Loss of Pediatric Kidney Grafts During the “High–Risk Age Window”: Insights From Pediatric Liver and Simultaneous Liver–Kidney Recipients

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/110551/1/ajt12985.pd

Identification of enhanced IFN-γ signaling in polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis with mass cytometry

Polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is among the most challenging of the JIA subtypes to treat. Even with current biologic therapies, the disease remains difficult to control in a substantial subset of patients, highlighting the need for new therapies. The aim of this study was to use the high dimensionality afforded by mass cytometry with phospho-specific antibodies to delineate signaling abnormalities in immune cells from treatment-naive polyarticular JIA patients. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells were isolated from 17 treatment-naive polyarticular JIA patients, 10 of the patients after achieving clinical remission, and 19 healthy controls. Samples were stimulated for 15 minutes with IL-6 or IFN-γ and analyzed by mass cytometry. Following IFN-γ stimulation, increased STAT1 and/or STAT3 phosphorylation was observed in subsets of CD4 T cells and classical monocytes from treatment-naive patients. The enhanced IFN-γ signaling was associated with increased expression of JAK1 and SOCS1 in CD4 T cells. Furthermore, substantial heterogeneity in surface marker expression was observed among the subsets of CD4 T cells and classical monocytes with increased IFN-γ responsiveness. The identification of enhanced IFN-γ signaling in CD4 T cells and classical monocytes from treatment-naive polyarticular JIA patients provides mechanistic support for investigations into therapies that attenuate IFN-γ signaling in this disease

Acceptability of an open-label wait-listed trial design: Experiences from the PROUD PrEP study

Background PROUD participants were randomly assigned to receive pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) immediately or after a deferred period of one-year. We report on the acceptability of this open-label wait-listed trial design. Methods Participants completed an acceptability questionnaire, which included categorical study acceptability data and free-text data on most and least liked aspects of the study. We also conducted in-depth interviews (IDI) with a purposely selected sub-sample of participants. Results Acceptability questionnaires were completed by 76% (415/544) of participants. After controlling for age, immediate-group participants were almost twice as likely as deferred-group participants to complete the questionnaire (AOR:1.86;95%CI:1.24,2.81). In quantitative data, the majority of participants in both groups found the wait-listed design acceptable when measured by satisfaction of joining the study, intention to remain in the study, and interest in joining a subsequent study. However, three-quarters thought that the chance of being in the deferred-group might put other volunteers off joining the study. In free-text responses, data collection tools were the most frequently reported least liked aspect of the study. A fifth of deferred participants reported ‘being deferred’ as the thing they least liked about the study. However, more deferred participants disliked the data collection tools than the fact that they had to wait a year to access PrEP. Participants in the IDIs had a good understanding of the rationale for the open-label wait-listed study design. Most accepted the design but acknowledged they were, or would have been, disappointed to be randomised to the deferred group. Five of the 25 participants interviewed reported some objection to the wait-listed design. Conclusion The quantitative and qualitative findings suggest that in an environment where PrEP was not available, the rationale for the wait-listed trial design was well understood and generally acceptable to most participants in this study