Pamela McInnes

The Human Microbiome Project strategy for comprehensive sampling of the human microbiome and why it matters

The Human Microbiome Project used rigorous good clinical practice standards to complete comprehensive body site sampling in healthy 18‐ to 40‐yr‐old adults, creating an unparalleled reference set of microbiome specimens. To ensure that specimens represented minimally perturbed microbiomes, we first screened potential participants using exclusion criteria based on health history, including the presence of systemic diseases (e.g., hypertension, cancer, or immunodeficiency or autoimmune disorders), use of potential immunomodulators, and recent use of antibiotics or probiotics. Subsequent physical examinations excluded individuals based on body mass index (BMI), cutaneous lesions, and oral health. We screened 554 individuals to enroll 300 (149 men and 151 women, mean age 26 yr, mean BMI 24 kg/m2, 20.0% racial minority, and 10.7% Hispanic). We obtained specimens from the oral cavity, nares, skin, gastrointestinal tract, and vagina (15 specimens from men and 18 from women). The study evaluated longitudinal changes in an individuals microbiome by sampling 279 participants twice (mean 212 d after the first sampling; range 30‐359 d) and 100 individuals 3 times (mean 72 d after the second sampling; range 30‐224 d). This sampling strategy yielded 11,174 primary specimens, from which 12,479 DNA samples were submitted to 4 centers for metagenomic sequencing. Our clinical design and well‐defined reference cohort has laid a foundation for microbiome research.—Aagaard, K., Petrosino, J., Keitel, W., Watson, M., Katancik, J., Garcia, N., Patel, S., Cutting, M., Madden, T., Hamilton, H., Harris, E., Gevers, D., Simone, G., McInnes, P., Versalovic, J. The Human Microbiome Project strategy for comprehensive sampling of the human microbiome and why it matters. FASEB J. 27, 1012–1022 (2013). www.fasebj.org

Safety and antibody persistence following Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate or pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines given before pregnancy in women of childbearing age and their infants.

Background. Immunization of healthy women before pregnancy is a potential approach to providing increased levels of maternal antibody to newborns to protect them from infections occurring during the perinatal period and first months of life. Methods. Healthy nonpregnant Pima Indian women of childbearing age were randomized to receive one of two Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) conjugate vaccines [HbOC or Hib-meningococcal outer membrane protein complex (OMP)] or a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PnPs). Infants received Hib-OMP vaccine at 2, 4 and 12 months of age. Vaccine safety and immunogenicity was evaluated in the women and their infants. Results. Anti-polyribose ribitol phosphate antibody titers were significantly higher in women in both Hib conjugate vaccine groups than in the pneumococcal vaccine group throughout the 37-month observation period. Antibody responses to HbOC vaccine were significantly higher than those to Hib-OMP. A subsequent booster dose of each Hib conjugate vaccine induced reactions and antibody responses similar to those of the first dose. Infants born to mothers immunized with Hib vaccines compared with PnPs had significantly higher polyribose ribitol phosphate-specific IgG antibody titers at birth and 2 months of age but lower antibody responses to Hib-OMP at 6 months and similar titers before and after boosting with Hib-OMP at 1 year of age. By contrast women immunized with PnPs did not have significantly elevated concentrations of pneumococcal-specific antibody at delivery, and their infants had pneumococcal antibody titers similar to those of infants born to mothers who did not receive pneumococcal vaccine before pregnancy. Conclusion. Hib conjugate vaccine given to women before pregnancy significantly increased the proportion of infants who had protective Hib antibody levels at birth and 2 months of age.

Biomarkers and Surrogate Endpoints: Developing Common Terminology and Definitions

Biomarkers, surrogate endpoints, and clinical outcome assessments provide an essential set of tools needed to translate scientific concepts into diagnostic and therapeutic approaches and technologies. Recently, biomarkers have been promoted as offering significant potential for accelerating basic science, drug discovery, and medical product development, as well as improving clinical care.1 Examples of common biomarkers include breast cancer genes 1 and 2, prostate-specific antigen, and hepatitis C virus ribonucleic acid. Although new analytical approaches and omics-based technologies have yielded a rapidly expanding array of biomarkers, precisely how and when they should be used has not been clearly described.

NIH/NCATS/GRDR® Common Data Elements: A leading force for standardized data collection

The main goal of the NIH/NCATS GRDR® program is to serve as a central web-based global data repository to integrate de-identified patient clinical data from rare disease registries, and other data sources, in a standardized manner, to be available to researchers for conducting various biomedical studies, including clinical trials and to support analyses within and across diseases. The aim of the program is to advance research for many rare diseases. One of the first tasks toward achieving this goal was the development of a set of Common Data Elements (CDEs), which are controlled terminologies that represent collected data. A list of 75 CDEs was developed by a national committee and was validated and implemented during a period of 2 year proof of concept. Access to GRDR CDEs is freely available at: https://grdr.ncats.nih.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=5. The GRDR CDEs have been the cornerstone of the GRDR repository, as well as of several other national and international patient registries. The establishment of the GRDR program has elevated the issue of data standardization and interoperability for rare disease patient registries, to international attention, resulting in a global dialog and significant change in the mindset of registry developers, patient advocacy groups, and other national and international organizations.

National Institutes of Health Research Plan on Rehabilitation

One in five Americans experiences disability that affects their daily function because of impairments in mobility, cognitive function, sensory impairment, or communication impairment. The need for rehabilitation strategies to optimize function and reduce disability is a clear priority for research to address this public health challenge. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently published a Research Plan on Rehabilitation that provides a set of priorities to guide the field over the next 5 years. The plan was developed with input from multiple Institutes and Centers within the NIH, the National Advisory Board for Medical Rehabilitation Research, and the public. This article provides an overview of the need for this research plan, an outline of its development, and a listing of six priority areas for research. The NIH is committed to working with all stakeholder communities engaged in rehabilitation research to track progress made on these priorities and to work to advance the science of medical rehabilitation.

National Institutes of Health Research Plan on RehabilitationNIH Medical Rehabilitation Coordinating Committee

Abstract One in five Americans experiences disability that affects their daily function because of impairments in mobility, cognitive function, sensory impairment, or communication impairment. The need for rehabilitation strategies to optimize function and reduce disability is a clear priority for research to address this public health challenge. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently published a Research Plan on Rehabilitation that provides a set of priorities to guide the field over the next 5 years. The plan was developed with input from multiple Institutes and Centers within the NIH, the National Advisory Board for Medical Rehabilitation Research, and the public. This article provides an overview of the need for this research plan, an outline of its development, and a listing of six priority areas for research. The NIH is committed to working with all stakeholder communities engaged in rehabilitation research to track progress made on these priorities and to work to advance the science of medical rehabilitation. This article is being published almost simultaneously in the following six journals: American Journal of Occupational Therapy, American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, Physical Therapy, and Rehabilitation Psychology. Citation information is as follows: NIH Medical Rehabilitation Coordinating Committee. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;97(4):404—407.