Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 1.324
Filtrar
5.
Nature ; 581(7808): 252-255, 2020 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32415276

Assuntos
Antivirais/farmacologia , Betacoronavirus/química , Betacoronavirus/imunologia , Desenho de Fármacos , Proteínas Virais/antagonistas & inibidores , Proteínas Virais/química , Vacinas Virais , Monofosfato de Adenosina/análogos & derivados , Monofosfato de Adenosina/farmacologia , Monofosfato de Adenosina/uso terapêutico , Alanina/análogos & derivados , Alanina/farmacologia , Alanina/uso terapêutico , Animais , Antivirais/química , Azóis/farmacologia , Betacoronavirus/efeitos dos fármacos , Betacoronavirus/enzimologia , China , Infecções por Coronavirus/imunologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Microscopia Crioeletrônica , Cristalização , Cristalografia por Raios X , Cisteína Endopeptidases/química , Cisteína Endopeptidases/metabolismo , Avaliação Pré-Clínica de Medicamentos , Alemanha , Ensaios de Triagem em Larga Escala , Humanos , Camundongos , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/organização & administração , Compostos Organosselênicos/farmacologia , Peptidil Dipeptidase A/química , Peptidil Dipeptidase A/metabolismo , Inibidores de Proteases/farmacologia , /química , Glicoproteína da Espícula de Coronavírus/química , Glicoproteína da Espícula de Coronavírus/metabolismo , Síncrotrons , Fatores de Tempo , Reino Unido , Estados Unidos , Proteínas não Estruturais Virais/antagonistas & inibidores , Proteínas não Estruturais Virais/química , Proteínas não Estruturais Virais/metabolismo , Proteínas Virais/imunologia , Vacinas Virais/química
6.
J Neuroeng Rehabil ; 17(1): 67, 2020 05 29.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32471450

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Support for rehabilitation research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is robust and evolving. Since the time of its Blue Ribbon Panel on Rehabilitation Research, NIH has participated in several initiatives to coordinate the science and advance the field. DISCUSSION: Collaborative teams must continue to address key limitations in the field, including the desire for broad application of rehabilitation interventions, the need for basic science and translational research, the support of clinical trials and standard approaches, and the integration of technology. CONCLUSION: Rehabilitation medicine is poised for critical advancements if interdisciplinary teams continue to work collaboratively to understand and address the needs of people with temporary or permanent functional limitations.


Assuntos
Liderança , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/organização & administração , Pesquisa de Reabilitação/organização & administração , Humanos , Pesquisa Médica Translacional/organização & administração , Estados Unidos
14.
Ethics Hum Res ; 42(1): 36-40, 2020 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31967411

RESUMO

In response to a policy of the National Institutes of Health and requirements in the revised Common Rule, a protocol for a multisite study must be reviewed by a single institutional review board (IRB), rather than by the IRB at each study site. The goal of the single IRB approach is to increase the efficiency of IRB review of multisite research without jeopardizing protections for research subjects. Yet the extent to which these joint goals are being achieved is unclear. To better understand how single IRBs function, we recruited academic, government, and commercial single IRBs (N = 49) to participate in a study involving observation of protocol review meetings and/or interviews with their members, chairs, and administrators. Twenty (40.8%) agreed to participate, of which 50% agreed to both interviews and observation. While 81.8% (9/11) of academic and 50% (4/8) of government single IRBs participated in some way, only 23.3% (7/30) of commercial single IRBs did so. The four largest commercial single IRBs declined to participate. Because evaluation of single IRBs is important to inform development, implementation, monitoring, and refinement of federal policies, single IRBs should be encouraged to participate in research that examines how they function.


Assuntos
Conflito de Interesses , Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa/organização & administração , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/normas , Pesquisa/normas , Humanos , Entrevistas como Assunto , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/organização & administração , Pesquisa/organização & administração , Estados Unidos
15.
Acad Med ; 95(2): 248-254, 2020 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31625999

RESUMO

PURPOSE: National Institutes of Health career development (K) awards mandate specific allocations of effort to research and training. The authors sought to understand pressures perceived by award recipients to change or misrepresent effort, and whether these perceptions differed by gender. METHOD: In 2010-2011 and 2014, the authors surveyed K08 and K23 award recipients. Questions evaluated perceived pressure to change or misrepresent time allocation. Multivariable logistic regression modeling of pressure to misrepresent effort evaluated associations with individual and basic job characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 1,719 faculty in the initial target population, 493 women and 573 men (1,066, 62%) responded at both time points. Most respondents reported feeling pressure to increase time spent on professional activities other than their K award-related research or career development or to decrease time on their K award-related research. The likelihood of perceiving pressure differed significantly by gender: 68% of women vs 55% of men (P < .001). A minority reported perceiving pressure to misrepresent professional time (women, 29%, vs men, 27%, P = .52). Multivariable analysis revealed that pressure to misrepresent professional time was less likely among respondents at institutions with the most extramural funding (P = .02). A significant pairwise interaction between gender and K award type suggested that female K08 awardees had higher odds than male peers of perceiving pressure to misrepresent time. CONCLUSIONS: Most K award recipients reported feeling pressure to do more non-K award-related activities. More than a quarter reported feeling pressure to misrepresent effort. Additional research is needed to evaluate the proportion of academic medical faculty who actually misrepresent professional effort.


Assuntos
Distinções e Prêmios , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/organização & administração , Pesquisadores/psicologia , Estresse Psicológico/epidemiologia , Adulto , Feminino , Humanos , Modelos Logísticos , Estudos Longitudinais , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Análise Multivariada , Percepção , Pesquisadores/economia , Sexismo , Estados Unidos/etnologia
16.
J Trauma Acute Care Surg ; 88(1): 25-32, 2020 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31389923

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Trauma is a major cause of death and disability in all ages. Previous reviews have suggested that National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for trauma is not commensurate with its burden of disease, but a detailed analysis has been lacking. We postulated that NIH spending on trauma research was lower than previously thought and was distributed widely, preventing a comprehensive research strategy that could decrease trauma morbidity and mortality. METHODS: The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool was initially screened using a search of over 20 terms including "trauma," "injury," "shock," "MVC," and excluding clearly unrelated conditions, for example, "cancer." The details of all grants that screened positive underwent manual review to identify true trauma-related grants. An expert panel was used to adjudicate any ambiguity. RESULTS: In FY2016, NIH awarded 50,137 grants, of which 6,401 (13%) were captured by our initial screen. Following review, 1,888 (28%) were identified as trauma-related; 3.7% of all NIH grants. These grants (US $720 million) represent only 2.9% of the NIH extramural budget. In addition, the grants were funded and administered by 24 of the institutes and centers across the NIH ranging from 0.01% (National Cancer Institute) to 11% (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases) of their extramural portfolios. CONCLUSION: Given the extreme burden of trauma-related disability and years of life lost, this review of extramural NIH funding definitively demonstrates that trauma is severely underfunded. The lack of a dedicated home for trauma research at NIH leads to a diffusion of grants across many institutes and makes it impossible to direct a focused and effective national research endeavor to improve outcomes. These data demonstrate the need for a National Institute of Trauma at the NIH to help set an agenda to reach the national goal of Zero Preventable Deaths.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Organização do Financiamento/organização & administração , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/organização & administração , Ferimentos e Lesões/cirurgia , Pesquisa Biomédica/organização & administração , Pesquisa Biomédica/estatística & dados numéricos , Efeitos Psicossociais da Doença , Organização do Financiamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/estatística & dados numéricos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Ferimentos e Lesões/diagnóstico , Ferimentos e Lesões/economia , Ferimentos e Lesões/epidemiologia
17.
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) ; 72(2): 233-242, 2020 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31502417

RESUMO

The Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP) Lupus Network was established as a partnership between the National Institutes of Health, pharmaceutical companies, nonprofit stakeholders, and lupus investigators across multiple academic centers to apply high-throughput technologies to the analysis of renal tissue, urine, and blood from patients with lupus nephritis (LN). The AMP network provides publicly accessible data to the community with the goal of generating new scientific hypotheses and improving diagnostic and therapeutic tools so as to improve disease outcomes. We present here a description of the structure of the AMP Lupus Network and a summary of the preliminary results from the phase 1 studies. The successful completion of phase 1 sets the stage for analysis of a large cohort of LN samples in phase 2 and provides a model for establishing similar discovery cohorts.


Assuntos
Centros Médicos Acadêmicos/organização & administração , Ensaios Clínicos Fase I como Assunto/métodos , Indústria Farmacêutica/organização & administração , Nefrite Lúpica/metabolismo , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/organização & administração , Dados Preliminares , Parcerias Público-Privadas/organização & administração , Biomarcadores/metabolismo , Humanos , Nefrite Lúpica/epidemiologia , Nefrite Lúpica/genética , Análise de Sequência de RNA/métodos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia
18.
Implement Sci ; 14(1): 97, 2019 11 21.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31752914

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In 2011, the National Institute of Health (NIH) initiated the Training in Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (TIDIRH) program. Over its first 5 years, TIDIRH provided an in-person, week-long training to 197 investigators who were new to the dissemination and implementation (D&I) field. This paper evaluates the long-term impact of TIDIRH on trainees' use of D&I methods, collaborations, and research funding. METHODS: Trainees were selected to participate through a competitive process. We compared the 197 trainees to 125 unselected applicants (UAs) whose application score was within one standard deviation of the mean for all trainees' scores for the same application year. A portfolio analysis examined electronic applications for NIH peer-reviewed funding submitted by trainees and UAs between 2011 and 2019. A survey of trainees and UAs was conducted in 2016, as was a faculty survey among the 87 individuals who served as TIDIRH instructors. RESULTS: A major goal of TIDIRH was to build the field, at least in part through networking and collaboration. Thirty-eight percent of trainees indicated they had extensive contact with faculty following the training, and an additional 38% indicated they had at least limited contact. Twenty-four percent of trainees had extensive collaboration with other fellows post-TIDIRH, and 43% had at least limited contact. Collaborative activities included the full range of academic activities, including manuscript development, grant writing, and consultation/collaboration on research studies. The portfolio analysis combining grant mechanisms showed that overall, TIDIRH trainees submitted more peer-reviewed NIH grants per person than UA and had significantly better funding outcomes (25% vs 19% funded, respectively). The greatest difference was for large research project, program/center, and cooperative agreement grants mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this evaluation found that TIDIRH is achieving its three primary goals: (1) building a pipeline of D&I investigators, (2) creating a network of scholars to build the field, and (3) improving funding outcomes for D&I grants.


Assuntos
Fortalecimento Institucional/organização & administração , Difusão de Inovações , Disseminação de Informação , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/organização & administração , Pesquisadores/educação , Comportamento Cooperativo , Estudos Transversais , Humanos , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares , Rede Social , Estados Unidos
19.
JAMA Netw Open ; 2(11): e1914718, 2019 11 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31702797

RESUMO

Importance: No studies to date have examined support by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for primary and secondary prevention research in humans and related methods research that measures the leading risk factors or causes of death or disability as outcomes or exposures. Objective: To characterize NIH support for such research. Design and Setting: This serial cross-sectional study randomly sampled NIH grants and cooperative agreements funded during fiscal years 2012 through 2017. For awards with multiple subprojects, each was treated as a separate project. Study characteristics, outcomes, and exposures were coded from October 2015 through February 2019. Analyses weighted to reflect the sampling scheme were completed in March through June 2019. Using 2017 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 2016 data from the Global Burden of Disease project, the leading risk factors and causes of death and disability in the United States were identified. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the percentage of the NIH prevention research portfolio measuring a leading risk factor or cause of death or disability as an outcome or exposure. Results: A total of 11 082 research projects were coded. Only 25.9% (95% CI, 24.0%-27.8%) of prevention research projects measured a leading cause of death as an outcome or exposure, although these leading causes were associated with 74.0% of US mortality. Only 34.0% (95% CI, 32.2%-35.9%) measured a leading risk factor for death, although these risk factors were associated with 57.3% of mortality. Only 31.4% (95% CI, 29.6%-33.3%) measured a leading risk factor for disability-adjusted life-years lost, although these risk factors were associated with 42.1% of disability-adjusted life-years lost. Relatively few projects included a randomized clinical trial (24.6%; 95% CI, 22.5%-26.9%) or involved more than 1 leading cause (3.3%; 95% CI, 2.6%-4.1%) or risk factor (8.8%; 95% CI, 7.9%-9.8%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the leading risk factors and causes of death and disability were underrepresented in the NIH prevention research portfolio relative to their burden. Because so much is already known about these risk factors and causes, and because randomized interventions play such a vital role in the development of clinical and public health guidelines, it appears that greater attention should be given to develop and test interventions that address these risk factors and causes, addressing multiple risk factors or causes when possible.


Assuntos
Causas de Morte/tendências , Estudos sobre Deficiências/tendências , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/tendências , Medicina Preventiva/normas , Classificação/métodos , Estudos Transversais , Estudos sobre Deficiências/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/organização & administração , Medicina Preventiva/métodos , Medicina Preventiva/estatística & dados numéricos , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Projetos de Pesquisa/tendências , Fatores de Risco , Estados Unidos
20.
Nature ; 574(7777): 187-192, 2019 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31597973

RESUMO

Transformative technologies are enabling the construction of three-dimensional maps of tissues with unprecedented spatial and molecular resolution. Over the next seven years, the NIH Common Fund Human Biomolecular Atlas Program (HuBMAP) intends to develop a widely accessible framework for comprehensively mapping the human body at single-cell resolution by supporting technology development, data acquisition, and detailed spatial mapping. HuBMAP will integrate its efforts with other funding agencies, programs, consortia, and the biomedical research community at large towards the shared vision of a comprehensive, accessible three-dimensional molecular and cellular atlas of the human body, in health and under various disease conditions.


Assuntos
Atlas como Assunto , Pesquisa Biomédica/organização & administração , Cooperação Internacional , Modelos Anatômicos , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/organização & administração , Análise de Célula Única , Envelhecimento , Feminino , Saúde , Humanos , Masculino , Biologia Molecular/organização & administração , Especificidade de Órgãos , Estados Unidos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...