Disintegrin and metalloproteinase domain-containing protein 17 (ADAM17) is a ubiquitously expressed membrane-bound enzyme that mediates shedding of a wide variety of important regulators in inflammation including cytokines and adhesion molecules. Hepatic expression of numerous cytokines and adhesion molecules are increased in cholestatic liver diseases including primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), however, the pathophysiological role of ADAM17 in regulating these conditions remains unknown. Therefore, we evaluated the role of ADAM17 in a mouse model of cholestatic liver injury due to bile duct ligation (BDL). We found that BDL enhanced hepatic ADAM17 protein expression, paralleled by increased ADAM17 bioactivity. Moreover, inhibition of ADAM17 bioactivity with the specific inhibitor DPC 333 significantly improved both biochemical and histological evidence of liver damage in BDL mice. Patients with cholestatic liver disease commonly experience adverse behavioral symptoms, termed sickness behaviors. Similarly, BDL in mice induces reproducible sickness behavior development, driven by the upregulated expression of cytokines and adhesion molecules that are in turn regulated by ADAM17 activity. Indeed, inhibition of ADAM17 activity significantly ameliorated BDL-associated sickness behavior development. In translational studies, we evaluated changes in ADAM17 protein expression in liver biopsies obtained from patients with PBC and PSC, compared to normal control livers. PSC and PBC patients demonstrated increased hepatic ADAM17 expression in hepatocytes, cholangiocytes and in association with liver-infiltrating immune cells compared to normal controls. In summary, cholestatic liver injury in mice and humans is associated with increased hepatic ADAM17 expression. Furthermore, inhibition of ADAM17 activity improves both cholestatic liver injury and associated sickness behavior development, suggesting that ADAM17 inhibition may represent a novel therapeutic approach for treating patients with PBC/PSC.

Objective To identify and assess the globally available valid, reliable and acceptable tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts. Methods We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO from origin to 2 June 2021, without limits, using an a priori strategy and registered protocol. We screened citations independently and in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus and retaining studies involving health research partnerships, the development, use and/or assessment of tools to evaluate partnership outcomes and impacts, and reporting empirical psychometric evidence. Study, tool, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics were abstracted using a hybrid approach, then synthesized using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Study quality was assessed using the quality of survey studies in psychology (Q-SSP) checklist. Results From 56 123 total citations, we screened 36 027 citations, assessed 2784 full-text papers, abstracted data from 48 studies and one companion report, and identified 58 tools. Most tools comprised surveys, questionnaires and scales. Studies used cross-sectional or mixed-method/embedded survey designs and employed quantitative and mixed methods. Both studies and tools were conceptually well grounded, focusing mainly on outcomes, then process, and less frequently on impact measurement. Multiple forms of empirical validity and reliability evidence was present for most tools; however, psychometric characteristics were inconsistently assessed and reported. We identified a subset of studies (22) and accompanying tools distinguished by their empirical psychometric, pragmatic and study quality characteristics. While our review demonstrated psychometric and pragmatic improvements over previous reviews, challenges related to health research partnership assessment and the nascency of partnership science persist. Conclusion This systematic review identified multiple tools demonstrating empirical psychometric evidence, pragmatic strength and moderate study quality. Increased attention to psychometric and pragmatic requirements in tool development, testing and reporting is key to advancing health research partnership assessment and partnership science. PROSPERO CRD42021137932

Background Accurate, consistent assessment of outcomes and impacts is challenging in the health research partnerships domain. Increased focus on tool quality, including conceptual, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics, could improve the quantification, measurement and reporting partnership outcomes and impacts. This cascading review was undertaken as part of a coordinated, multicentre effort to identify, synthesize and assess a vast body of health research partnership literature. Objective To systematically assess the outcomes and impacts of health research partnerships, relevant terminology and the type/use of theories, models and frameworks (TMF) arising from studies using partnership assessment tools with known conceptual, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics. Methods Four electronic databases were searched (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO) from inception to 2 June 2021. We retained studies containing partnership evaluation tools with (1) conceptual foundations (reference to TMF), (2) empirical, quantitative psychometric evidence (evidence of validity and reliability, at minimum) and (3) one or more pragmatic characteristics. Outcomes, impacts, terminology, definitions and TMF type/use were abstracted verbatim from eligible studies using a hybrid (independent abstraction–validation) approach and synthesized using summary statistics (quantitative), inductive thematic analysis and deductive categories (qualitative). Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD). Results Application of inclusion criteria yielded 37 eligible studies. Study quality scores were high (mean 80%, standard deviation 0.11%) but revealed needed improvements (i.e. methodological, reporting, user involvement in research design). Only 14 (38%) studies reported 48 partnership outcomes and 55 impacts; most were positive effects (43, 90% and 47, 89%, respectively). Most outcomes were positive personal, functional, structural and contextual effects; most impacts were personal, functional and contextual in nature. Most terms described outcomes (39, 89%), and 30 of 44 outcomes/impacts terms were unique, but few were explicitly defined (9, 20%). Terms were complex and mixed on one or more dimensions (e.g. type, temporality, stage, perspective). Most studies made explicit use of study-related TMF (34, 92%). There were 138 unique TMF sources, and these informed tool construct type/choice and hypothesis testing in almost all cases (36, 97%). Conclusion This study synthesized partnership outcomes and impacts, deconstructed term complexities and evolved our understanding of TMF use in tool development, testing and refinement studies. Renewed attention to basic concepts is necessary to advance partnership measurement and research innovation in the field. Systematic review protocol registration: PROSPERO protocol registration: CRD42021137932 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=137932.

Background: Suggested mechanisms for SARS-CoV-2 direct liver infection have been proposed by others to involve both cholangiocytes and hepatocytes. Early clinical studies have highlighted abnormal liver biochemistry with COVID-19 infection as often not being severe, with elevated liver enzymes <5X the upper limit of normal. Methods: Liver enzymes were evaluated and compared in patients admitted with a diagnosis of COVID-19 in a deidentified Internal Medicine-Medical Teaching Unit/hospitalist admission laboratory database. Comparisons in the incidence of severe liver injury (alanine aminotransferase >10 times upper limit of normal) were made for patients with pre-Omicron SARS-CoV-2 (November 30, 2019, to December 15, 2021) and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 (December 15, 2021, to April 15, 2022). Comprehensive hospital health records were also reviewed for the 2 patient cases discussed. One patient had a liver biopsy that was evaluated with H&E and immunohistochemistry staining using an antibody against COVID-19 spike protein. Results: The evaluation of a deidentified admissions laboratory database found the incidence of severe liver injury was 0.42% with Omicron versus 0.30% with pre-Omicron variants of COVID-19. In both patient cases discussed, abnormal liver biochemistry and a negative comprehensive workup strongly suggest COVID-19 as the cause of severe liver injury. In the one patient with liver biopsy, immunohistochemistry staining suggests SARS-CoV-2 presence in the portal and lobular spaces in association with immune cell infiltration. Conclusions: The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 should be considered in the differential diagnosis of severe acute liver injury. Our observation suggests that this new variant, either through direct liver infection and/or mediating immune dysfunction, can result in severe liver injury.