2019, regarding the outcome of evaluation of seropositive patients and the outcome of treatment (incidence of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after completion of treatment).
All analyses were performed with the use of IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 25.0. All tests of significance were two-sided, and a P value of less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.