Academic Medical Product Development: An Emerging Alliance of Technology Transfer Organizations and the CTSA

To bring the benefits of science more quickly to patient care, the NIH National Center Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) supports programs that enhance the development, testing, and implementation of new medical products and procedures. The NCATS clinical and translational science award (CTSA) program is central to that mission; creating an academic home for clinical and translational science and supporting those involved in the discovery and development of new health‐related inventions. The technology transfer Offices (TTO) of CTSA‐funded universities can be important partners in the development process; facilitating the transfer of medical research to the commercial sector for further development and ultimately, distribution to patients. The Aggregating Intellectual Property (IP) Working Group (AWG) of the CTSA public private partnerships key function committee (PPP‐KFC) developed a survey to explore how CTSA‐funded institutions currently interface with their respective TTOs to support medical product development. The results suggest a range of relationships across institutions; approximately half have formal collaborative programs, but only a few have well‐connected programs. Models of collaborations are described and provided as examples of successful CTSA/TTO partnerships that have increased the value of health‐related inventions as measured by follow‐on funding and industry involvement; either as a consulting partner or licensee.     

Nurse Engagement and Contributions to the Clinical and Translational Science Awards Initiative

CTSAs are mandated to follow a multidisciplinary model. Requests for applications direct responsive applications to “integrate clinical and translational science across multiple departments, schools,” listing disciplines in addition to medicine such as engineering, nursing, and public health. This inventory of nurse engagement in CTSAs describes the extent of nursing''s CTSA engagement from the perspective of participating nurse scientists within individual CTSAs, including institutional/national contributions and best practices that foster a multidisciplinary model. Of the 50 CTSAs affiliated with a nursing school, 44 responded (88% response rate). Of the ten CTSAs not affiliated with a nursing school, four responded (40% response rate). Overall funding success rates of nurse applicants are: TL1 fellowships 81%, KL2 fellowships 54%, and nurse‐led pilots 58%. At most CTSAs nursing is contributing to the accomplishment of the CTSA mandate. The strongest categories of contribution are community engagement, implementation science, and training. Best practices to enhance multidisciplinary collaboration are: (1) inclusion of multiple disciplines on key committees who meet regularly to guide individual core and overall CTSA strategic planning and implementation; (2) required multidisciplinary co‐mentors (ideally from different schools within the CTSA) on training grants and as co‐investigators on pilot projects; and (3) documentation of multidisciplinary activity in annual reports.     

Community Engagement Strategies in the Original and Renewal Applications for CTSA Grant Funding

Purpose

The Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program has highlighted community engagement in research by requiring institutions to develop bidirectional relationships with communities to obtain funding. Little is known about how institutions have operationalized that requirement. This study aimed to describe the strategies proposed by the first institutions to receive CTSA funding and to undergo the CTSA renewal process.

Methods

The authors conducted a qualitative document analysis of the community engagement section of 12 original and 10 renewal grant applications of the 12 institutions awarded CTSA funding in 2006 and renewed in 2010.

Results

Institutions employed ‐ and research engagement strategies. Capacity‐building strategies included education, pilot grants, connecting potential partners, and community research centers. Research engagement strategies ranged from those that allowed for very little input from communities, such as announcements, to those that allowed for a high amount of input from communities, such as community‐researcher teams.

Conclusion

CTSA funding has supported capacity‐building for institutions and communities to partner. Engagement strategies employed by the institutions are largely known from prior community‐engaged research. Based on the grants from these institutions, the CTSA funding has largely enabled institutions to develop capacity to engage.     

The CTSA Mentored Career Development Program: Supporting the Careers of Child Health Investigators

Training translational scientists is a priority of the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) consortium. Objectives: 1) Describe the landscape of CTSA Mentored Research Career Development Awards (CDA) and 2) evaluate participation and outcomes of child health investigators in these programs. Design: Survey of the CTSA Child Health Oversight Committee (CC‐CHOC) and review of nonresponders'' CTSA Websites. Results: Thirty‐two of 53 CC‐CHOC members (60%) responded and all nonresponder Websites were reviewed. Institutions supported 1,166 CDA positions from 2006 to 2011, with 134 awarded to child health investigators (11.5%). Respondents reported a mean of 29.8 KL2 positions (95% CI 17.5–42.2) during their award period, with a mean of 2.8 (95% CI 1.8–3.8) awarded to child health investigators. The proportion of child health awardees varied from 0% to 50% across institutions. We identified 45 subsequent National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards to the 134 child health investigators (34%). Conclusions: The CTSA program contributes substantially to training the next generation of translational investigators. One‐third of child health investigators obtained subsequent NIH awards in the short follow‐up period demonstrating success of the CTSA CDA programs. Child health investigators are represented variably across the consortium. Pediatric institutions can partner with the CTSA program to further support training child health investigators.     

Breaking Down Silos: Mapping Growth of Cross‐Disciplinary Collaboration in a Translational Science Initiative

The importance of transdisciplinary collaboration is growing, though not much is known about how to measure collaboration patterns. The purpose of this paper is to present multiple ways of mapping and evaluating the growth of cross‐disciplinary partnerships over time. Social network analysis was used to examine the impact of a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) on collaboration patterns. Grant submissions from 2007 through 2010 and publications from 2007 through 2011 of Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences (ICTS) members were examined. A Cohort Model examining the first‐year ICTS members demonstrated an overall increase in collaborations on grants and publications, as well as an increase in cross‐discipline collaboration as compared to within‐discipline. A Growth Model that included additional members over time demonstrated the same pattern for grant submissions, but a decrease in cross‐discipline collaboration as compared to within‐discipline collaboration for publications. ICTS members generally became more cross‐disciplinary in their collaborations during the CTSA. The exception of publications for the Growth Model may be due to the time lag between funding and publication, as well as pressure for younger scientists to publish in their own fields. Network analysis serves as a valuable tool for evaluating changes in scientific collaboration.     

Designing a CTSA‐Based Social Network Intervention to Foster Cross‐Disciplinary Team Science

This paper explores the application of network intervention strategies to the problem of assembling cross‐disciplinary scientific teams in academic institutions. In a project supported by the University of Florida (UF) Clinical and Translational Science Institute, we used VIVO, a semantic‐web research networking system, to extract the social network of scientific collaborations on publications and awarded grants across all UF colleges and departments. Drawing on the notion of network interventions, we designed an alteration program to add specific edges to the collaboration network, that is, to create specific collaborations between previously unconnected investigators. The missing collaborative links were identified by a number of network criteria to enhance desirable structural properties of individual positions or the network as a whole. We subsequently implemented an online survey (N = 103) that introduced the potential collaborators to each other through their VIVO profiles, and investigated their attitudes toward starting a project together. We discuss the design of the intervention program, the network criteria adopted, and preliminary survey results. The results provide insight into the feasibility of intervention programs on scientific collaboration networks, as well as suggestions on the implementation of such programs to assemble cross‐disciplinary scientific teams in CTSA institutions.     

Partnership‐Driven Resources to Improve and Enhance Research (PRIMER): A Survey of Community‐Engaged Researchers and Creation of an Online Toolkit

Objective: This project aimed to develop an open‐access website providing adaptable resources to facilitate best practices for multisite research from initiation to closeout. Methods: A web‐based assessment was sent to the leadership of the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Community Engagement Key Functions Committee (n= 38) and the CTSA‐affiliated Primary Care Practice‐based Research Networks (PBRN, n= 55). Respondents rated the benefits and barriers of multisite research, the utility of available resources, and indicated their level of interest in unavailable resources. Then, existing research resources were evaluated for relevance to multisite research, adaptability to other projects, and source credibility. Results: Fifty‐five (59%) of invited participants completed the survey. Top perceived benefits of multisite research were the ability to conduct community‐relevant research through academic–community partnerships (34%) and accelerating translation of research into practice (31%). Top perceived barriers were lack of research infrastructure to support PBRNs and community partners (31%) and inadequate funding to support multisite collaborations (26%). Over 200 resources were evaluated, of which 120 unique resources were included in the website. Conclusion: The PRIMER Research Toolkit (http://www.researchtoolkit.org) provides an array of peer‐reviewed resources to facilitate translational research for the conduct of multisite studies within PBRNs and community‐based organizations. Clin Trans Sci 2011; Volume 4: 259–265     

Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research: An Inventory of Programs and Materials within CTSAs

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) require instruction in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) as a component of any Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA). The Educational Materials Group of the NIH CTSA Consortium''s Clinical Research Ethics Key Function Committee (CRE‐KFC) conducted a survey of the 38 institutions that held CTSA funding as of January 2009 to determine how they satisfy RCR training requirements. An 8‐item questionnaire was sent by email to directors of the Clinical Research Ethics, the Educational and Career Development, and the Regulatory Knowledge cores. We received 78 completed surveys from 38 CTSAs (100%). We found that there is no unified approach to RCR training across CTSAs, many programs lack a coherent plan for RCR instruction, and most CTSAs have not developed unique instructional materials tailored to the needs of clinical and translational scientists. We recommend collaboration among CTSAs and across CTSA key function committees to address these weaknesses. We also requested that institutions send electronic copies of original RCR training materials to share among CTSAs via the CTSpedia website. Twenty institutions submitted at least one educational product. The CTSpedia now contains more than 90 RCR resources.     

Using AI to Understand Key Success Features in Evolving CTSAs

A vital role for Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) evaluators is to first identify and then articulate the necessary change processes that support the research infrastructures and achieve synergies needed to improve health through research. The use of qualitative evaluation strategies to compliment quantitative tracking measures (e.g., number of grants/publications) is an essential but under‐utilized approach in CTSA evaluations. The Clinical and Translational Science Institute of Southeast Wisconsin implemented a qualitative evaluation approach using appreciative inquiry (AI) that has revealed three critical features associated with CTSA infrastructure transformation success: developing open communication, creating opportunities for proactive collaboration, and ongoing attainment of milestones at the key function group level. These findings are consistent with Bolman & Deal''s four interacting hallmarks of successful organizations: structural (infrastructure), political (power distribution; organizational politics), human resource (facilitating change among humans necessary for continued success), and symbolic (visions and aspirations). Data gathered through this longitudinal AI approach illuminates how these change features progress over time as CTSA funded organizations successfully create the multiinstitutional infrastructures to connect laboratory discoveries with the diagnosis and treatment of human disease.     

Vision,Identity, and Career in the Clinical and Translational Sciences: Building upon the Formative Years

This paper is the second in a five‐part series on the clinical and translational science educational pipeline. It focuses on the role that Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) programs can play in supporting science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education in primary and secondary schools, as well as in facilitating these interests during transition to undergraduate training. Special emphasis should be placed on helping to form and sustain an identity as a scientist, and on instilling the persistence necessary to overcome numerous barriers to its actualization. CTSAs can contribute to cementing this sense of self by facilitating peer support, mentorship, and family involvement that will reinforce early educational decisions leading to clinical and translational science research careers. Meanwhile, the interests, skills, and motivation induced by participation in STEM programs must be sustained in transition to the next level in the educational pipeline, typically undergraduate study. Examples of CTSA collaborations with local schools, businesses, interest groups, and communities at large illustrate the emerging possibilities and promising directions with respect to each of these challenges.     

Strengthening Community Involvement in Grant Review: Insights from the Community–University Research Partnership (CURES) Pilot Review Process

In 2007, the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR) at the University of Michigan received a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA). Within MICHR, the Community Engagement (CE) program supports partnership efforts between researchers, practitioners, and community‐based organizations in specific focal communities throughout Michigan. A key component of the CE program is the Community Engagement Coordinating Council, a group that provides input and guidance on program priorities, strategic planning, and reviews pilot funding proposals for community–academic partnerships. This paper will describe a unique MICHR pilot funding mechanism for Community–University Research Partnerships (CURES) with an emphasis on the ways that community partners are involved in the review process, as well as the benefits, challenges, and insights gained over 5 years of pilot review. There is a growing need for community involvement and expertise in review of funding proposals for community‐engaged research at both institutional and federal levels. The CURES pilot review process is one example of an institutional effort to engage community partners in university funding decisions and has demonstrated clear benefit toward accomplishing the aims of the CTSA.     

Understanding the Supports of and Challenges to Community Engagement in the CTSAs

Background

The Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program has raised the profile and the available funding for engagement in biomedical research. Such increased funding and attention may address known barriers to engagement. However, little work has been done to describe experiences across multiple CTSAs, especially how the CTSA structure supports or challenges engagement.

Objective

We sought to understand the supports and challenges experienced by multiple CTSAs as they pursued community engagement. This knowledge may help guide future efforts to support and enhance community engagement in biomedical research.

Methods

We conducted semi‐structured, in‐depth interviews with CTSA community engagement core leaders and staff from the 2006 cohort of CTSAs (n = 12).

Results

A total of 17 interviews with respondents from nine institutions identified three support themes, including: funding, existing relationships with communities, and leadership and a partnership approach at the institution. Six challenge themes arose: need for capacity development, lack of positive relationships with communities, lack of leadership, funding constraints, time and staff constraints, and unsustainable models.

Conclusion

The CTSAs have brought much‐needed attention to community engagement in research, but more can be done to adequately support engagement. Challenges remain that need to be addressed to achieve the potential benefits of engagement.     

The CTSA Consortium's Catalog of Assets for Translational and Clinical Health Research (CATCHR)

The 61 CTSA Consortium sites are home to valuable programs and infrastructure supporting translational science and all are charged with ensuring that such investments translate quickly to improved clinical care. Catalog of Assets for Translational and Clinical Health Research (CATCHR) is the Consortium''s effort to collect and make available information on programs and resources to maximize efficiency and facilitate collaborations. By capturing information on a broad range of assets supporting the entire clinical and translational research spectrum, CATCHR aims to provide the necessary infrastructure and processes to establish and maintain an open‐access, searchable database of consortium resources to support multisite clinical and translational research studies. Data are collected using rigorous, defined methods, with the resulting information made visible through an integrated, searchable Web‐based tool. Additional easy‐to‐use Web tools assist resource owners in validating and updating resource information over time. In this paper, we discuss the design and scope of the project, data collection methods, current results, and future plans for development and sustainability. With increasing pressure on research programs to avoid redundancy, CATCHR aims to make available information on programs and core facilities to maximize efficient use of resources.     

Tissue Inhibitor of Metalloproteinase‐2 Gene Delivery Ameliorates Postinfarction Cardiac Remodeling

Hypothesis: Adenoviral‐mediated (AdV‐T2) overexpression of TIMP‐2 would blunt ventricular remodeling and improve survival in a murine model of chronic ischemic injury. Methods: Male mice (n = 124) aged 10–14 weeks underwent either (1) left coronary artery ligation to induce myocardial infarction (MI group, n = 36), (2) myocardial injection of 6 × 10¹⁰ viral particles of AdV‐T2 immediately post‐MI (MI + T2 group, n = 30), (3) myocardial injection of 6 × 10¹⁰ viral particles of a control adenovirus (MI + Ct, n = 38), or 4) received no intervention (controls, n = 20). On post‐MI day 7, surviving mice (n = 79) underwent echocardiographic, immunohistochemical, and biochemical analysis. Results: In infarcted animals, the MI + T2 group demonstrated improved survival (p < 0.02), better preservation of developed pressure and ventricular diameter (p < 0.04), and the lowest expression and activity of MMP‐2 and MMP‐9 (p < 0.04) compared with MI and MI + Ct groups. All infarcted hearts displayed significantly increased inflammatory cell infiltration (p < 0.04 vs. control, MI, or MI + T2), with infiltration highest in the MI + Ct group and lowest in the MI + T2 group (p < 0.04). Conclusions: Adenoviral mediated myocardial delivery of the TIMP‐2 gene improves post‐MI survival and limits adverse remodeling in a murine model of MI. Clin Trans Sci 2011; Volume 4: 24–31     

Evaluating Various Areas of Process Improvement in an Effort to Improve Clinical Research: Discussions from the 2012 Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) Clinical Research Management Workshop

Emphasis has been placed on assessing the efficiency of clinical and translational research as part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) goal to “improve human health.” Improvements identified and implemented by individual organizations cannot address the research infrastructure needs of all clinical and translational research conducted. NIH''s National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) has brought together 61 Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) sites creating a virtual national laboratory that reflects the diversity and breadth of academic medical centers to collectively improve clinical and translational science. The annual Clinical Research Management workshop is organized by the CTSA consortium with participation from CTSA awardees, NIH, and others with an interest in clinical research management. The primary objective of the workshop is to disseminate information that improves clinical research management although the specific objectives of each workshop evolve within the consortium. The fifth annual workshop entitled “Learning by doing; applying evidence‐based tools to re‐engineer clinical research management” took place in June 2012. The primary objective of the 2012 workshop was to utilize data to evaluate, modify, and improve clinical research management. This report provides a brief summary of the workshop proceedings and the major themes discussed among the participants.     

Survey of Community Engagement in NIH‐Funded Research

Community engagement is an innovative and required component for Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). However, the extent of community engagement in NIH‐funded research has not been previously examined. This study assessed baseline prevalence of community engagement activities among NIH‐funded studies at a large Midwestern university with a CTSA. An online survey was e‐mailed to principal investigators of recent NIH‐funded studies (N = 480). Investigators were asked to identify what types of community engagement activities had occurred for each study. Responses were received for 40.4% (194/480) of studies. Overall, 42.6% reported any community engagement activities. More collaborative types of engagement (e.g., community advisory board) were less common than activities requiring less engagement (e.g., sharing study results with community members). Studies with more collaborative community engagement were less likely to be described as basic or preclinical research compared to all other studies. Given NIH''s inclusive call for community engagement in research, relatively few NIH‐funded studies reported community engagement activities, although this study used a broad definition of community and a wide range of types of engagement. These findings may be used to inform the goals of CTSA community engagement programs. Clin Trans Sci 2010; Volume *: 1–4     

Engaging the Community in the Dissemination,Implementation, and Improvement of Health‐Related Research

To help maximize the real‐world applicability of available interventions in clinical and community healthcare practice, there has been greater emphasis over the past two decades on engaging local communities in health‐related research. While there have been numerous successful community–academic partnered collaborations, there continues to be a need to articulate the common barriers experienced during the evolution of these partnerships, and to provide a roadmap for best practices that engage healthcare providers, patients, families, caregivers, community leaders, healthcare systems, public agencies and academic medical centers. To this end, this paper presents a summary of a forum discussion from the 2014 Southern California Dissemination, Implementation and Improvement (DII) Science Symposium, sponsored by the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Clinical Translational Science Institute (CTSI), University of Southern California (USC) CTSI, and Kaiser Permanente. During this forum, a diverse group of individuals representing multiple constituencies identified four key barriers to success in community‐partnered participatory research (CPPR) and discussed consensus recommendations to enhance the development, implementation, and dissemination of community health‐related research. In addition, this group identified several ways in which the over 60 NIH funded Clinical and Translational Science Institutes across the country could engage communities and researchers to advance DII science.     

Incorporating Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside (i2b2) into Predoctoral Trainee Curriculum to Evaluate Student‐Generated Hypotheses

As part of the Clinical and Translational Science Institute predoctoral TL1 training program at the Pennsylvania State University, a multidisciplinary team of predoctoral trainees representing the Chemistry, Neurosurgery, Nutritional Sciences, and Public Health Sciences departments were introduced to the NIH‐sponsored Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside (i2b2) database to test the following student‐generated hypothesis: children with iron deficiency anemia (IDA) are at increased risk of attention deficit‐hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Children aged 4–12 and 4–17 years were categorized into IDA and control groups. De‐identified medical records from the Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center (HMC) and the Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center (VCUMC) were used for the analysis. Overall, ADHD prevalence at each institution was lower than 2011 state estimates. There was a significant association between IDA and ADHD in the 4–17‐year‐old age group for all children (OR: 1.902 [95% CI: 1.363–2.656]), Caucasian children (OR: 1.802 [95% CI: 1.133–2.864]), and African American children (OR: 1.865 [95% CI: 1.152–3.021]). Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) infrastructure is particularly useful for trainees to answer de novo scientific questions with minimal additional training and technical expertise. Moreover, projects can be expanded by collaborating within the CTSA network.     

The CTSA as an Exemplar Framework for Developing Multidisciplinary Translational Teams

Translational science requires that scientists from multiple disciplines work together to improve the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of human disease. Although a literature exists on the design and management of multidisciplinary teams, little has been written on multidisciplinary translational teams (MTTs). MTTs are distinct hybrid entities, with goals taken from both industry and academic models. We identified 30 design factors in 10 domains from a literature survey relevant to our MTT model: specific goals, structures, and processes. These dimensions were adapted to our own institutional environment in the selection and management of 11 MTTs that exploited resources of University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) Clinical and Translational Sciences Awards (CTSA). Case illustrations of two specific MTTs illustrate some of the challenges encountered and opportunities realized in terms of education and scientific advances. Network depiction of disciplinarity indicated that CTSA KRs and CTSA leadership contributed to discipline diversity especially in small (or nascent) MTTs. A separate depiction of MTT‐KR utilization indicated that data analysis, translational technologies, and novel methods were heavily utilized by MTTs, whereas other KRs contributed significant effort to infrastructure development. We conclude that the CTSA can provide a rich
infrastructural framework and scientific environment for the development of successful MTTs. Clin Trans Sci 2013; Volume 6: 60–71     

Faculty Perceptions of How Community‐Engaged Research Is Valued in Tenure,Promotion, and Retention Decisions

Purpose

We assessed the perceptions of community core faculty in academic medical center institutions that received Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) about how these institutions consider community‐engaged scholarship (CES) when tenure, promotion, and retention decisions are made.

Method

An assessment tool was adapted to create an 18‐item survey that was sent during November and December 2011 via the Internet to the 369 members of the community‐engagement core mailing list of the CTSA.

Results

Fifty‐nine responses were received which represented 37 of the possible 60 different funded institutions. The mean score was 48.14 (SD = 11.18); range of 23–74; and Cronbach''s alpha was .91 About half reported that support for CES and its inclusion in the academic decision process increased since the institution was awarded a CTSA. Open‐ended responses indicated some confusion with terminology although a definition of CES had been provided in the instrument instructions.

Conclusion

Respondents overall agreed there was moderate support for CES in tenure, promotion, and retention decisions which may have been influenced by the CTSA application requirements. This survey could be used to identify if there are differences in institutional and departments and measure changes over time.