Resistance is Futile: Using Team Based Learning (TBL) to Teach Change and Create an Idea Champion Collective

Change is inevitable, yet resistance to change is common. Studies show that people will selectively focus on data that enables maintaining the status quo, even when overwhelming data indicates the need for change. Those who are resistant to change in their organizations often cope by ignoring the need for change or removing themselves from the organization, thus putting themselves and their organizations at a disadvantage. The ability to engage in and lead change is a practical skill set and, as such, can be taught. This workshop demonstrates how TBL is a solution to the challenge of teaching and facilitating change

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

Reduced exposure to vasopressors through permissive hypotension to reduce mortality in critically ill people aged 65 and over: the 65 RCT.

BACKGROUND: Vasopressors are administered to critical care patients to avoid hypotension, which is associated with myocardial injury, kidney injury and death. However, they work by causing vasoconstriction, which may reduce blood flow and cause other adverse effects. A mean arterial pressure target typically guides administration. An individual patient data meta-analysis (Lamontagne F, Day AG, Meade MO, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Hylands M, et al. Pooled analysis of higher versus lower blood pressure targets for vasopressor therapy septic and vasodilatory shock. Intensive Care Med 2018;44:12-21) suggested that greater exposure, through higher mean arterial pressure targets, may increase risk of death in older patients. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of reduced vasopressor exposure through permissive hypotension (i.e. a lower mean arterial pressure target of 60-65 mmHg) in older critically ill patients. DESIGN: A pragmatic, randomised clinical trial with integrated economic evaluation. SETTING: Sixty-five NHS adult general critical care units. PARTICIPANTS: Critically ill patients aged ≥ 65 years receiving vasopressors for vasodilatory hypotension. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention - permissive hypotension (i.e. a mean arterial pressure target of 60-65 mmHg). Control (usual care) - a mean arterial pressure target at the treating clinician's discretion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary clinical outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality. The primary cost-effectiveness outcome was 90-day incremental net monetary benefit. Secondary outcomes included receipt and duration of advanced respiratory and renal support, mortality at critical care and acute hospital discharge, and questionnaire assessment of cognitive decline and health-related quality of life at 90 days and 1 year. RESULTS: Of 2600 patients randomised, 2463 (permissive hypotension, n = 1221; usual care, n = 1242) were analysed for the primary clinical outcome. Permissive hypotension resulted in lower exposure to vasopressors than usual care [mean duration 46.0 vs. 55.9 hours, difference -9.9 hours (95% confidence interval -14.3 to -5.5 hours); total noradrenaline-equivalent dose 31.5 mg vs. 44.3 mg, difference -12.8 mg (95% CI -18.0 mg to -17.6 mg)]. By 90 days, 500 (41.0%) patients in the permissive hypotension group and 544 (43.8%) patients in the usual-care group had died (absolute risk difference -2.85%, 95% confidence interval -6.75% to 1.05%; p = 0.154). Adjustment for prespecified baseline variables resulted in an odds ratio for 90-day mortality of 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.98) favouring permissive hypotension. There were no significant differences in prespecified secondary outcomes or subgroups; however, patients with chronic hypertension showed a mortality difference favourable to permissive hypotension. At 90 days, permissive hypotension showed similar costs to usual care. However, with higher incremental life-years and quality-adjusted life-years in the permissive hypotension group, the incremental net monetary benefit was positive, but with high statistical uncertainty (£378, 95% confidence interval -£1347 to £2103). LIMITATIONS: The intervention was unblinded, with risk of bias minimised through central allocation concealment and a primary outcome not subject to observer bias. The control group event rate was higher than anticipated. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients aged ≥ 65 years receiving vasopressors for vasodilatory hypotension, permissive hypotension did not significantly reduce 90-day mortality compared with usual care. The absolute treatment effect on 90-day mortality, based on 95% confidence intervals, was between a 6.8-percentage reduction and a 1.1-percentage increase in mortality. FUTURE WORK: Future work should (1) update the individual patient data meta-analysis, (2) explore approaches for evaluating heterogeneity of treatment effect and (3) explore 65 trial conduct, including use of deferred consent, to inform future trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10580502. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Mutations in Protein-Binding Hot-Spots on the Hub Protein Smad3 Differentially Affect Its Protein Interactions and Smad3-Regulated Gene Expression

Hub proteins are connected through binding interactions to many other proteins. Smad3, a mediator of signal transduction induced by transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β), serves as a hub protein for over 50 protein-protein interactions. Different cellular responses mediated by Smad3 are the product of cell-type and context dependent Smad3-nucleated protein complexes acting in concert. Our hypothesis is that perturbation of this spectrum of protein complexes by mutation of single protein-binding hot-spots on Smad3 will have distinct consequences on Smad3-mediated responses.We mutated 28 amino acids on the surface of the Smad3 MH2 domain and identified 22 Smad3 variants with reduced binding to subsets of 17 Smad3-binding proteins including Smad4, SARA, Ski, Smurf2 and SIP1. Mutations defective in binding to Smad4, e.g., D408H, or defective in nucleocytoplasmic shuttling, e.g., W406A, were compromised in modulating the expression levels of a Smad3-dependent reporter gene or six endogenous Smad3-responsive genes: Mmp9, IL11, Tnfaip6, Fermt1, Olfm2 and Wnt11. However, the Smad3 mutants Y226A, Y297A, W326A, K341A, and E267A had distinct differences on TGF-β signaling. For example, K341A and Y226A both reduced the Smad3-mediated activation of the reporter gene by ∼50% but K341A only reduced the TGF-β inducibilty of Olfm2 in contrast to Y226A which reduced the TGF-β inducibility of all six endogenous genes as severely as the W406A mutation. E267A had increased protein binding but reduced TGF-β inducibility because it caused higher basal levels of expression. Y297A had increased TGF-β inducibility because it caused lower Smad3-induced basal levels of gene expression.Mutations in protein binding hot-spots on Smad3 reduced the binding to different subsets of interacting proteins and caused a range of quantitative changes in the expression of genes induced by Smad3. This approach should be useful for unraveling which Smad3 protein complexes are critical for specific biological responses

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

Genomic investigations of unexplained acute hepatitis in children

Since its first identification in Scotland, over 1,000 cases of unexplained paediatric hepatitis in children have been reported worldwide, including 278 cases in the UK1. Here we report an investigation of 38 cases, 66 age-matched immunocompetent controls and 21 immunocompromised comparator participants, using a combination of genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic and immunohistochemical methods. We detected high levels of adeno-associated virus 2 (AAV2) DNA in the liver, blood, plasma or stool from 27 of 28 cases. We found low levels of adenovirus (HAdV) and human herpesvirus 6B (HHV-6B) in 23 of 31 and 16 of 23, respectively, of the cases tested. By contrast, AAV2 was infrequently detected and at low titre in the blood or the liver from control children with HAdV, even when profoundly immunosuppressed. AAV2, HAdV and HHV-6 phylogeny excluded the emergence of novel strains in cases. Histological analyses of explanted livers showed enrichment for T cells and B lineage cells. Proteomic comparison of liver tissue from cases and healthy controls identified increased expression of HLA class 2, immunoglobulin variable regions and complement proteins. HAdV and AAV2 proteins were not detected in the livers. Instead, we identified AAV2 DNA complexes reflecting both HAdV-mediated and HHV-6B-mediated replication. We hypothesize that high levels of abnormal AAV2 replication products aided by HAdV and, in severe cases, HHV-6B may have triggered immune-mediated hepatic disease in genetically and immunologically predisposed children

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Effect of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy vs Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Following Extubation on Liberation From Respiratory Support in Critically III Children A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE: The optimal first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support following extubation of critically ill children is not known. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the noninferiority of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy as the first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support following extubation, compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), on time to liberation from respiratory support. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial conducted at 22 pediatric intensive care units in the United Kingdom. Six hundred children aged 0 to 15 years clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support within 72 hours of extubation were recruited between August 8, 2019, and May 18, 2020, with last follow-up completed on November 22, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to start either HFNC at a flow rate based on patient weight (n = 299) or CPAP of 7 to 8 cm H2O (n = 301). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was time from randomization to liberation from respiratory support, defined as the start of a 48-hour period during which the child was free from all forms of respiratory support (invasive or noninvasive), assessed against a noninferiority margin of an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75. There were 6 secondary outcomes, including mortality at day 180 and reintubation within 48 hours. RESULTS: Of the 600 children who were randomized, 553 children (HFNC, 281; CPAP, 272) were included in the primary analysis (median age, 3 months; 241 girls [44%]). HFNC failed to meet noninferiority, with a median time to liberation of 50.5 hours (95% CI, 43.0-67.9) vs 42.9 hours (95% CI, 30.5-48.2) for CPAP (adjusted HR, 0.83; 1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.70-∞). Similar results were seen across prespecified subgroups. Of the 6 prespecified secondary outcomes, 5 showed no significant difference, including the rate of reintubation within 48 hours (13.3% for HFNC vs 11.5 % for CPAP). Mortality at day 180 was significantly higher for HFNC (5.6% vs 2.4% for CPAP; adjusted odds ratio, 3.07 [95% CI, 1.1-8.8]). The most common adverse events were abdominal distension (HFNC: 8/281 [2.8%] vs CPAP: 7/272 [2.6%]) and nasal/facial trauma (HFNC: 14/281 [5.0%] vs CPAP: 15/272 [5.5%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among critically ill children requiring noninvasive respiratory support following extubation, HFNC compared with CPAP following extubation failed to meet the criterion for noninferiority for time to liberation from respiratory support. TRIAL REGISTRATION: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN60048867

Effect of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy vs Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Therapy on Liberation from Respiratory Support in Acutely Ill Children Admitted to Pediatric Critical Care Units:A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: The optimal first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support for acutely ill children is not known. Objective: To evaluate the noninferiority of high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) as the first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support for acute illness, compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), for time to liberation from all forms of respiratory support. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, multicenter, randomized noninferiority clinical trial conducted in 24 pediatric critical care units in the United Kingdom among 600 acutely ill children aged 0 to 15 years who were clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support, recruited between August 2019 and November 2021, with last follow-up completed in March 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to commence either HFNC at a flow rate based on patient weight (n = 301) or CPAP of 7 to 8 cm H2O (n = 299). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time from randomization to liberation from respiratory support, defined as the start of a 48-hour period during which a participant was free from all forms of respiratory support (invasive or noninvasive), assessed against a noninferiority margin of an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.75. Seven secondary outcomes were assessed, including mortality at critical care unit discharge, intubation within 48 hours, and use of sedation. Results: Of the 600 randomized children, consent was not obtained for 5 (HFNC: 1; CPAP: 4) and respiratory support was not started in 22 (HFNC: 5; CPAP: 17); 573 children (HFNC: 295; CPAP: 278) were included in the primary analysis (median age, 9 months; 226 girls [39%]). The median time to liberation in the HFNC group was 52.9 hours (95% CI, 46.0-60.9 hours) vs 47.9 hours (95% CI, 40.5-55.7 hours) in the CPAP group (absolute difference, 5.0 hours [95% CI -10.1 to 17.4 hours]; adjusted hazard ratio 1.03 [1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.86-∞]). This met the criterion for noninferiority. Of the 7 prespecified secondary outcomes, 3 were significantly lower in the HFNC group: use of sedation (27.7% vs 37%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.88]); mean duration of critical care stay (5 days vs 7.4 days; adjusted mean difference, -3 days [95% CI, -5.1 to -1 days]); and mean duration of acute hospital stay (13.8 days vs 19.5 days; adjusted mean difference, -7.6 days [95% CI, -13.2 to -1.9 days]). The most common adverse event was nasal trauma (HFNC: 6/295 [2.0%]; CPAP: 18/278 [6.5%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among acutely ill children clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support in a pediatric critical care unit, HFNC compared with CPAP met the criterion for noninferiority for time to liberation from respiratory support. Trial Registration: ISRCTN.org Identifier: ISRCTN60048867