COMMENTARY: The Use of Focus Groups for Design and Implementation of Collaborative Environmental Administrative Programs: A Comparison of Two State-Level Processes in Ohio

Development and implementation of administrative programs are important steps in the process of change through public law and policy. These programs set the specific mechanisms that will be used to carry out the intent of the law or policy as best an agency can determine. Administrative personnel may involve the general public and stakeholders in program development and implementation in order to improve program design, increasingly used as part of collaborative environmental management strategies. This article examines the use of focus groups as a stakeholder participation method in collaborative program development and implementation processes in two different environmentally-oriented agency programs at the state level in Ohio—the Clean Ohio Revitalization Fund of the Ohio Department of Development, and the Ohio Coastal Resources Management Training Program of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, NOAA, and the Ohio Sea Grant Program. The comparison confirms three categories of benefits in using focus groups: better program development and implementation through more in-depth and nuanced information from stakeholders, an enhanced administrative and civic capacity through development of a shared knowledge base, and an enhanced sense of legitimacy for the program among future program beneficiaries. The comparison also identified some constraints and challenges for using focus groups, including the importance of skilled facilitators with substantive knowledge of the environmental context of the program development process and the skills to resolve contentious stakeholder interactions when the processes are distributive in nature

An Assessment of EDA\u27s Partnership Planning Program

This report examines EDA‘s Partnership Planning Program, which consists of Economic Development Districts (EDDs) and the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategies (CEDS) they are required to create, and provides recommendations as to how the program could be improved to lead effective regional development strategic efforts

Ultracontinuous single haplotype genome assemblies for the domestic cat (Felis catus) and Asian leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis)

In addition to including one of the most popular companion animals, species from the cat family Felidae serve as a powerful system for genetic analysis of inherited and infectious disease, as well as for the study of phenotypic evolution and speciation. Previous diploid-based genome assemblies for the domestic cat have served as the primary reference for genomic studies within the cat family. However, these versions suffered from poor resolution of complex and highly repetitive regions, with substantial amounts of unplaced sequence that is polymorphic or copy number variable. We sequenced the genome of a female F1 Bengal hybrid cat, the offspring of a domestic cat (Felis catus) x Asian leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis) cross, with PacBio long sequence reads and used Illumina sequence reads from the parents to phase \u3e99.9% of the reads into the two species’ haplotypes. De novo assembly of the phased reads produced highly continuous haploid genome assemblies for the domestic cat and Asian leopard cat, with contig N50 statistics exceeding 83 Mb for both genomes. Whole genome alignments reveal the Felis and Prionailurus genomes are colinear, and the cytogenetic differences between the homologous F1 and E4 chromosomes represent a case of centromere repositioning in the absence of a chromosomal inversion. Both assemblies offer significant improvements over the previous domestic cat reference genome, with a 100% increase in contiguity and the capture of the vast majority of chromosome arms in one or two large contigs. We further demonstrated that comparably accurate F1 haplotype phasing can be achieved with members of the same species when one or both parents of the trio are not available. These novel genome resources will empower studies of feline precision medicine, adaptation and speciation

Serum Amyloid A Impairs the Antiinflammatory Properties of HDL

HDL from healthy humans and lean mice inhibits palmitate-induced adipocyte inflammation; however, the effect of the inflammatory state on the functional properties of HDL on adipocytes is unknown. Here, we found that HDL from mice injected with AgNO3 fails to inhibit palmitate-induced inflammation and reduces cholesterol efflux from 3T3-L1 adipocytes. Moreover, HDL isolated from obese mice with moderate inflammation and humans with systemic lupus erythematosus had similar effects. Since serum amyloid A (SAA) concentrations in HDL increase with inflammation, we investigated whether elevated SAA is a causal factor in HDL dysfunction. HDL from AgNO3-injected mice lacking Saa1.1 and Saa2.1 exhibited a partial restoration of antiinflammatory and cholesterol efflux properties in adipocytes. Conversely, incorporation of SAA into HDL preparations reduced antiinflammatory properties but not to the same extent as HDL from AgNO3-injected mice. SAA-enriched HDL colocalized with cell surface–associated extracellular matrix (ECM) of adipocytes, suggesting impaired access to the plasma membrane. Enzymatic digestion of proteoglycans in the ECM restored the ability of SAA-containing HDL to inhibit palmitate-induced inflammation and cholesterol efflux. Collectively, these findings indicate that inflammation results in a loss of the antiinflammatory properties of HDL on adipocytes, which appears to partially result from the SAA component of HDL binding to cell-surface proteoglycans, thereby preventing access of HDL to the plasma membrane

Abatacept, Cenicriviroc, or Infliximab for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE: Immune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab provides benefit when added to standard care for COVID-19 pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators added to standard care for treatment of participants hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The results of 3 substudies are reported from 95 hospitals at 85 clinical research sites in the US and Latin America. Hospitalized patients 18 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 14 days and evidence of pulmonary involvement underwent randomization between October 2020 and December 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Single infusion of abatacept (10 mg/kg; maximum dose, 1000 mg) or infliximab (5 mg/kg) or a 28-day oral course of cenicriviroc (300-mg loading dose followed by 150 mg twice per day). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to recovery by day 28 evaluated using an 8-point ordinal scale (higher scores indicate better health). Recovery was defined as the first day the participant scored at least 6 on the ordinal scale. RESULTS: Of the 1971 participants randomized across the 3 substudies, the mean (SD) age was 54.8 (14.6) years and 1218 (61.8%) were men. The primary end point of time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia was not significantly different for abatacept (recovery rate ratio [RRR], 1.12 [95% CI, 0.98-1.28]; P = .09), cenicriviroc (RRR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.86-1.18]; P = .94), or infliximab (RRR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.99-1.28]; P = .08) compared with placebo. All-cause 28-day mortality was 11.0% for abatacept vs 15.1% for placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.41-0.94]), 13.8% for cenicriviroc vs 11.9% for placebo (OR, 1.18 [95% CI 0.72-1.94]), and 10.1% for infliximab vs 14.5% for placebo (OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.90]). Safety outcomes were comparable between active treatment and placebo, including secondary infections, in all 3 substudies. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia among hospitalized participants was not significantly different for abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab vs placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04593940

Abatacept, Cenicriviroc, or Infliximab for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE: Immune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab provides benefit when added to standard care for COVID-19 pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators added to standard care for treatment of participants hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The results of 3 substudies are reported from 95 hospitals at 85 clinical research sites in the US and Latin America. Hospitalized patients 18 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 14 days and evidence of pulmonary involvement underwent randomization between October 2020 and December 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Single infusion of abatacept (10 mg/kg; maximum dose, 1000 mg) or infliximab (5 mg/kg) or a 28-day oral course of cenicriviroc (300-mg loading dose followed by 150 mg twice per day). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to recovery by day 28 evaluated using an 8-point ordinal scale (higher scores indicate better health). Recovery was defined as the first day the participant scored at least 6 on the ordinal scale. RESULTS: Of the 1971 participants randomized across the 3 substudies, the mean (SD) age was 54.8 (14.6) years and 1218 (61.8%) were men. The primary end point of time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia was not significantly different for abatacept (recovery rate ratio [RRR], 1.12 [95% CI, 0.98-1.28]; P = .09), cenicriviroc (RRR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.86-1.18]; P = .94), or infliximab (RRR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.99-1.28]; P = .08) compared with placebo. All-cause 28-day mortality was 11.0% for abatacept vs 15.1% for placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.41-0.94]), 13.8% for cenicriviroc vs 11.9% for placebo (OR, 1.18 [95% CI 0.72-1.94]), and 10.1% for infliximab vs 14.5% for placebo (OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.90]). Safety outcomes were comparable between active treatment and placebo, including secondary infections, in all 3 substudies. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia among hospitalized participants was not significantly different for abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab vs placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04593940