Enhancing the clinical research workforce: a collaborative approach with human resources

Jobs for clinical research professionals (CRPs) have grown increasingly complex over the past 20+ years. This is due largely to additional administrative burden for investigators, study teams, sponsors, Clinical Research Organizations (CROs), and sites, particularly Academic Medical Centers (AMCs). Furthermore, National Institutes of Health (NIH) has reduced capacity to effectively fund research recognizing this is dependent on the overall congressional budget, which creates greater pressure for clinician scientists to secure external support. It is widely known clinical research will continue to become increasingly more complex for clinician scientists. This manuscript explores adoption of a clinical research competency-based job classification framework from the Joint Task Force for Clinical Trial Competency (JTFCTC) across several AMCs and the role of Human Resources (HR) in facilitating this process. This collaboration focuses on fostering successful projects tied to the business case in order to address equity and improve support for the clinical research enterprise

Seizure control in patients with epilepsy: the physician vs. medication factors

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Little is known about the relationship between types of healthcare providers and outcomes in patients with epilepsy. This study compares the relative effects of provider type (epileptologist vs. other neurologist) and pharmacologic treatment (newer vs. older antiepileptic drugs) on seizure control in patients with epilepsy.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a retrospective study of patients with medication-resistant epilepsy. Consecutive charts of 200 patients were abstracted using a standard case report form. For each patient, data included seizure frequency and medication use prior to, and while being treated by an epileptologist. Changes in seizure frequency were modeled using a generalized linear model.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>After transferring care from a general neurologist to specialized epilepsy center, patients experienced fewer seizures (p < 0.001) and were more frequently seizure-free (p < 0.001). The improved seizure control was not related to treatment with newer vs. older antiepileptic drugs (p = 0.305).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our findings suggest an association between subspecialty epilepsy care and improved seizure control in patients with medication-resistant epilepsy. Further research should prospectively determine whether patients with medication-resistant epilepsy would benefit from being routinely referred to an epilepsy specialist.</p

Albuminuria According to Status of Autoimmunity and Insulin Sensitivity Among Youth With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

OBJECTIVETo evaluate whether etiologic diabetes type is associated with the degree of albuminuria in children with diabetes.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSSEARCH is an observational, longitudinal study of children with diabetes. Youth with newly diagnosed diabetes were classified according to diabetes autoantibody (DAA) status and presence of insulin resistance. We defined insulin resistance as an insulin sensitivity score <25th percentile for the United States general youth population. DAA status was based on positivity for the 65-kD isoform of glutamate decarboxylase and insulinoma-associated protein 2 antigens. The four etiologic diabetes type groups were as follows: DAA+/insulin-sensitive (IS) (n = 1,351); DAA+/insulin-resistant (IR) (n = 438); DAA−/IR (n = 379); and DAA−/IS (n = 233). Urinary albumin:creatinine ratio (UACR) was measured from a random urine specimen. Multivariable regression analyses assessed the independent relationship between the four diabetes type groups and magnitude of UACR.RESULTSAdjusted UACR means across the four groups were as follows: DAA+/IS = 154 μg/mg; DAA+/IR = 137 μg/mg; DAA−/IR = 257 μg/mg; and DAA−/IS = 131 μg/mg (P < 0.005). Only DAA−/IR was significantly different. We performed post hoc multivariable regression analysis restricted to the two IR groups to explore the contribution of DAA status and insulin sensitivity (continuous) to the difference in UACR between the IR groups. Only insulin sensitivity was significantly associated with UACR (β = −0.54; P < 0.0001).CONCLUSIONSIn youth with diabetes, the DAA−/IR group had a greater UACR than all other groups, possibly because of the greater magnitude of insulin resistance. Further exploration of the relationships between severity of insulin resistance, autoimmunity, and albuminuria in youth with diabetes is warranted

Adjunctive rifampicin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (ARREST): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common cause of severe community-acquired and hospital-acquired infection worldwide. We tested the hypothesis that adjunctive rifampicin would reduce bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death, by enhancing early S aureus killing, sterilising infected foci and blood faster, and reducing risks of dissemination and metastatic infection. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults (≥18 years) with S aureus bacteraemia who had received ≤96 h of active antibiotic therapy were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequential randomisation list to receive 2 weeks of adjunctive rifampicin (600 mg or 900 mg per day according to weight, oral or intravenous) versus identical placebo, together with standard antibiotic therapy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, investigators, and those caring for the patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was time to bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death (all-cause), from randomisation to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent review committee masked to the treatment. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial was registered, number ISRCTN37666216, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Dec 10, 2012, and Oct 25, 2016, 758 eligible participants were randomly assigned: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. 485 (64%) participants had community-acquired S aureus infections, and 132 (17%) had nosocomial S aureus infections. 47 (6%) had meticillin-resistant infections. 301 (40%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for 29 (IQR 18-45) days; 619 (82%) participants received flucloxacillin. By week 12, 62 (17%) of participants who received rifampicin versus 71 (18%) who received placebo experienced treatment failure or disease recurrence, or died (absolute risk difference -1·4%, 95% CI -7·0 to 4·3; hazard ratio 0·96, 0·68-1·35, p=0·81). From randomisation to 12 weeks, no evidence of differences in serious (p=0·17) or grade 3-4 (p=0·36) adverse events were observed; however, 63 (17%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10%) in the placebo group had antibiotic or trial drug-modifying adverse events (p=0·004), and 24 (6%) versus six (2%) had drug interactions (p=0·0005). INTERPRETATION: Adjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S aureus bacteraemia. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment

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

Negociando a Subjetividade de Mulata no Brasil

resum

Raça Brasil: por quem, para quem

não informado.não informado

Tightness-Looseness of States during the COVID-19 Pandemic

This line of research seeks to identify how the ecological threat posed by the COVID-19 pandemic influences the tightness and looseness of societies, which reflects the strictness of societal norms and punishment for violating those norms (Harrington &amp; Gelfand, 2014). Scores on this dimension reliably distinguish countries as well as US states from each other. We predict that tightness will be associated with greater behavior change in response to the pandemic, as well as more negative views towards outgroup members, including the Asian population and older adults. Future data collection and analyses will allow us to assess a 2nd question, of whether people with greater change in their tightness-looseness scores in response to the pandemic will report being more willing to change future behaviors with public health relevance. We are also interested in learning the extent to which this change predicts biases toward outgroup members (i.e., Asians and older adults). Based on the tightness-looseness state rankings by Harrington and Gelfand, we chose to use participants from the 13 most tight states, and the 13 most loose states