A landscape assessment of CTSA evaluators and their work in the CTSA consortium, 2021 survey findings

This article presents a landscape assessment of the findings from the 2021 Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Evaluators Survey. This survey was the most recent iteration of a well established, national, peer-led systematic snapshot of the CTSA evaluators, their skillsets, listed evaluation resources, preferred methods, and identified best practices. Three questions guided our study: who are the CTSA evaluators, what competencies do they share and how is their work used within hubs. We describe our survey process (logistics of development, deployment, and differences in historical context with prior instruments); and present its main findings. We provide specific recommendations for evaluation practice in two main categories (National vs Group-level) including, among others, the need for a national, strategic plan for evaluation as well as enhanced mentoring and training of the next generation of evaluators. Although based on the challenges and opportunities currently within the CTSA Consortium, takeaways from this study constitute important lessons with potential for application in other large evaluation consortia. To our knowledge, this is the first time 2021 survey findings are disseminated widely, to increase transparency of the CTSA evaluators' work and to motivate conversations within hub and beyond, as to how best to leverage existent evaluative capacity.

Research rigor and reproducibility in research education: A CTSA institutional survey

We assessed the rigor and reproducibility (R&R) activities of institutions funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCTSA) through a survey and website search (N = 61). Of 50 institutional responses, 84% reported incorporating some form of R&R training, 68% reported devoted R&R training, 30% monitored R&R practices, and 10% incentivized them. Website searches revealed 9 (15%) freely available training curricula, and 7 (11%) institutional programs specifically created to enhance R&R. NCATS should formally integrate R&R principles into its translational science models and institutional requirements.

CTSA Search Solutions: A novel approach to searching CTSA hub website content

Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hub websites are a critical communication gateway to assist the clinical and translational science community and promote CTSA hub offerings. The objective of this funded pilot project was to create a website and online database for the CTSA consortium that allows users to conduct structured searches among the 50 + CTSA hub websites. The result is CTSA Search Solutions, an online, searchable database that includes access to 50 + CTSA hub websites with 80+ structured search term options and over 800 links collected, organized, and published. Hubs can be searched by name and filtered by a specific CTSA topic, state, region, or even number of years funded to make detailed comparisons with the data identified. The home page for each hub can be accessed directly from the search page. The CTSA Search Solutions online database will allow for a wide breadth of CTSA personnel (core leads, researchers, administrators, communicators, and evaluators) to find consolidated information to learn about specific CTSA hub program highlights, as well as conduct research into program hub outputs and best practices across the nationwide CTSA consortium.

Framing clinical and translational science: Examining the strategic social media communications of NCATS-funded CTSAs

INTRODUCTION

Many Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) focus their energy on operational aspects of running their hub, but may not devote enough energy and resources toward branding and effective communication. However, CTSAs have an important mission when it comes to communicating effectively with their stakeholders through social media. Using framing theory as the underpinning, the purpose of this content analysis is to investigate the ways in which CTSAs use Twitter to communicate with their various stakeholders, the type of content they post, and the type of engagement their tweets garner.

METHODS

We examined 349 tweets posted from January 2019 to January 2020 from 19 CTSA Twitter accounts (sampled from a total of 35 CTSA accounts). A thematic codebook was generated using tweets randomly chosen from the sample. Content analysis was performed on the entire tweet sample by four coders using the codebook (alpha = 0.89).

RESULTS

CTSAs tweeted the most about events (29.8%), and the least about study recruitment (2.01%). Most tweets included images (59.31%) and hashtags (51.29%), but received little user engagement on the average post (average: 4.38 likes and 1.94 retweets). CTSAs tweeted most from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. PST and received the most engagement. Most CTSAs had a dedicated person (e.g., manager, coordinator) handling their communications.

DISCUSSION

Our analysis shows multiple opportunities for CTSAs to engage with stakeholders and the public, as well as standardize and improve their Twitter communications to effectively reach a broader audience.

Opportunities for strengthening CTSA evaluation

The purpose of the article is to describe the progress of the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program to address the evaluation-related recommendations made by the 2013 Institute of Medicine's review of the CTSA Program and guidelines published in CTS Journal the same year (Trochim et al., Clinical and Translational Science 2013; 6(4): 303-309). We utilize data from a 2018 national survey of evaluators administered to all 64 CTSA hubs and a content analysis of the role of evaluation in the CTSA Program Funding Opportunity Announcements to document progress. We present four new opportunities for further strengthening CTSA evaluation efforts: (1) continue to build the collaborative evaluation infrastructure at local and national levels; (2) make better use of existing data; (3) strengthen and augment the common metrics initiative; and (4) pursue internal and external opportunities to evaluate the CTSA program at the national level. This article will be of significant interest to the funders of the CTSA Program and the multiple stakeholders in the larger consortium and will promote dialog from the broad range of CTSA stakeholders about further strengthening the CTSA Program's evaluation.

Toolkits for dissemination and implementation research: Preliminary development

The Dissemination and Implementation Research Core, a research methods core from the Clinical and Translation Science Award at Washington University in St. Louis Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences, developed toolkits about dissemination and implementation (D&I) concepts (e.g., D&I outcomes, strategies). This paper reports on the development of the toolkits. These toolkits respond to 3 identified needs for capacity building in D&I research: resources for investigators new to the D&I field, consolidation of tools, and limitations in local contexts.

The price of progress: Funding and financing Alzheimer's disease drug development

INTRODUCTION

Advancing research and treatment for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and the search for effective treatments depend on a complex financial ecosystem involving federal, state, industry, advocacy, venture capital, and philanthropy funding approaches.

METHODS

We conducted an expert review of the literature pertaining to funding and financing of translational research and drug development for AD.

RESULTS

The federal government is the largest public funder of research in AD. The National Institute on Aging, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and National Center for Advancing Translational Science all fund aspects of research in AD drug development. Non-National Institutes of Health federal funding comes from the National Science Foundation, Veterans Administration, Food and Drug Administration, and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Academic Medical Centers host much of the federally funded basic science research and are increasingly involved in drug development. Funding of the "Valley of Death" involves philanthropy and federal funding through small business programs and private equity from seed capital, angel investors, and venture capital companies. Advocacy groups fund both basic science and clinical trials. The Alzheimer Association is the advocacy organization with the largest research support portfolio relevant to AD drug development. Pharmaceutical companies are the largest supporters of biomedical research worldwide; companies are most interested in late stage de-risked drugs. Drugs progressing into phase II and III are candidates for pharmaceutical industry support through licensing, mergers and acquisitions, and co-development collaborations.

DISCUSSION

Together, the funding and financing entities involved in supporting AD drug development comprise a complex, interactive, dynamic financial ecosystem. Funding source interaction is largely unstructured and available funding is insufficient to meet all demands for new therapies. Novel approaches to funding such as mega-funds have been proposed and more integration of component parts would assist in accelerating drug development.

Lost in Translation: The Gap in Scientific Advancements and Clinical Application

The evolution of medicine and medical technology hinges on the successful translation of basic science research from the bench to clinical implementation at the bedside. Out of the increasing need to facilitate the transfer of scientific knowledge to patients, translational research has emerged. Significant leaps in improving global health, such as antibiotics, vaccinations, and cancer therapies, have all seen successes under this paradigm, yet today, it has become increasingly difficult to realize this ideal scenario. As hospital revenue demand increases, and financial support declines, clinician-protected research time has been limited. Researchers, likewise, have been forced to abandon time- and resource-consuming translational research to focus on publication-generating work to maintain funding and professional advancement. Compared to the surge in scientific innovation and new fields of science, realization of transformational scientific findings in device development and materials sciences has significantly lagged behind. Herein, we describe: how the current scientific paradigm struggles in the new health-care landscape; the obstacles met by translational researchers; and solutions, both public and private, to overcoming those obstacles. We must rethink the old dogma of academia and reinvent the traditional pathways of research in order to truly impact the health-care arena and ultimately those that matter most: the patient.

KCa 3.1-a microglial target ready for drug repurposing?

Over the past decade, glial cells have attracted attention for harboring unexploited targets for drug discovery. Several glial targets have attracted de novo drug discovery programs, as highlighted in this GLIA Special Issue. Drug repurposing, which has the objective of utilizing existing drugs as well as abandoned, failed, or not yet pursued clinical development candidates for new indications, might provide a faster opportunity to bring drugs for glial targets to patients with unmet needs. Here, we review the potential of the intermediate-conductance calcium-activated potassium channels KCa 3.1 as the target for such a repurposing effort. We discuss the data on KCa 3.1 expression on microglia in vitro and in vivo and review the relevant literature on the two KCa 3.1 inhibitors TRAM-34 and Senicapoc. Finally, we provide an outlook of what it might take to harness the potential of KCa 3.1 as a bona fide microglial drug target. GLIA 2016;64:1733-1741.

Expanding research to provide an evidence base for nutritional interventions for the management of inborn errors of metabolism

A trans-National Institutes of Health initiative, Nutrition and Dietary Supplement Interventions for Inborn Errors of Metabolism (NDSI-IEM), was launched in 2010 to identify gaps in knowledge regarding the safety and utility of nutritional interventions for the management of inborn errors of metabolism (IEM) that need to be filled with evidence-based research. IEM include inherited biochemical disorders in which specific enzyme defects interfere with the normal metabolism of exogenous (dietary) or endogenous protein, carbohydrate, or fat. For some of these IEM, effective management depends primarily on nutritional interventions. Further research is needed to demonstrate the impact of nutritional interventions on individual health outcomes and on the psychosocial issues identified by patients and their families. A series of meetings and discussions were convened to explore the current United States' funding and regulatory infrastructure and the challenges to the conduct of research for nutritional interventions for the management of IEM. Although the research and regulatory infrastructure are well-established, a collaborative pathway that includes the professional and advocacy rare disease community and federal regulatory and research agencies will be needed to overcome current barriers.