Thursday, March 24, 2016

Clinical Research Oriented Workshop (CROW) Meeting: March 24, 2016

Present:  Marianne Burke, Nancy Gell, Kairn Kelley, Ben Littenberg, Adam Sprouse-Blum, Connie van Eeghen

Start Up: Ferroequinologist is a train buff – who knew?

1.                  Discussion: Adam’s presentation on Gastroparesis in Migraine (when the stomach doesn’t work during a migraine headache) 
a.       Adam is giving a talk to Headache Cooperative New England, in Stowe VT, next Saturday.  Feedback on presentation:
                                                  i.      Were Kaufman and Levine (1934) doctors?
                                                ii.      Historical overview
1.      State the nature of the measure (3rd item in the history slide): venous serum level
a.       Consider a heading “Serum drug levels”
2.      “Measure gastric emptying” – don’t explain “impedance”
a.       Don’t explain scintigraphy either
                                              iii.      Hypothesis: induce gastroparesis in transgenic mice
                                              iv.      Box plot header for 15 minute wait: 45 minutes (how long waited for Nitroglycerin to work) – different than the 15 minute wait for gastric emptying
1.      Distance traveled into small intestine: more likely the mode, rather than the mean
                                                v.      4 hour results – no difference
b.      Questions:
                                                  i.      Why are these results different (limitations)
1.      Mice are not people
2.      Migraine is a symptom; the mouse model of migraine is based on transplanting a human gene in a mouse – we don’t know if the mouse is having migraine
3.      Inadequate nitro dose
4.      Maybe waited too long; too short
5.      Did not test mice for pain reaction
a.       Check to see if the assays done are done in these kinds of mice
6.      Might have gotten migraine-resistant mice, despite gene
                                                ii.      State up front: why did we go into this
                                              iii.      What was learned:
1.      Personal
a.       Learned skills (animals, bench research)
b.      Knowledge base
c.       Connections with labs
d.      Tie in to other studies
2.      Big picture
a.       Publication of negative studies is important
                                                                                                                          i.      It is also an incomplete study:
1.      GastroP was not ruled out
2.      Can’t measure it in 5 mice using this method
                                              iv.      What’s next?
1.      Which is the cause: M to GP or GP to M
2.      Human study with nanotrackers
a.       Trackers anchored in the stomach until the migraine starts (talk to Jim Vecchio)
3.      GastroP just may not be that fruitful in an animal models
                                                v.      What else can be said?
1.      What is the research question? 
a.       What can be done about Migraine symptoms?
b.      What are the possible treatments?
c.       Can an animal model simulate the symptom to allow us to measure it?
2.      What is the logic model that resulted in the hypothesis?
3.      What do you want people to leave with?  From that message, back into the presentation. 
a.       “GP is a big problem in migraine.  They are associated.  (History)  An animal model would be great, we tried to build one, here’s how.  Looking for other ways to build; ideas?  Considering other ways to get to this idea: big data study, human studies with techno-support, GCRC (inpatient or outpatient) study on whether stomach dilation = gastric emptying…”
                                              vi.      Summarize the historical piece down to the basics: this is real phenomenon
1.      What method?
a.       We know that an animal model doesn’t work.
2.      Or, move the historical piece into a consolidated story, not a list of anecdotes
a.       Add pictures of those researchers
b.      Make sure all pictures are connected to the story
3.      Provide statistics, supporting why this is important
4.      Remember that the outcome measure for the animal study is a completely different, and possibly better, measure
                                            vii.      First slide: add investigators, add funder
c.       Tips for platform talks:
                                                  i.      White background is good
                                                ii.      Check out the podium ahead of time: wires, controls, steps
                                              iii.      Use the digital pointer, not the laser

2.                  Next Workshop Meeting(s): Thursdays, 1:30 p.m. – 2:30 p.m., at Given Courtyard South Level 4.   
a.       March 31, 2016: Ben – NAPCRG proposal on variability in PIP
b.      April 7, 2016: Amanda or Nancy Gell on grant proposal (also OK on 14)
c.       April 14, 2016: no Ben
d.      April 21, 2016: no Connie, Kairn
e.       April 28, 2016: Amanda?  Marianne?

Recorder: Connie van Eeghen

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.