Elizabeth Ripley

Mentors play important roles in training new investigators. This study was designed to determine characteristics of NIH mentored K award recipients and their mentors, their interpersonal interactions, and the factors, which influence satisfaction within this relationship.Method: A survey of 3027 NIH mentored K recipients and 1384 mentors was conducted in 2009. Nine hundred twenty‐nine (30.7%) of the K recipients and 448 (32.4%) mentors completed the survey.Results: The gender of K respondents was evenly divided while the mentors were 72.1% male. The overall rating of their mentors was positive. Ideally, both thought the mentor should be important in research training; however, in actual practice, both rated the importance as lower. A total of 88.2% of recipients were satisfied with their relationship. Although the number of black K recipients was low, this group was more likely to be dissatisfied with the mentor relationship (6/29 or 20.7%) than their white counterparts. The frequency of meeting or communicating was correlated with K recipient satisfaction.Conclusions: Overall K recipients are satisfied with their mentor relationships. Although the number of black K recipient respondents was small, the higher level of mentor dissatisfaction should be further evaluated. Qualities of mentors, including the frequency of interactions and accessibility, can influence satisfaction. Clin Trans Sci 2012; Volume 5: 386–393

Background. As attention to, and motivation for, emergency medical services (EMS)-related research continues to grow, particularly exception from informed consent (EFIC) research, it is important to understand the thoughts, beliefs, and experiences of EMS providers who are actively engaged in the research. Objective. We explored the attitudes, beliefs, and experiences of EMS providers regarding their involvement in prehospital emergency research, particularly EFIC research. Methods. Using a qualitative design, 24 participants were interviewed including nationally registered paramedics and Virginia-certified emergency medical technicians employed at Richmond Ambulance Authority, the participating EMS agency. At the time of our interviews, the EMS agency was involved in an EFIC trial. Transcribed interview data were coded and analyzed for themes. Findings were presented back to the EMS agency for validation. Results. Overall, there appeared to be support for prehospital emergency research. Participants viewed research as necessary for the advancement of the field of EMS. Improvement in patient care was identified as one of the most important benefits. A number of ethical considerations were identified: individual risk versus public good and consent. The EMS providers in our study were open to working with EMS researchers throughout the community consultation and public disclosure process. Conclusion. The EMS providers in our study valued research and were willing to participate in studies. Support for research was balanced with concerns and challenges regarding the role of providers in the research process.

National Institutes of Health (NIH) K award recipients and their mentors were surveyed to investigate the role of the mentor. We found that a majority of mentors provided guidance in responsible research conduct (RCR), and that most of these relationships were deemed helpful. Mentors also responded that they played a greater importance in RCR training of their mentees than the mentees reported. Our results suggest both mentors and mentees report that mentors ideally should play a more important role in RCR training than was actually the case. For conflicting interests, subjects' protection, and misconduct, approximately 50% of K recipients found the mentor to be not at all important or only somewhat important for these areas of RCR training. We conclude the mentor's role is important but not optimal based on the results of our study cohort.

Although compensation for expenses to participants in research projects is considered important and the primary reason for paying, there is no evidence to support that investigators and IRB members actually calculate participant cost. Payment recommendations for six hypothetical studies were obtained from a national survey of IRB chairpersons (N = 353) and investigators (N = 495). Survey respondents also recommended payment for specific study procedures. We calculated participant cost for the six hypothetical cases both by procedures and by time involvement. A large percentage recommended only token payments for survey, registry, and medical record review studies. Most chose payment for pharmaceutical studies but the recommended payment did not compensate for calculated costs. Results suggest that compensation and reimbursement as the primary reasons for paying research participants may not match actual practice.

The principle that payment to participants should not be undue or coercive is the consensus of international and national guidelines and ethical debates; however, what this means in practice is unclear. This study determined the attitudes and practices of IRB chairpersons and investigators regarding participant payment. One thousand six hundred investigators and 1900 IRB chairpersons received an invitation to participate in a web-based survey. Four hundred and fifty-five investigators (28.3%) and 395 IRB chairpersons (18.6%) responded. The survey was designed to gather considerations that govern payment determination and practical application of these considerations in hypothetical case studies. The survey asked best answer, multiple choice, and open text questions. Short hypothetical case scenarios where presented, and participants were asked to rate factors in the study that might impact payment and then determine their recommended payment. A predictive model was developed for each case to determine factors which affected payment. Although compensation was the primary reason given to justify payment by both investigators and IRB chairpersons, the cases suggested that, in practice, payment is often guided by incentive, as shown by the impact of anticipated difficulty recruiting, inconvenience, and risk in determining payment. Payment models varied by type of study. Ranges for recommended payments by both groups for different types of procedures and studies are presented.

Fifteen years of losartan: what have we learned about losartan that can benefit chronic kidney disease patients? Elizabeth Ripley, Ari HirschDivision of Nephrology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA Losartan, the first AT1 receptor blocker (ARB), was FDA approved 15 years ago.During those years, researchers and clinicians have developed a growing base of knowledge on the benefits of losartan, particularly for hypertension and renal disease. These benefits include decreasing proteinuria, slowing the progression of diabetic nephropathy, controlling hypertension, and decreasing stroke risk in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy. Although many of the benefits of losartan represent a class effect for ARBs, losartan has pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics and effects that are unique and are not a class effect. For example, a shorter duration of action is seen with this first ARB compared with other more recently approved ARBs. Losartan also has a uricosuric effect not seen in other ARBs and attenuates platelet aggregation, which is not seen or is seen to a lesser extent with the other ARBs. This review presents the physiological effects of losartan on the kidney and discusses relevant clinical outcomes.Keywords: losartan, chronic kidney disease

Physicians have sworn to treat for the good of their patients. However, there are often conflicting needs and pressures which are ethical, medical, and legal which impact the ability of the physician to provide that care. Although most dialysis patients work with the physician and dialysis facility to obtain quality care, there are a few which are noncompliant and even abusive. This small minority requires an inordinate amount of work and presents the physician with a variety of ethical and legal issues. Unlike many other specialties, dialysis care presents additional problems due to the frequent interactions, limited treatment options, and morbid consequences of lack of care. This article outlines these issues and summarizes the difficult position that the nephrologist encounters when dealing with a noncompliant or abusive patient.