Integrated Human Practices

Overview

  • Engagement Strategy via Supply Chain Approach: Consulted stakeholders across the therapy lifecycle, adapting communication for each group's expertise, ensuring clear understanding from design to patient recovery.
  • Stakeholder Prioritization using Mendelow's Matrix: Prioritised stakeholders by interest and influence, focusing on key partners for active decision-making and ensuring others were kept informed.
  • Patient-Centred Approach with Educational Tools: Created patient-friendly materials to facilitate informed feedback, keeping patient perspectives central while balancing technical and experiential insights.
  • Engagement Strategy via Supply Chain Approach: Implemented 3 iterative feedback loops to refine aspects of the project, with input from patients, experts, and stakeholders leading to improvements in product design, safety, and delivery.
    • Pivot from Huntington's to Stroke Therapy: Shifted focus from Huntington's disease to stroke therapy due to higher prevalence and urgent need, following consultations with experts and patients.
    • Product Evolution Towards Universal Cell Therapy: Shifted to a universal cell therapy model with neurotrophic factors for faster stroke treatment, receiving endorsement from the Spanish Ministry of Health to enhance accessibility and recovery outcomes.
    • Safety and Intracranial Administration Based on Feedback: Opted for intracranial administration to improve effectiveness, with patient and expert input guiding the decision to prioritise targeted and safe delivery methods.
  • Data Privacy with Anonymisation Process: Integrated an optional anonymisation procedure for patient data, developed in alignment with guidance from the university's Data Protection Delegate.


The insights we gathered from stakeholders led to the creation of resources that helped enhance the understanding of key aspects of our project, such as our Magazine, Documentary or Education pages. We also explained the burden of stroke and how we came to address it at the Understanding Stroke page.

HP Strategy



To ensure our project's impact and success, we crafted a clear and concise strategy for engaging with patients and key stakeholders. Our goal was to build a coherent plan for identifying who to consult, defining how their input was valuable, and how to make these interactions meaningful.

In order to decide who to talk with, we adopted a Supply Chain approach to guide our strategy –we wanted to know the opinion of every person that could come into contact with Reneurish through its therapeutic life cycle, and understand what made their tasks easier. From the initial engineering design to the patient recovery process, we carefully selected stakeholders whose expertise was critical to each phase of development or checkpoint. This allowed us to continuously redesign our project while maintaining our ultimate goal: improving stroke patients’ recovery prognosis through synthetic biology.

Supply Chain

We knew that we needed to make sure that patient perspectives were integrated throughout the entire Supply Chain, and we worried that some parts of our project could be too technical for them to reflect on it appropriately. To sort this out, we came up with a multi-targeted engagement approach tailored to each stakeholder's level of expertise and familiarity with the subject.

This involved, for instance, breaking down complex technical concepts into more digestible, patient-friendly language while maintaining accuracy. We developed educational and visual material to help patients and their families better understand key aspects of the therapy, such as how cell therapy works, the role of BDNF, and the potential risks and benefits involved (see the Education page). These tools empowered them to offer informed feedback on areas directly impacting their experiences, like accessibility, delivery methods, and treatment timelines. That way, we could ensure that the voice of the patients remained central without overwhelming them with overly technical details, allowing us to strike the right balance between expert knowledge and patient experience, ensuring the therapy aligned with both medical goals and patient needs.

After establishing the Supply Chain as our tool to choose the stakeholders, we needed to assess how to process their feedback and whose insights needed to be prioritised. To do this we adapted a tool commonly used by previous iGEM teams: Mendelow's Matrix [1] [2]. The Mendelow's Matrix is a strategic tool used to assess and prioritise stakeholders based on their level of interest and influence over a project. It helps teams like ours determine which stakeholders require more attention, communication, and engagement.

Mendelow's Matrix

Lastly, we were very aware of the implications of processing personal data, especially regarding patient's medical testimonials. We found that some of them wanted to help us but didn't like the idea of giving away their names, so we introduced an optional anonymisation procedure into our project guided by the Bioethical Committee of our university.

To learn more about how we have collected, stored and processed personal data, you can visit our Biosafety page.


Supply Chain



Our approach centres on integrating human practices into the development of our therapy, ensuring it aligns with the real-world needs of stroke patients. Over the course of our project, we have conducted multiple meetings with various stakeholders, including patients, healthcare professionals, and industry experts, to gather insights and feedback. These discussions have been crucial in shaping our understanding of the challenges faced by stroke patients and refining our therapy accordingly.

We have developed a Supply Chain approach to decide who we contact with, and it involves multiple Checkpoints representing the critical phases of the therapeutic journey. At each Checkpoint, we classify the relevant information provided by the consulted experts, focusing on specific aspects of the project rather than exhaustive meeting details. This structured communication ensures that the most pertinent insights are conveyed clearly and efficiently.

To date, we have engaged with a total of 32 stakeholders, patients, and hands-on workers, allowing us to gather diverse perspectives and continuously refine our approach to better serve the needs of stroke patients. This extensive outreach enriches our understanding of the therapeutic landscape and the practical implications of our project.

Feedback Loops



Our project was not isolated -it hadn't fallen out of a coconut tree. Our initial ideas were not necessarily the best options, so we delved into each aspect of our project to optimise it.

That is why we selected three crucial aspects of the project, called loops, that changed significantly thanks to the discussions we had with stroke patients, experts, government officials and other stakeholders.

Each loop followed the same process: we started with an initial idea, gathered feedback from key stakeholders, implemented the changes based on that feedback, and then validated the redesigned concept with both the same and new stakeholders, including patients. Each one of these steps helped us come closer to completing the Integration Cycle.

Each time we completed this cycle we said we closed the loop. In some cases we closed the loop multiple times by going through the cycle again and again, continuously refining the idea and improving upon it with each iteration.


Loop 1: The real need


  • Initial Idea: Cell transplant with CRISPR system for Huntington's disease.
    We started with Huntington's disease due to Dr. Tornero's expertise, aiming to use CRISPR to address neurological disorders. However, after recognizing stroke's higher prevalence and urgent need for treatment, we decided to pivot.
  • Milestone: Genetically-enhanced cell transplant for stroke with autologous cells.
    After discussions with stroke experts and patients, we focused on stroke recovery using autologous cells to avoid immune rejection. But as stroke patients like Marta's husband showed us, the process was too slow, reinforcing the need for a faster solution.
  • Final Outcome: Rapid genetically-enhanced cell transplant for stroke with universal cells, scalable to a cocktail of neurotrophic factors.
    Based on input from the Spanish Ministry of Health and stroke patients, we shifted to universal cells for quicker treatment, integrating neurotrophic factors to improve recovery outcomes and meet the urgent needs of patients like Marta and Gerard.

Loop 2: Therapeutic product


  • Initial Idea: Serotype bank of off-the-shelf AAV-modified iPSC-derived NPCs.
    Our initial plan was to use AAVs for non-integrative, safer gene delivery and create an HLA-typed cell bank to ensure compatibility. However, as we spoke with institutions like the Catalan Blood and Tissue Bank, we realised this approach would only cover 20% of stroke patients, which wasn't enough.
  • Milestone: Universalised off-the-shelf LV-enhanced iPSC-derived stable line of NPCs.
    After consulting experts and hearing stories like Enola's, whose father had no treatment options, we shifted to using CRISPR to create universal cells. This increased compatibility and simplified logistics, as recommended by Prof. Reina, making our therapy more accessible to all patients.
  • Final Idea: Universalised patient-ready AAV-enhanced iPSC-derived NPCs, infection is conducted during priming (after thawing but before transplant).
    To combine safety with practicality, we returned to AAVs for temporary genetic changes and timed the infection during the priming phase. By leveraging Spain's transplant system, we ensured the therapy could be delivered quickly and safely to patients in need.

Loop 3: Safety measures


  • Concept 1: Episomal modification with AAVs and a time-dependent regulatory system.
    We chose AAVs for their safety, as they don't integrate into the genome, minimising long-term risks for patients like Gerard, who emphasised the importance of avoiding tumour formation.
  • Integration: Post-thaw episomal modification with AAVs, adding a co-transfection cassette to select iPSCs and avoid teratomas.
    This method ensures safer transplants by reducing the risk of teratomas, a key concern for patients like Gerard, who prioritised safety over speed of recovery. The selection process helps ensure only fully differentiated NPCs are used.
  • Concept 2: Intravenous or intra-arterial administration.
    These methods were initially explored due to their less invasive nature, but we found they significantly increased teratoma risk and reduced the therapy's effectiveness. Both doctors and patients highlighted the need for more targeted treatments to fully restore lost functions.
  • Integration: Intracranial administration validated by experts and patients, with an extended therapeutic window for better logistics.
    We opted for intracranial administration as it directly targets the brain, maximising the therapy's potential. Scientific studies validated its safety and feasibility, and stroke patients and families, like Marta's, were willing to accept this approach if it offered the possibility of regaining essential abilities.


References