An invasive podosome-like structure promotes fusion pore formation during myoblast fusion

An F-actin–enriched protrusion resembling an invasive podosome promotes fusion pore formation between muscle founder cells and fusion-competent myoblasts

Patient engagement in designing, conducting, and disseminating clinical pain research: IMMPACT recommended considerations

In the traditional clinical research model, patients are typically involved only as participants. However, there has been a shift in recent years highlighting the value and contributions that patients bring as members of the research team, across the clinical research lifecycle. It is becoming increasingly evident that to develop research that is both meaningful to people who have the targeted condition and is feasible, there are important benefits of involving patients in the planning, conduct, and dissemination of research from its earliest stages. In fact, research funders and regulatory agencies are now explicitly encouraging, and sometimes requiring, that patients are engaged as partners in research. Although this approach has become commonplace in some fields of clinical research, it remains the exception in clinical pain research. As such, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials convened a meeting with patient partners and international representatives from academia, patient advocacy groups, government regulatory agencies, research funding organizations, academic journals, and the biopharmaceutical industry to develop consensus recommendations for advancing patient engagement in all stages of clinical pain research in an effective and purposeful manner. This article summarizes the results of this meeting and offers considerations for meaningful and authentic engagement of patient partners in clinical pain research, including recommendations for representation, timing, continuous engagement, measurement, reporting, and research dissemination

Patient engagement in designing, conducting, and disseminating clinical pain research : IMMPACT recommended considerations

The consensus recommendations are based on the views of IMMPACT meeting participants and do not necessarily represent the views of the organizations with which the authors are affiliated. The following individuals made important contributions to the IMMPACT meeting but were not able to participate in the preparation of this article: David Atkins, MD (Department of Veterans Affairs), Rebecca Baker, PhD (National Institutes of Health), Allan Basbaum, PhD (University of California San Francisco), Robyn Bent, RN, MS (Food and Drug Administration), Nathalie Bere, MPH (European Medicines Agency), Alysha Croker, PhD (Health Canada), Stephen Bruehl, PhD (Vanderbilt University), Michael Cobas Meyer, MD, MBS (Eli Lilly), Scott Evans, PhD (George Washington University), Gail Graham (University of Maryland), Jennifer Haythornthwaite, PhD (Johns Hopkins University), Sharon Hertz, MD (Hertz and Fields Consulting), Jonathan Jackson, PhD (Harvard Medical School), Mark Jensen, PhD (University of Washington), Francis Keefe, PhD (Duke University), Karim Khan, MD, PhD, MBA (Canadian Institutes of Health Research), Lynn Laidlaw (University of Aberdeen), Steven Lane (Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute), Karen Morales, BS (University of Maryland), David Leventhal, MBA (Pfizer), Jeremy Taylor, OBE (National Institute for Health Research), and Lena Sun, MD (Columbia University). The manuscript has not been submitted, presented, or published elsewhere. Parts of the manuscript have been presented in a topical workshop at IASP World Congress on Pain in Toronto, in 2022.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Macrophage exosomes as natural nanocarriers for protein delivery to inflamed brain

Recent work has stimulated interest in the use of exosomes as nanocarriers for delivery of small drugs, RNAs, and proteins to the central nervous system (CNS). To overcome the blood-brain barrier (BBB), exosomes were modified with brain homing peptides that target brain endothelium but likely to increase immune response. Here for the first time we demonstrate that there is no need for such modification to penetrate the BBB in mammals. The naïve macrophage (Mϕ) exosomes can utilize, 1) on the one hand, the integrin lymphocyte function-associated antigen 1 (LFA-1) and intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1), and, 2) on the other hand, the carbohydrate-binding C-type lectin receptors, to interact with brain microvessel endothelial cells comprising the BBB. Notably, upregulation of ICAM-1, a common process in inflammation, promotes Mϕ exosomes uptake in the BBB cells. We further demonstrate in vivo that naïve Mϕ exosomes, after intravenous (IV) administration, cross the BBB and deliver a cargo protein, the brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), to the brain. This delivery is enhanced in the presence of brain inflammation, a condition often present in CNS diseases. Taken together, the findings are of interest to basic science and possible use of Mϕ-derived exosomes as nanocarriers for brain delivery of therapeutic proteins to treat CNS diseases

Patients and Providers Speak: Early Care Experiences Under the ACA

As of April 2014, more than 1.4 million Californians had selected a non-Medi-Cal health plan through Covered California, the state's health care marketplace. What was their experience of seeking and receiving care through plans made newly available under the ACA?This study provides early insight into the successes and challenges of the ACA from the perspectives of consumers as well as from providers in clinical organizations in California. It is based on focus groups with 74 consumers and interviews with 64 health care providers in four areas of the state. Because consumers surveyed were among those quickest to enroll and use services, they are not representative of all Covered California enrollees

Examining how study teams manage different viewpoints and priorities in patient‐centered outcomes research: Results of an embedded multiple case study

Abstract Introduction Limited evidence exists about which patient and stakeholder engagement practices support or hinder study teams as they negotiate different viewpoints in decisions about the design and conduct of patient‐centered outcomes research. Methods We applied a multiple‐embedded descriptive case study design for six studies funded by the Patient‐Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). We interviewed 32 researchers and stakeholder partners, including patients, caregivers and clinicians, and reviewed documents related to each study (e.g., publications, and progress reports submitted to PCORI). Findings Overall, researchers reported that incorporating different viewpoints was a strength or opportunity to learn rather than something to be avoided or dreaded. Across cases, different viewpoints and priorities, often related to ethical or pragmatic considerations, emerged between researchers and stakeholders, between stakeholder groups (e.g., patients and clinicians) or within groups (e.g., amongst researchers). Examples of navigating different viewpoints arose across study phases. The length of time to resolve issues depended on how strongly people disagreed and the perceived importance or impact of decisions on the study. All cases used collaborative decision‐making approaches, often described as consensus, throughout the study. Interviewees described consensus as using negotiation, compromise or working towards an agreeable decision. To encourage consensus, cases actively facilitated group discussions with an openness to diverse opinions, remained flexible and open to trying new things, referenced a ground rule or common goal and delegated decisions to partners or smaller workgroups. When viewpoints were not easily resolved, cases used different approaches to reach final decisions while maintaining relationships with partners, such as elevating decisions to leadership or agreeing to test out an approach. No one engagement structure (e.g., advisory group, coinvestigator) stood out as better able to manage different viewpoints. Teams adjusted engagement structures and behaviours to facilitate an overall culture of inclusion and respect. Partners acknowledged the intentional efforts of researchers to incorporate their perspectives, navigate challenges and communicate the value of partner input. Conclusion By using collaborative decision‐making in the early stages and throughout the study, researchers built trust with partners so that when decisions were difficult to resolve, partners still felt listened to and that their input mattered. Patient or Public Contribution Members of the PCORI Patient Engagement Advisory Panel in 2019–2020 provided input into the design of the study, including the research questions and approaches to data collection and analysis