Collaboration patterns as a function of article genre among mixed researchers: a mixed methods bibliometric study.

Surprisingly, scant information exists regarding the collaboration patterns of mixed methods researchers. Thus, the purpose of this mixed methods bibliometric study was to examine (a) the distribution of the number of co-authors in articles published in the flagship mixed methods research journal (i.e., "Journal of Mixed Methods Research" ["JMMR"]) as a function of article genre (Quantitative Phase); (b) the relationship between the genre of articles published in "JMMR" and degree of collaboration in these articles (Quantitative Phase); (c) the difference between the number of authors in empirical research articles and non-empirical research articles published in "JMMR" (Quantitative Phase); and (d) select leading mixed methods researchers' collaboration experiences as a function of genre of article (Qualitative Phase). An analysis of all articles published in "JMMR" from 2007 (its inception) to 2015 (the latest complete year at the time that the study was conducted) revealed (a) a statistically significantly higher proportion of empirical research articles (63.2%) than non-empirical research articles (36.8%), (b) that empirical research articles were 1.4 times (95% confidence interval = 1.10, 1.78) more likely to involve multiple authors than were non-empirical research articles; and (c) that empirical research articles contained statistically significantly more authors than did non-empirical research articles. With respect to the qualitative phase, four themes (i.e., mental perception, mixed methods research, publication and research aids, and independent/group work) emerged regarding collaboration for empirical articles versus for non-empirical research articles. Implications of these findings are discussed

Safety and Tolerability of SRX246, a Vasopressin 1a Antagonist, in Irritable Huntington\u27s Disease Patients-A Randomized Phase 2 Clinical Trial.

SRX246 is a vasopressin (AVP) 1a receptor antagonist that crosses the blood-brain barrier. It reduced impulsive aggression, fear, depression and anxiety in animal models, blocked the actions of intranasal AVP on aggression/fear circuits in an experimental medicine fMRI study and demonstrated excellent safety in Phase 1 multiple-ascending dose clinical trials. The present study was a 3-arm, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, 12-week, dose escalation study of SRX246 in early symptomatic Huntington\u27s disease (HD) patients with irritability. Our goal was to determine whether SRX246 was safe and well tolerated in these HD patients given its potential use for the treatment of problematic neuropsychiatric symptoms. Participants were randomized to receive placebo or to escalate to 120 mg twice daily or 160 mg twice daily doses of SRX246. Assessments included standard safety tests, the Unified Huntington\u27s Disease Rating Scale (UHDRS), and exploratory measures of problem behaviors. The groups had comparable demographics, features of HD and baseline irritability. Eighty-two out of 106 subjects randomized completed the trial on their assigned dose of drug. One-sided exact-method confidence interval tests were used to reject the null hypothesis of inferior tolerability or safety for each dose group vs. placebo. Apathy and suicidality were not affected by SRX246. Most adverse events in the active arms were considered unlikely to be related to SRX246. The compound was safe and well tolerated in HD patients and can be moved forward as a candidate to treat irritability and aggression

Polk-Atkinson House

The Polk-Atkinson House is located on the south side of Fieldsboro Road, approximately 0.5 miles west of its intersection with Taylors Bridge Landing Road (State Route 9), in Appoquinimink Hundred, New Castle County, Delaware. The house is all that remains of the farm complex that once supported a roughly 300-acre farming operation. The outbuildings were removed in the fall of 2005, prior to the documentation process. The house sits on a lot within the subdivision of Odessa National, which is currently under construction

Prospective biomarker study in newly diagnosed glioblastoma: Cyto-C clinical trial.

Background: Glioblastoma (GBM) has a 5-year survival rate of 3%-5%. GBM treatment includes maximal resection followed by radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ). Cytochrome C oxidase (CcO) is a mitochondrial enzyme involved in the mechanism of resistance to TMZ. In a prior retrospective trial, CcO activity in GBMs inversely correlated with clinical outcome. The current Cyto-C study was designed to prospectively evaluate and validate the prognostic value of tumor CcO activity in patients with newly diagnosed primary GBM, and compared to the known prognostic value of MGMT promoter methylation status. Methods: This multi-institutional, blinded, prospective biomarker study enrolled 152 patients with newly diagnosed GBM who were to undergo surgical resection and would be candidates for standard of care. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) time, and the secondary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) time. Tumor CcO activity and MGMT promoter methylation status were assayed in a centralized laboratory. Results: OS and PFS did not differ by high or low tumor CcO activity, and the prognostic validity of MGMT promoter methylation was confirmed. Notably, a planned exploratory analysis suggested that the combination of low CcO activity and MGMT promoter methylation in tumors may be predictive of long-term survival. Conclusions: Tumor CcO activity alone was not confirmed as a prognostic marker in GBM patients. However, the combination of low CcO activity and methylated MGMT promoter may reveal a subgroup of GBM patients with improved long-term survival that warrants further evaluation. Our work also demonstrates the importance of performing large, multi-institutional, prospective studies to validate biomarkers. We also discuss lessons learned in assembling such studies

Safety and Tolerability of SRX246, a Vasopressin 1a Antagonist, in Irritable Huntington’s Disease Patients—A Randomized Phase 2 Clinical Trial

SRX246 is a vasopressin (AVP) 1a receptor antagonist that crosses the blood-brain barrier. It reduced impulsive aggression, fear, depression and anxiety in animal models, blocked the actions of intranasal AVP on aggression/fear circuits in an experimental medicine fMRI study and demonstrated excellent safety in Phase 1 multiple-ascending dose clinical trials. The present study was a 3-arm, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, 12-week, dose escalation study of SRX246 in early symptomatic Huntington’s disease (HD) patients with irritability. Our goal was to determine whether SRX246 was safe and well tolerated in these HD patients given its potential use for the treatment of problematic neuropsychiatric symptoms. Participants were randomized to receive placebo or to escalate to 120 mg twice daily or 160 mg twice daily doses of SRX246. Assessments included standard safety tests, the Unified Huntington’s Disease Rating Scale (UHDRS), and exploratory measures of problem behaviors. The groups had comparable demographics, features of HD and baseline irritability. Eighty-two out of 106 subjects randomized completed the trial on their assigned dose of drug. One-sided exact-method confidence interval tests were used to reject the null hypothesis of inferior tolerability or safety for each dose group vs. placebo. Apathy and suicidality were not affected by SRX246. Most adverse events in the active arms were considered unlikely to be related to SRX246. The compound was safe and well tolerated in HD patients and can be moved forward as a candidate to treat irritability and aggression

Seven-Year Experience From the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke-Supported Network for Excellence in Neuroscience Clinical Trials.

Importance: One major advantage of developing large, federally funded networks for clinical research in neurology is the ability to have a trial-ready network that can efficiently conduct scientifically rigorous projects to improve the health of people with neurologic disorders. Observations: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Network for Excellence in Neuroscience Clinical Trials (NeuroNEXT) was established in 2011 and renewed in 2018 with the goal of being an efficient network to test between 5 and 7 promising new agents in phase II clinical trials. A clinical coordinating center, data coordinating center, and 25 sites were competitively chosen. Common infrastructure was developed to accelerate timelines for clinical trials, including central institutional review board (a first for the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke), master clinical trial agreements, the use of common data elements, and experienced research sites and coordination centers. During the first 7 years, the network exceeded the goal of conducting 5 to 7 studies, with 9 funded. High interest was evident by receipt of 148 initial applications for potential studies in various neurologic disorders. Across the first 8 studies (the ninth study was funded at end of initial funding period), the central institutional review board approved the initial protocol in a mean (SD) of 59 (21) days, and additional sites were added a mean (SD) of 22 (18) days after submission. The median time from central institutional review board approval to first site activation was 47.5 days (mean, 102.1; range, 1-282) and from first site activation to first participant consent was 27 days (mean, 37.5; range, 0-96). The median time for database readiness was 3.5 months (mean, 4.0; range, 0-8) from funding receipt. In the 4 completed studies, enrollment met or exceeded expectations with 96% overall data accuracy across all sites. Nine peer-reviewed manuscripts were published, and 22 oral presentations or posters and 9 invited presentations were given at regional, national, and international meetings. Conclusions and Relevance: NeuroNEXT initiated 8 studies, successfully enrolled participants at or ahead of schedule, collected high-quality data, published primary results in high-impact journals, and provided mentorship, expert statistical, and trial management support to several new investigators. Partnerships were successfully created between government, academia, industry, foundations, and patient advocacy groups. Clinical trial consortia can efficiently and successfully address a range of important neurologic research and therapeutic questions