Are Systemic Design Methods Excluding People with Learning Disabilities?

This presentation aims to present an inclusive research protocol to enable the participation of people with learning disabilities to codesign Artificial Intelligence healthcare systems scenarios and reflect on how some groups of populations have been excluded while participatory systems thinking approaches/methods have been conceptualised and applied. A succinct review of systems thinking methods (i.e., systems mapping, ecosystems scenarios and patients’ journeys) will be presented and reflect on how inclusive they are. Next, the protocol followed in an ongoing project that explores the integration of Artificial Intelligence for codesigning a joined-up healthcare model for people with learning disabilities will be presented. This protocol describes a methodology that introduces and adjusts some systems thinking methods to meet the needs of people with learning disabilities to become active participants in sessions with multiple stakeholders (e.g., health and social care professionals, policymakers and tech innovators, among others). The presentation will emphasise the ethical considerations for recruitment and consent, adjustments for reducing the cognitive workload of methods, environmental aspects to ensure participants’ wellbeing, follow-up actions for long-term engagement and meaningful contributions and building up learnings to increase ‘complexity’ and independence. The presentation will conclude with a reflection on how these adjustments and considerations could be adopted in other approaches, methods and techniques to demystify the complexity of systems thinking methods and contribute to enabling more inclusive research practices. This inclusive perspective promotes the integration of diverse actors, especially those that have remained excluded from the mainstream methodological approaches to achieve genuine participation within a systems thinking approac

ROLE OF PERIPHERALLY EXPRESSED CALCIUM-PERMEABLE AMPA RECEPTORS IN CHRONIC INFLAMMATORY PAIN

Aim of Investigation: Mechanisms underlying chronic, pathological pain are not well-understood. Plasticity in peripheral nociceptors and their synapses with spinal neurons can serve as a cellular basis for the development and maintenance of chronic pain following inflammation or nerve injury. Although there are anatomical evidence for the expression of \u3b1-Amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid\u2013type (AMPA-type) glutamate receptors (AMPARs) in the peripheral nervous system, either their role in chronic pain or their relative contribution of peripheral versus central in chronic pain is unknown. To elucidate the function of AMPARs expressed in peripheral nociceptive neurons in pain modulation, we generated a conditional knock-out mouse lacking GluA1 or GluA2 subunit of AMPA receptors specifically in nociceptors, while preserving their expression in the spinal cord and brain using cre-lox recombinase system under the control of Nav1.8 promoter. Methods: All animal experiments were approved by the local ethical committee (Regierungspr\ue4sidium Karlsruhe). Mice lacking GluA1 or GluA2 specifically in peripheral nociceptors were generated using Cre-loxP mediated recombination system without affecting its expression in spinal cord and brain, being referred to as SNS-GluA1-/-or SNS-GluA2-/-. Chronic pain hypersensitivity and underlying mechanisms in these mice were tested using a combination of molecular, biochemical, electrophysiological and behavioral analyses. Pain models used in this study includes; capsaicin test, Formalin test, Complete Freund's adjuvant and knee arthritis inflammatory pain models. Results: In this study, we established the role of AMPA receptors located at the peripheral side of the pain pathway in physiological and inflammatory pain states. To this end, we deleted individual subunits and this approach affects the activation, gating, signaling properties of the AMPA receptors without deleting the function of AMPA receptors completely. Interestingly, we observed that the deletion of GluRA1 but not GluRA2 affected the role of AMPA receptor in pain processing. Deletion of GluRA1 reduced the calcium influx triggered by its native agonist, glutamate, by 50%. It also decreases the excitability of nerve fibers in response to exposure of peripheral terminals to different algogens. In contrast, GluRA1 is also contributing to depression of neurotransmitter release in central terminals of nociceptors. Nonetheless, the overall in vivo contributions of GluRA1 at peripheral and central terminals of nociceptors clearly emerged as a pronociceptive, sensitizing role for GluA1-containing AMPARs in inflammatory hyperalgesia. Conclusions: In summary, the results of this study demonstrate an important contribution of GluA1-containing calcium-permeable AMPARs expressed in the peripheral nervous system in modulating the activation properties of nociceptive neurons in response to algogens or in an inflammatory milieu. Furthermore, these findings clearly elucidated and delineated the central versus peripheral components of actions of calcium permeable AMPA receptor in chronic pain. This distinction is clinically very important because if chronic pain is completely centralized, therapeutic approaches targeting peripheral mechanisms are unlikely to be therapeutically beneficial. Conversely, if the peripheral contribution is strong, targeting peripheral mechanisms are offers the unique advantage of bypassing deleterious side effects

Peripheral calcium-permeable AMPA receptors regulate chronic inflammatory pain in mice

alpha-Amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid-type (AMPA-type) glutamate receptors (AMPARs) play an important role in plasticity at central synapses. Although there is anatomical evidence for AMPAR expression in the peripheral nervous system, the functional role of such receptors in vivo is not clear. To address this issue, we generated mice specifically lacking either of the key AMPAR subunits, GluA1 or GluA2, in peripheral, pain-sensing neurons (nociceptors), while preserving expression of these subunits in the central nervous system. Nociceptor-specific deletion of GluA1 led to disruption of calcium permeability and reduced capsaicin-evoked activation of nociceptors. Deletion of GluA1, but not GluA2, led to reduced mechanical hypersensitivity and sensitization in models of chronic inflammatory pain and arthritis. Further analysis revealed that GluA1-containing AMPARs regulated the responses of nociceptors to painful stimuli in inflamed tissues and controlled the excitatory drive from the periphery into the spinal cord. Consequently, peripherally applied AMPAR antagonists alleviated inflammatory pain by specifically blocking calcium-permeable AMPARs, without affecting physiological pain or eliciting central side effects. These findings indicate an important pathophysiological role for calcium-permeable AMPARs in nociceptors and may have therapeutic implications for the treatment chronic inflammatory pain states

Efficacy and safety of sparsentan versus irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy (PROTECT): 2-year results from a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial

BackgroundSparsentan, a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist, significantly reduced proteinuria versus irbesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, at 36 weeks (primary endpoint) in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy in the phase 3 PROTECT trial's previously reported interim analysis. Here, we report kidney function and outcomes over 110 weeks from the double-blind final analysis.MethodsPROTECT, a double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, was done across 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries throughout the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy-proven primary IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of at least 1·0 g per day despite maximised renin–angiotensin system inhibition for at least 12 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sparsentan (target dose 400 mg oral sparsentan once daily) or irbesartan (target dose 300 mg oral irbesartan once daily) based on a permuted-block randomisation method. The primary endpoint was proteinuria change between treatment groups at 36 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of change (slope) of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), changes in proteinuria, a composite of kidney failure (confirmed 40% eGFR reduction, end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality), and safety and tolerability up to 110 weeks from randomisation. Secondary efficacy outcomes were assessed in the full analysis set and safety was assessed in the safety set, both of which were defined as all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of randomly assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850.FindingsBetween Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 203 patients were randomly assigned to the sparsentan group and 203 to the irbesartan group. One patient from each group did not receive the study drug and was excluded from the efficacy and safety analyses (282 [70%] of 404 included patients were male and 272 [67%] were White) . Patients in the sparsentan group had a slower rate of eGFR decline than those in the irbesartan group. eGFR chronic 2-year slope (weeks 6–110) was −2·7 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·8 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·1 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI 0·1 to 2·1; p=0·037); total 2-year slope (day 1–week 110) was −2·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·0 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI −0·03 to 1·94; p=0·058). The significant reduction in proteinuria at 36 weeks with sparsentan was maintained throughout the study period; at 110 weeks, proteinuria, as determined by the change from baseline in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, was 40% lower in the sparsentan group than in the irbesartan group (−42·8%, 95% CI −49·8 to −35·0, with sparsentan versus −4·4%, −15·8 to 8·7, with irbesartan; geometric least-squares mean ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·50 to 0·72). The composite kidney failure endpoint was reached by 18 (9%) of 202 patients in the sparsentan group versus 26 (13%) of 202 patients in the irbesartan group (relative risk 0·7, 95% CI 0·4 to 1·2). Treatment-emergent adverse events were well balanced between sparsentan and irbesartan, with no new safety signals.InterpretationOver 110 weeks, treatment with sparsentan versus maximally titrated irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy resulted in significant reductions in proteinuria and preservation of kidney function

Sparsentan in patients with IgA nephropathy: a prespecified interim analysis from a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial

Background: Sparsentan is a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin and angiotensin receptor antagonist being examined in an ongoing phase 3 trial in adults with IgA nephropathy. We report the prespecified interim analysis of the primary proteinuria efficacy endpoint, and safety. Methods: PROTECT is an international, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled study, being conducted in 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries. The study examines sparsentan versus irbesartan in adults (aged ≥18 years) with biopsy-proven IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of 1·0 g/day or higher despite maximised renin-angiotensin system inhibitor treatment for at least 12 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sparsentan 400 mg once daily or irbesartan 300 mg once daily, stratified by estimated glomerular filtration rate at screening (30 to 1·75 g/day). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 36 in urine protein-creatinine ratio based on a 24-h urine sample, assessed using mixed model repeated measures. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were safety endpoints. All endpoints were examined in all participants who received at least one dose of randomised treatment. The study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings: Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 404 participants were randomly assigned to sparsentan (n=202) or irbesartan (n=202) and received treatment. At week 36, the geometric least squares mean percent change from baseline in urine protein-creatinine ratio was statistically significantly greater in the sparsentan group (-49·8%) than the irbesartan group (-15·1%), resulting in a between-group relative reduction of 41% (least squares mean ratio=0·59; 95% CI 0·51-0·69; p<0·0001). TEAEs with sparsentan were similar to irbesartan. There were no cases of severe oedema, heart failure, hepatotoxicity, or oedema-related discontinuations. Bodyweight changes from baseline were not different between the sparsentan and irbesartan groups. Interpretation: Once-daily treatment with sparsentan produced meaningful reduction in proteinuria compared with irbesartan in adults with IgA nephropathy. Safety of sparsentan was similar to irbesartan. Future analyses after completion of the 2-year double-blind period will show whether these beneficial effects translate into a long-term nephroprotective potential of sparsentan. Funding: Travere Therapeutics

Efficacy and safety of sparsentan versus irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy (PROTECT): 2-year results from a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background Sparsentan, a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist, significantly reduced proteinuria versus irbesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, at 36 weeks (primary endpoint) in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy in the phase 3 PROTECT trial's previously reported interim analysis. Here, we report kidney function and outcomes over 110 weeks from the double-blind final analysis. Methods PROTECT, a double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, was done across 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries throughout the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy-proven primary IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of at least 1·0 g per day despite maximised renin–angiotensin system inhibition for at least 12 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sparsentan (target dose 400 mg oral sparsentan once daily) or irbesartan (target dose 300 mg oral irbesartan once daily) based on a permuted-block randomisation method. The primary endpoint was proteinuria change between treatment groups at 36 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of change (slope) of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), changes in proteinuria, a composite of kidney failure (confirmed 40% eGFR reduction, end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality), and safety and tolerability up to 110 weeks from randomisation. Secondary efficacy outcomes were assessed in the full analysis set and safety was assessed in the safety set, both of which were defined as all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of randomly assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 203 patients were randomly assigned to the sparsentan group and 203 to the irbesartan group. One patient from each group did not receive the study drug and was excluded from the efficacy and safety analyses (282 [70%] of 404 included patients were male and 272 [67%] were White) . Patients in the sparsentan group had a slower rate of eGFR decline than those in the irbesartan group. eGFR chronic 2-year slope (weeks 6–110) was −2·7 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·8 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·1 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI 0·1 to 2·1; p=0·037); total 2-year slope (day 1–week 110) was −2·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·0 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI −0·03 to 1·94; p=0·058). The significant reduction in proteinuria at 36 weeks with sparsentan was maintained throughout the study period; at 110 weeks, proteinuria, as determined by the change from baseline in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, was 40% lower in the sparsentan group than in the irbesartan group (−42·8%, 95% CI −49·8 to −35·0, with sparsentan versus −4·4%, −15·8 to 8·7, with irbesartan; geometric least-squares mean ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·50 to 0·72). The composite kidney failure endpoint was reached by 18 (9%) of 202 patients in the sparsentan group versus 26 (13%) of 202 patients in the irbesartan group (relative risk 0·7, 95% CI 0·4 to 1·2). Treatment-emergent adverse events were well balanced between sparsentan and irbesartan, with no new safety signals. Interpretation Over 110 weeks, treatment with sparsentan versus maximally titrated irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy resulted in significant reductions in proteinuria and preservation of kidney function.</p