Structure, phase transformations, and defects of HfO₂ and ZrO₂ nanoparticles studied by ^(181)Ta and ^(111)Cd perturbed angular correlations, ^(1) H magic-angle spinning NMR, XPS, and x-ray and electron diffraction

Structure, phase transformations, grain growth, and defects of bare and alumina-coated nanoparticles of HfO₂ and ZrO₂ synthesized in a microwave-plasma process have been investigated by x-ray diffraction (XRD), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and perturbed angular correlation (PAC) spectroscopy. The PAC technique was used to measure the electric quadrupole interactions (QIs) of the nuclear probes ^(181)Ta and ^(111)Cd in nanocrystalline HfO₂ and ZrO₂ as a function of temperature. For comparison, the QI of ^(181)Ta in the bulk oxides was determined in the same temperature range 300 K ≤ T ≤ 1550 K. The oxygen-metal ratio of the as- ynthesized particles was determined by x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy to be in the range 1.4 ≤ x ≤ 1.8. A hydrate surface layer with a hydrogen content of 5–10 wt %, consisting of chemisorbed hydroxyl groups and organic precursor fragments, was detected by ^(1) H magic-angle spinning NMR. XRD and TEM show that bare n-ZrO₂, Al₂O₃-coated n-ZrO₂, and Al₂O₃-coated n-HfO₂ are synthesized in the tetragonal or cubic modification with a particle size d < 5 nm, whereas bare n-HfO₂ is mainly monoclinic. The grain growth activation enthalpy of bare n-ZrO₂ is Q_(A)=32(5)kJ/mol. Coating with Al₂O₃ stabilizes the tetragonal over the monoclinic phase, both in hafnia and zirconia nanoparticles. While TEM micrographs of the native nanoparticles reveal a well-ordered cation sublattice, the observation of a broad QI distribution in the PAC spectra suggests a high degree of disorder of the oxygen sublattice. The gradual transformation of the disordered state and the phase evolution were studied by high-temperature QI measurements. Hafnia nanoparticles persist in the monoclinic (m) phase up to T ≤ 1400 K. In coated n-ZrO₂ /Al₂O₃, the monoclinic and tetragonal (t) phases coexist over a large temperature range, whereas uncoated, initially tetragonal or cubic (t or c) n-ZrO₂ presents a sharp m↔t transition. A “defect” component involving 30%–40% of the probe nuclei appears in the ^(181)Ta PAC spectra of all nanoparticles when these are cooled from high temperatures T ≥ 1200 K. The temperature dependence of this component can be reproduced by assuming that Ta impurities in hafnia and zirconia may trap electrons at low temperatures. The observation that the defect component appears only in nanoparticles with diameter d < 100 nm suggests that mobile electrons are available only in the surface region of the oxide particles, either from oxygen vacancies (Vo) and/or Vo- hydrogen donors at the interface of the nanoparticles and their hydrate layers. This conclusion is supported by the absence of a size effect for ^(111)Cd probes in HfO₂ and ZrO₂. The temperature dependence of the ^(181)Ta defect fraction is consistent with a Ta_(+) impurity level at E_d ~ 0.9 and 0.6 eV below the hafnia and zirconia conduction band, respectively

Dual checkpoint blockade of CD47 and LILRB1 enhances CD20 antibody-dependent phagocytosis of lymphoma cells by macrophages

Antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis (ADCP) by macrophages, an important effector function of tumor targeting antibodies, is hampered by ‘Don´t Eat Me!’ signals such as CD47 expressed by cancer cells. Yet, human leukocyte antigen (HLA) class I expression may also impair ADCP by engaging leukocyte immunoglobulin-like receptor subfamily B (LILRB) member 1 (LILRB1) or LILRB2. Analysis of different lymphoma cell lines revealed that the ratio of CD20 to HLA class I cell surface molecules determined the sensitivity to ADCP by the combination of rituximab and an Fc-silent variant of the CD47 antibody magrolimab (CD47-IgGσ). To boost ADCP, Fc-silent antibodies against LILRB1 and LILRB2 were generated (LILRB1-IgGσ and LILRB2-IgGσ, respectively). While LILRB2-IgGσ was not effective, LILRB1-IgGσ significantly enhanced ADCP of lymphoma cell lines when combined with both rituximab and CD47-IgGσ. LILRB1-IgGσ promoted serial engulfment of lymphoma cells and potentiated ADCP by non-polarized M0 as well as polarized M1 and M2 macrophages, but required CD47 co-blockade and the presence of the CD20 antibody. Importantly, complementing rituximab and CD47-IgGσ, LILRB1-IgGσ increased ADCP of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or lymphoma cells isolated from patients. Thus, dual checkpoint blockade of CD47 and LILRB1 may be promising to improve antibody therapy of CLL and lymphomas through enhancing ADCP by macrophages

Proceedings of the 3rd Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) 2015: advancing efficient methodologies through community partnerships and team science : Seattle, WA, USA. 24-26 September 2015.

Introduction to the 3rd Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration: advancing efficient methodologies through team science and community partnerships Cara Lewis, Doyanne Darnell, Suzanne Kerns, Maria Monroe-DeVita, Sara J. Landes, Aaron R. Lyon, Cameo Stanick, Shannon Dorsey, Jill Locke, Brigid Marriott, Ajeng Puspitasari, Caitlin Dorsey, Karin Hendricks, Andria Pierson, Phil Fizur, Katherine A. Comtois A1: A behavioral economic perspective on adoption, implementation, and sustainment of evidence-based interventions Lawrence A. Palinkas A2: Towards making scale up of evidence-based practices in child welfare systems more efficient and affordable Patricia Chamberlain A3: Mixed method examination of strategic leadership for evidence-based practice implementation Gregory A. Aarons, Amy E. Green, Mark. G. Ehrhart, Elise M. Trott, Cathleen E. Willging A4: Implementing practice change in Federally Qualified Health Centers: Learning from leaders’ experiences Maria E. Fernandez, Nicholas H. Woolf, Shuting (Lily) Liang, Natalia I. Heredia, Michelle Kegler, Betsy Risendal, Andrea Dwyer, Vicki Young, Dayna Campbell, Michelle Carvalho, Yvonne Kellar-Guenther A3: Mixed method examination of strategic leadership for evidence-based practice implementation Gregory A. Aarons, Amy E. Green, Mark. G. Ehrhart, Elise M. Trott, Cathleen E. Willging A4: Implementing practice change in Federally Qualified Health Centers: Learning from leaders’ experiences Maria E. Fernandez, Nicholas H. Woolf, Shuting (Lily) Liang, Natalia I. Heredia, Michelle Kegler, Betsy Risendal, Andrea Dwyer, Vicki Young, Dayna Campbell, Michelle Carvalho, Yvonne Kellar-Guenther A5: Efficient synthesis: Using qualitative comparative analysis and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research across diverse studies Laura J. Damschroder, Julie C. Lowery A6: Establishing a veterans engagement group to empower patients and inform Veterans Affairs (VA) health services research Sarah S. Ono, Kathleen F. Carlson, Erika K. Cottrell, Maya E. O’Neil, Travis L. Lovejoy A7: Building patient-practitioner partnerships in community oncology settings to implement behavioral interventions for anxious and depressed cancer survivors Joanna J. Arch, Jill L. Mitchell A8: Tailoring a Cognitive Behavioral Therapy implementation protocol using mixed methods, conjoint analysis, and implementation teams Cara C. Lewis, Brigid R. Marriott, Kelli Scott A9: Wraparound Structured Assessment and Review (WrapSTAR): An efficient, yet comprehensive approach to Wraparound implementation evaluation Jennifer Schurer Coldiron, Eric J. Bruns, Alyssa N. Hook A10: Improving the efficiency of standardized patient assessment of clinician fidelity: A comparison of automated actor-based and manual clinician-based ratings Benjamin C. Graham, Katelin Jordan A11: Measuring fidelity on the cheap Rochelle F. Hanson, Angela Moreland, Benjamin E. Saunders, Heidi S. Resnick A12: Leveraging routine clinical materials to assess fidelity to an evidence-based psychotherapy Shannon Wiltsey Stirman, Cassidy A. Gutner, Jennifer Gamarra, Dawne Vogt, Michael Suvak, Jennifer Schuster Wachen, Katherine Dondanville, Jeffrey S. Yarvis, Jim Mintz, Alan L. Peterson, Elisa V. Borah, Brett T. Litz, Alma Molino, Stacey Young McCaughanPatricia A. Resick A13: The video vignette survey: An efficient process for gathering diverse community opinions to inform an intervention Nancy Pandhi, Nora Jacobson, Neftali Serrano, Armando Hernandez, Elizabeth Zeidler- Schreiter, Natalie Wietfeldt, Zaher Karp A14: Using integrated administrative data to evaluate implementation of a behavioral health and trauma screening for children and youth in foster care Michael D. Pullmann, Barbara Lucenko, Bridget Pavelle, Jacqueline A. Uomoto, Andrea Negrete, Molly Cevasco, Suzanne E. U. Kerns A15: Intermediary organizations as a vehicle to promote efficiency and speed of implementation Robert P. Franks, Christopher Bory A16: Applying the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research constructs directly to qualitative data: The power of implementation science in action Edward J. Miech, Teresa M. Damush A17: Efficient and effective scaling-up, screening, brief interventions, and referrals to treatment (SBIRT) training: a snowball implementation model Jason Satterfield, Derek Satre, Maria Wamsley, Patrick Yuan, Patricia O’Sullivan A18: Matching models of implementation to system needs and capacities: addressing the human factor Helen Best, Susan Velasquez A19: Agency characteristics that facilitate efficient and successful implementation efforts Miya Barnett, Lauren Brookman-Frazee, Jennifer Regan, Nicole Stadnick, Alison Hamilton, Anna Lau A20: Rapid assessment process: Application to the Prevention and Early Intervention transformation in Los Angeles County Jennifer Regan, Alison Hamilton, Nicole Stadnick, Miya Barnett, Anna Lau, Lauren Brookman-Frazee A21: The development of the Evidence-Based Practice-Concordant Care Assessment: An assessment tool to examine treatment strategies across practices Nicole Stadnick, Anna Lau, Miya Barnett, Jennifer Regan, Scott Roesch, Lauren Brookman-Frazee A22: Refining a compilation of discrete implementation strategies and determining their importance and feasibility Byron J. Powell, Thomas J. Waltz, Matthew J. Chinman, Laura Damschroder, Jeffrey L. Smith, Monica M. Matthieu, Enola K. Proctor, JoAnn E. Kirchner A23: Structuring complex recommendations: Methods and general findings Thomas J. Waltz, Byron J. Powell, Matthew J. Chinman, Laura J. Damschroder, Jeffrey L. Smith, Monica J. Matthieu, Enola K. Proctor, JoAnn E. Kirchner A24: Implementing prolonged exposure for post-traumatic stress disorder in the Department of Veterans Affairs: Expert recommendations from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project Monica M. Matthieu, Craig S. Rosen, Thomas J. Waltz, Byron J. Powell, Matthew J. Chinman, Laura J. Damschroder, Jeffrey L. Smith, Enola K. Proctor, JoAnn E. Kirchner A25: When readiness is a luxury: Co-designing a risk assessment and quality assurance process with violence prevention frontline workers in Seattle, WA Sarah C. Walker, Asia S. Bishop, Mariko Lockhart A26: Implementation potential of structured recidivism risk assessments with justice- involved veterans: Qualitative perspectives from providers Allison L. Rodriguez, Luisa Manfredi, Andrea Nevedal, Joel Rosenthal, Daniel M. Blonigen A27: Developing empirically informed readiness measures for providers and agencies for the Family Check-Up using a mixed methods approach Anne M. Mauricio, Thomas D. Dishion, Jenna Rudo-Stern, Justin D. Smith A28: Pebbles, rocks, and boulders: The implementation of a school-based social engagement intervention for children with autism Jill Locke, Courtney Benjamin Wolk, Colleen Harker, Anne Olsen, Travis Shingledecker, Frances Barg, David Mandell, Rinad S. Beidas A29: Problem Solving Teletherapy (PST.Net): A stakeholder analysis examining the feasibility and acceptability of teletherapy in community based aging services Marissa C. Hansen, Maria P. Aranda, Isabel Torres-Vigil A30: A case of collaborative intervention design eventuating in behavior therapy sustainment and diffusion Bryan Hartzler A31: Implementation of suicide risk prevention in an integrated delivery system: Mental health specialty services Bradley Steinfeld, Tory Gildred, Zandrea Harlin, Fredric Shephard A32: Implementation team, checklist, evaluation, and feedback (ICED): A step-by-step approach to Dialectical Behavior Therapy program implementation Matthew S. Ditty, Andrea Doyle, John A. Bickel III, Katharine Cristaudo A33: The challenges in implementing muliple evidence-based practices in a community mental health setting Dan Fox, Sonia Combs A34: Using electronic health record technology to promote and support evidence-based practice assessment and treatment intervention David H. Lischner A35: Are existing frameworks adequate for measuring implementation outcomes? Results from a new simulation methodology Richard A. Van Dorn, Stephen J. Tueller, Jesse M. Hinde, Georgia T. Karuntzos A36: Taking global local: Evaluating training of Washington State clinicians in a modularized cogntive behavioral therapy approach designed for low-resource settings Maria Monroe-DeVita, Roselyn Peterson, Doyanne Darnell, Lucy Berliner, Shannon Dorsey, Laura K. Murray A37: Attitudes toward evidence-based practices across therapeutic orientations Yevgeny Botanov, Beverly Kikuta, Tianying Chen, Marivi Navarro-Haro, Anthony DuBose, Kathryn E. Korslund, Marsha M. Linehan A38: Predicting the use of an evidence-based intervention for autism in birth-to-three programs Colleen M. Harker, Elizabeth A. Karp, Sarah R. Edmunds, Lisa V. Ibañez, Wendy L. Stone A39: Supervision practices and improved fidelity across evidence-based practices: A literature review Mimi Choy-Brown A40: Beyond symptom tracking: clinician perceptions of a hybrid measurement feedback system for monitoring treatment fidelity and client progress Jack H. Andrews, Benjamin D. Johnides, Estee M. Hausman, Kristin M. Hawley A41: A guideline decision support tool: From creation to implementation Beth Prusaczyk, Alex Ramsey, Ana Baumann, Graham Colditz, Enola K. Proctor A42: Dabblers, bedazzlers, or total makeovers: Clinician modification of a common elements cognitive behavioral therapy approach Rosemary D. Meza, Shannon Dorsey, Shannon Wiltsey-Stirman, Georganna Sedlar, Leah Lucid A43: Characterization of context and its role in implementation: The impact of structure, infrastructure, and metastructure Caitlin Dorsey, Brigid Marriott, Nelson Zounlome, Cara Lewis A44: Effects of consultation method on implementation of cognitive processing therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder Cassidy A. Gutner, Candice M. Monson, Norman Shields, Marta Mastlej, Meredith SH Landy, Jeanine Lane, Shannon Wiltsey Stirman A45: Cross-validation of the Implementation Leadership Scale factor structure in child welfare service organizations Natalie K. Finn, Elisa M. Torres, Mark. G. Ehrhart, Gregory A. Aarons A46: Sustainability of integrated smoking cessation care in Veterans Affairs posttraumatic stress disorder clinics: A qualitative analysis of focus group data from learning collaborative participants Carol A. Malte, Aline Lott, Andrew J. Saxon A47: Key characteristics of effective mental health trainers: The creation of the Measure of Effective Attributes of Trainers (MEAT) Meredith Boyd, Kelli Scott, Cara C. Lewis A48: Coaching to improve teacher implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) Jennifer D. Pierce A49: Factors influencing the implementation of peer-led health promotion programs targeting seniors: A literature review Agathe Lorthios-Guilledroit, Lucie Richard, Johanne Filiatrault A50: Developing treatment fidelity rating systems for psychotherapy research: Recommendations and lessons learned Kevin Hallgren, Shirley Crotwell, Rosa Muñoz, Becky Gius, Benjamin Ladd, Barbara McCrady, Elizabeth Epstein A51: Rapid translation of alcohol prevention science John D. Clapp, Danielle E. Ruderman A52: Factors implicated in successful implementation: evidence to inform improved implementation from high and low-income countries Melanie Barwick, Raluca Barac, Stanley Zlotkin, Laila Salim, Marnie Davidson A53: Tracking implementation strategies prospectively: A practical approach Alicia C. Bunger, Byron J. Powell, Hillary A. Robertson A54: Trained but not implementing: the need for effective implementation planning tools Christopher Botsko A55: Evidence, context, and facilitation variables related to implementation of Dialectical Behavior Therapy: Qualitative results from a mixed methods inquiry in the Department of Veterans Affairs Sara J. Landes, Brandy N. Smith, Allison L. Rodriguez, Lindsay R. Trent, Monica M. Matthieu A56: Learning from implementation as usual in children’s mental health Byron J. Powell, Enola K. Proctor A57: Rates and predictors of implementation after Dialectical Behavior Therapy Intensive Training Melanie S. Harned, Marivi Navarro-Haro, Kathryn E. Korslund, Tianying Chen, Anthony DuBose, André Ivanoff, Marsha M. Linehan A58: Socio-contextual determinants of research evidence use in public-youth systems of care Antonio R. Garcia, Minseop Kim, Lawrence A. Palinkas, Lonnie Snowden, John Landsverk A59: Community resource mapping to integrate evidence-based depression treatment in primary care in Brazil: A pilot project Annika C. Sweetland, Maria Jose Fernandes, Edilson Santos, Cristiane Duarte, Afrânio Kritski, Noa Krawczyk, Caitlin Nelligan, Milton L. Wainberg A60: The use of concept mapping to efficiently identify determinants of implementation in the National Institute of Health--President’s Emergent Plan for AIDS Relief Prevention of Mother to Child HIV Transmission Implementation Science Alliance Gregory A. Aarons, David H. Sommerfeld, Benjamin Chi, Echezona Ezeanolue, Rachel Sturke, Lydia Kline, Laura Guay, George Siberry A61: Longitudinal remote consultation for implementing collaborative care for depression Ian M. Bennett, Rinad Beidas, Rachel Gold, Johnny Mao, Diane Powers, Mindy Vredevoogd, Jurgen Unutzer A62: Integrating a peer coach model to support program implementation and ensure long- term sustainability of the Incredible Years in community-based settings Jennifer Schroeder, Lane Volpe, Julie Steffen A63: Efficient sustainability: Existing community based supervisors as evidence-based treatment supports Shannon Dorsey, Michael D Pullmann, Suzanne E. U. Kerns, Nathaniel Jungbluth, Lucy Berliner, Kelly Thompson, Eliza Segell A64: Establishment of a national practice-based implementation network to accelerate adoption of evidence-based and best practices Pearl McGee-Vincent, Nancy Liu, Robyn Walser, Jennifer Runnals, R. Keith Shaw, Sara J. Landes, Craig Rosen, Janet Schmidt, Patrick Calhoun A65: Facilitation as a mechanism of implementation in a practice-based implementation network: Improving care in a Department of Veterans Affairs post-traumatic stress disorder outpatient clinic Ruth L. Varkovitzky, Sara J. Landes A66: The ACT SMART Toolkit: An implementation strategy for community-based organizations providing services to children with autism spectrum disorder Amy Drahota, Jonathan I. Martinez, Brigitte Brikho, Rosemary Meza, Aubyn C. Stahmer, Gregory A. Aarons A67: Supporting Policy In Health with Research: An intervention trial (SPIRIT) - protocol and early findings Anna Williamson A68: From evidence based practice initiatives to infrastructure: Lessons learned from a public behavioral health system’s efforts to promote evidence based practices Ronnie M. Rubin, Byron J. Powell, Matthew O. Hurford, Shawna L. Weaver, Rinad S. Beidas, David S. Mandell, Arthur C. Evans A69: Applying the policy ecology model to Philadelphia’s behavioral health transformation efforts Byron J. Powell, Rinad S. Beidas, Ronnie M. Rubin, Rebecca E. Stewart, Courtney Benjamin Wolk, Samantha L. Matlin, Shawna Weaver, Matthew O. Hurford, Arthur C. Evans, Trevor R. Hadley, David S. Mandell A70: A model for providing methodological expertise to advance dissemination and implementation of health discoveries in Clinical and Translational Science Award institutions Donald R. Gerke, Beth Prusaczyk, Ana Baumann, Ericka M. Lewis, Enola K. Proctor A71: Establishing a research agenda for the Triple P Implementation Framework Jenna McWilliam, Jacquie Brown, Michelle Tucker A72: Cheap and fast, but what is “best?”: Examining implementation outcomes across sites in a state-wide scaled-up evidence-based walking program, Walk With Ease Kathleen P Conte A73: Measurement feedback systems in mental health: Initial review of capabilities and characteristics Aaron R. Lyon, Meredith Boyd, Abigail Melvin, Cara C. Lewis, Freda Liu, Nathaniel Jungbluth A74: A qualitative investigation of case managers’ attitudes toward implementation of a measurement feedback system in a public mental health system for youth Amelia Kotte, Kaitlin A. Hill, Albert C. Mah, Priya A. Korathu-Larson, Janelle R. Au, Sonia Izmirian, Scott Keir, Brad J. Nakamura, Charmaine K. Higa-McMillan A75: Multiple pathways to sustainability: Using Qualitative Comparative Analysis to uncover the necessary and sufficient conditions for successful community-based implementation Brittany Rhoades Cooper, Angie Funaiole, Eleanor Dizon A76: Prescribers’ perspectives on opioids and benzodiazepines and medication alerts to reduce co-prescribing of these medications Eric J. Hawkins, Carol A. Malte, Hildi J. Hagedorn, Douglas Berger, Anissa Frank, Aline Lott, Carol E. Achtmeyer, Anthony J. Mariano, Andrew J. Saxon A77: Adaptation of Coordinated Anxiety Learning and Management for comorbid anxiety and substance use disorders: Delivery of evidence-based treatment for anxiety in addictions treatment centers Kate Wolitzky-Taylor, Richard Rawson, Richard Ries, Peter Roy-Byrne, Michelle Craske A78: Opportunities and challenges of measuring program implementation with online surveys Dena Simmons, Catalina Torrente, Lori Nathanson, Grace Carroll A79: Observational assessment of fidelity to a family-centered prevention program: Effectiveness and efficiency Justin D. Smith, Kimbree Brown, Karina Ramos, Nicole Thornton, Thomas J. Dishion, Elizabeth A. Stormshak, Daniel S. Shaw, Melvin N. Wilson A80: Strategies and challenges in housing first fidelity: A multistate qualitative analysis Mimi Choy-Brown, Emmy Tiderington, Bikki Tran Smith, Deborah K. Padgett A81: Procurement and contracting as an implementation strategy: Getting To Outcomes® contracting Ronnie M. Rubin, Marilyn L. Ray, Abraham Wandersman, Andrea Lamont, Gordon Hannah, Kassandra A. Alia, Matthew O. Hurford, Arthur C. Evans A82: Web-based feedback to aid successful implementation: The interactive Stages of Implementation Completion (SIC)TM tool Lisa Saldana, Holle Schaper, Mark Campbell, Patricia Chamberlain A83: Efficient methodologies for monitoring fidelity in routine implementation: Lessons from the Allentown Social Emotional Learning Initiative Valerie B. Shapiro, B.K. Elizabeth Kim, Jennifer L. Fleming, Paul A. LeBuffe A84: The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) implementation development workshop: Results from a new methodology for enhancing implementation science proposals Sara J. Landes, Cara C. Lewis, Allison L. Rodriguez, Brigid R. Marriott, Katherine Anne Comtois A85: An update on the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) Instrument Review Projec

Proceedings of the 3rd Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) 2015: advancing efficient methodologies through community partnerships and team science

It is well documented that the majority of adults, children and families in need of evidence-based behavioral health interventionsi do not receive them [1, 2] and that few robust empirically supported methods for implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) exist. The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) represents a burgeoning effort to advance the innovation and rigor of implementation research and is uniquely focused on bringing together researchers and stakeholders committed to evaluating the implementation of complex evidence-based behavioral health interventions. Through its diverse activities and membership, SIRC aims to foster the promise of implementation research to better serve the behavioral health needs of the population by identifying rigorous, relevant, and efficient strategies that successfully transfer scientific evidence to clinical knowledge for use in real world settings [3]. SIRC began as a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-funded conference series in 2010 (previously titled the “Seattle Implementation Research Conference”; $150,000 USD for 3 conferences in 2011, 2013, and 2015) with the recognition that there were multiple researchers and stakeholdersi working in parallel on innovative implementation science projects in behavioral health, but that formal channels for communicating and collaborating with one another were relatively unavailable. There was a significant need for a forum within which implementation researchers and stakeholders could learn from one another, refine approaches to science and practice, and develop an implementation research agenda using common measures, methods, and research principles to improve both the frequency and quality with which behavioral health treatment implementation is evaluated. SIRC’s membership growth is a testament to this identified need with more than 1000 members from 2011 to the present.ii SIRC’s primary objectives are to: (1) foster communication and collaboration across diverse groups, including implementation researchers, intermediariesi, as well as community stakeholders (SIRC uses the term “EBP champions” for these groups) – and to do so across multiple career levels (e.g., students, early career faculty, established investigators); and (2) enhance and disseminate rigorous measures and methodologies for implementing EBPs and evaluating EBP implementation efforts. These objectives are well aligned with Glasgow and colleagues’ [4] five core tenets deemed critical for advancing implementation science: collaboration, efficiency and speed, rigor and relevance, improved capacity, and cumulative knowledge. SIRC advances these objectives and tenets through in-person conferences, which bring together multidisciplinary implementation researchers and those implementing evidence-based behavioral health interventions in the community to share their work and create professional connections and collaborations

A Phase i Study of an MPS1 Inhibitor (BAY 1217389) in Combination with Paclitaxel Using a Novel Randomized Continual Reassessment Method for Dose Escalation

Purpose: Monopolar spindle 1 (MPS1) kinase inhibitor, BAY 1217389 (BAY) synergizes with paclitaxel. This phase I study assessed the combination of BAY with paclitaxel using a novel randomized continuous reassessment method (rCRM) to improve dose determination. Patients and Methods: Patients with solid tumors were randomized to receive oralBAY(twice daily 2-days-on/5-days-off) withweekly paclitaxel (90 mg/m2) or paclitaxel monotherapy in cycle 1. Dose escalation was guided by CRM modeling. Primary objectives were to assess safety, establish the MTD of BAY, and to evaluate the pharmacokinetic profiles for both compounds. Simulations were performed to determine the contribution of the rCRM for dose determination. Results: In total, 75 patients were enrolled. The main doselimiting toxicities were hematologic toxicities (55.6%). The MTD of BAY was established at 64 mg twice daily with paclitaxel. Inclusion of a control arm enabled the definitive attribution of grade ≥3 neutropenia to higher BAY exposure [AUC0-12 (P< 0.001)]. After determining the MTD, we included 19 patients with breast cancer at this dose for dose expansion. Other common toxicities were nausea (45.3%), fatigue (41.3%), and diarrhea (40.0%). Overall confirmed responses were seen in 31.6% of evaluable patients. Simulations showed that rCRM outperforms traditional designs in determining the true MTD. Conclusions: The combination of BAY with paclitaxel was associated with considerable toxicity without a therapeutic window. However, the use of the rCRM design enabled us to determine the exposure-toxicity relation for BAY. Therefore, we propose that the rCRM could improve dose determination in phase I trials that combine agents with overlapping toxicities. _2021 American Association for Cancer Research

A prospective multicentre study of the epidemiology and outcomes of bloodstream infection in cirrhotic patients

ESGBIS/BICHROME Study Group: C. Campoli, G. Siccardi, S. Ambretti, A. Stallmach, M. Venditti, C. Lucidi, S. Ludovisi, M. De Cueto, M. D. Navarro, E. Lopez Cortes, E. Bouza, M. Valerio, A. Eworo, R. Losito, M. Senzolo, E. Nadal, A. Ottobrelli, M. Varguvic, C. Badia, G. Borgia, I. Gentile, A. R. Buonomo, E. Boumis, A. Beteta-Lopez, A. Rianda, G. Taliani, S. Grieco.[Objectives] To describe the current epidemiology of bloodstream infection (BSI) in patients with cirrhosis; and to analyse predictors of 30-day mortality and risk factors for antibiotic resistance.[Methods] Cirrhotic patients developing a BSI episode were prospectively included at 19 centres in five countries from September 2014 to December 2015. The discrimination of mortality risk scores for 30-day mortality were compared by area under the receiver operator risk and Cox regression models. Risk factors for multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) were assessed with a logistic regression model.[Results] We enrolled 312 patients. Gram-negative bacteria, Gram-positive bacteria and Candida spp. were the cause of BSI episodes in 53%, 47% and 7% of cases, respectively. The 30-day mortality rate was 25% and was best predicted by the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and Chronic Liver Failure–SOFA (CLIF-SOFA) score. In a Cox regression model, delayed (>24 hours) antibiotic treatment (hazard ratio (HR) 7.58; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.29–18.67; p < 0.001), inadequate empirical therapy (HR 3.14; 95% CI 1.93–5.12; p < 0.001) and CLIF-SOFA score (HR 1.35; 95% CI 1.28–1.43; p < 0.001) were independently associated with 30-day mortality. Independent risk factors for MDRO (31% of BSIs) were previous antimicrobial exposure (odds ratio (OR) 2.91; 95% CI 1.73–4.88; p < 0.001) and previous invasive procedures (OR 2.51; 95% CI 1.48–4.24; p 0.001), whereas spontaneous bacterial peritonitis as BSI source was associated with a lower odds of MDRO (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.12–0.73; p 0.008).[Conclusions] MDRO account for nearly one-third of BSI in cirrhotic patients, often resulting in delayed or inadequate empirical antimicrobial therapy and increased mortality rates. Our data suggest that improved prevention and treatment strategies for MDRO are urgently needed in the liver cirrhosis patients

Extended Infusion of beta-lactams for bloodstream infection in patients with liver cirrhosis: an observational multicenter study

For the ESGBIS/BICHROME study group.[Background] We analyzed the impact of continuous/extended infusion (C/EI) vs intermittent infusion of piperacillin-tazobactam (TZP) and carbapenems on 30-day mortality of patients with liver cirrhosis and bloodstream infection (BSI). [Methods] The BICRHOME study was a prospective, multicenter study that enrolled 312 cirrhotic patients with BSI. In this secondary analysis, we selected patients receiving TZP or carbapenems as adequate empirical treatment. The 30-day mortality of patients receiving C/EI or intermittent infusion of TZP or carbapenems was assessed with Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox-regression model, and estimation of the average treatment effect (ATE) using propensity score matching. [Results] Overall, 119 patients received TZP or carbapenems as empirical treatment. Patients who received C/EI had a significantly lower mortality rate (16% vs 36%, P = .047). In a Cox-regression model, the administration of C/EI was associated with a significantly lower mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11–0.936; P = .04) when adjusted for severity of illness and an ATE of 25.6% reduction in 30-day mortality risk (95% CI, 18.9–32.3; P < .0001) estimated with propensity score matching. A significant reduction in 30-day mortality was also observed in the subgroups of patients with sepsis (HR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06–0.74), acute-on-chronic liver failure (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.03–0.99), and a model for end-stage liver disease score ≥25 (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.08–0.92). At competing risk analysis, C/EI of beta-lactams was associated with significantly higher rates of hospital discharge (subdistribution hazard [95% CI], 1.62 [1.06–2.47]). [Conclusions] C/EI of beta-lactams in cirrhotic patients with BSI may improve outcomes and facilitate earlier discharge.J. R.-B. and P. R. receive funds for research from Plan Nacional de I+D+i 2013‐2016 and Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Subdirección General de Redes y Centros de Investigación Cooperativa, Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad, Spanish Network for Research in Infectious Diseases (REIPI RD16/0016/0001), cofinanced by European Development Regional Fund “A Way to Achieve Europe,” Operative Programme Intelligent Growth 2014–2020