Trustworthy and ethical AI-enabled cardiovascular care: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used for prevention, diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of cardiovascular diseases. Despite the potential for AI to improve care, ethical concerns and mistrust in AI-enabled healthcare exist among the public and medical community. Given the rapid and transformative recent growth of AI in cardiovascular care, to inform practice guidelines and regulatory policies that facilitate ethical and trustworthy use of AI in medicine, we conducted a literature review to identify key ethical and trust barriers and facilitators from patients' and healthcare providers' perspectives when using AI in cardiovascular care. METHODS: In this rapid literature review, we searched six bibliographic databases to identify publications discussing transparency, trust, or ethical concerns (outcomes of interest) associated with AI-based medical devices (interventions of interest) in the context of cardiovascular care from patients', caregivers', or healthcare providers' perspectives. The search was completed on May 24, 2022 and was not limited by date or study design. RESULTS: After reviewing 7,925 papers from six databases and 3,603 papers identified through citation chasing, 145 articles were included. Key ethical concerns included privacy, security, or confidentiality issues (n = 59, 40.7%); risk of healthcare inequity or disparity (n = 36, 24.8%); risk of patient harm (n = 24, 16.6%); accountability and responsibility concerns (n = 19, 13.1%); problematic informed consent and potential loss of patient autonomy (n = 17, 11.7%); and issues related to data ownership (n = 11, 7.6%). Major trust barriers included data privacy and security concerns, potential risk of patient harm, perceived lack of transparency about AI-enabled medical devices, concerns about AI replacing human aspects of care, concerns about prioritizing profits over patients' interests, and lack of robust evidence related to the accuracy and limitations of AI-based medical devices. Ethical and trust facilitators included ensuring data privacy and data validation, conducting clinical trials in diverse cohorts, providing appropriate training and resources to patients and healthcare providers and improving their engagement in different phases of AI implementation, and establishing further regulatory oversights. CONCLUSION: This review revealed key ethical concerns and barriers and facilitators of trust in AI-enabled medical devices from patients' and healthcare providers' perspectives. Successful integration of AI into cardiovascular care necessitates implementation of mitigation strategies. These strategies should focus on enhanced regulatory oversight on the use of patient data and promoting transparency around the use of AI in patient care.

Drug repurposing: a systematic review on root causes, barriers and facilitators.

BACKGROUND: Repurposing is a drug development strategy receiving heightened attention after the Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorization of several repurposed drugs to treat Covid-19. There remain knowledge gaps on the root causes, facilitators and barriers for repurposing. METHOD: This systematic review used controlled vocabulary and free text terms to search ABI/Informa, Academic Search Premier, Business Source Complete, Cochrane Library, EconLit, Google Scholar, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection databases for the characteristics, reasons and example of companies deprioritizing development of promising drugs and barriers, facilitators and examples of successful re-purposing. RESULTS: We identified 11,814 articles, screened 5,976 for relevance, found 437 eligible for full text review, 115 of which were included in full analysis. Most articles (66%, 76/115) discussed why promising drugs are abandoned, with lack of efficacy or superiority to other therapies (n = 59), strategic business reasons (n = 35), safety problems (n = 28), research design decisions (n = 12), the complex nature of a studied disease or drug (n = 7) and regulatory bodies requiring more information (n = 2) among top reasons. Key barriers to repurposing include inadequate resources (n = 42), trial data access and transparency around abandoned compounds (n = 20) and expertise (n = 11). Additional barriers include uncertainty about the value of repurposing (n = 13), liability risks (n = 5) and intellectual property (IP) challenges (n = 26). Facilitators include the ability to form multi-partner collaborations (n = 38), access to compound databases and database screening tools (n = 32), regulatory modifications (n = 5) and tax incentives (n = 2). CONCLUSION: Promising drugs are commonly shelved due to insufficient efficacy or superiority to alternate therapies, poor market prospects, and industry consolidation. Inadequate resources and data access and challenges negotiating IP are key barriers to repurposing reaching its full potential as a core approach in drug development. Multi-partner collaborations and the availability and use of compound databases and tax incentives are key facilitators for repurposing. More research is needed on the current value of repurposing in drug development and how to better facilitate resources to support it, where valuable, especially financial, staffing for out-licensing shelved products, and legal expertise to negotiate IP agreements in multi-partner collaborations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered on Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/f634k/ ) as it was not eligible for registration on PROSPERO as the review did not focus on a health-related outcome.

Managing conflicts of interest in pharmacy and therapeutics committees: A proposal for multicentre formulary development.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: While many countries have central agencies responsible for formulary development, within the United States, each hospital, health care system, or insurance provider has their own pharmacy and therapeutic committee, leading to both inefficiencies and inequalities across formularies. The number and variety of processes within pharmacy and therapeutic committees also increases the likelihood that conflicts of interest will influence the development of formularies. We sought to determine how such influences could be reduced by reviewing international evidence related to the presence and harms of conflicts of interest in formulary development. METHODS: Several approaches have been taken to reduce the influence of conflicts of interest in pharmacy and therapeutics committee processes, including include disclosure, recusal, exclusion, universal consideration and dual committees. The feasibility of each of these approaches is considered in the context of the United States. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A proposal is drawn from the discussion of various approaches to conflicts of interest in pharmacy and therapeutics committees: multicenter formulary development. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Multicentre formulary development, where resources are pooled across institutions, may lead to a reduction in the influence of conflicts of interest in pharmacy and therapeutics committee processes in the United States, increasing the chances of including the most safe, efficacious and cost-effective drugs on formularies.

Postmarketing commitments for novel drugs and biologics approved by the US Food and Drug Administration: a cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postmarketing commitments are clinical studies that pharmaceutical companies agree to conduct at the time of FDA approval, but which are not required by statute or regulation. As FDA increasingly adopts a lifecycle evaluation process, greater emphasis will be placed on postmarket evidence as a component of therapeutic evaluation. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to determine how often postmarketing commitments agreed upon by pharmaceutical companies at first FDA approval lead to new clinical trials and to establish the characteristics and rates of completion and dissemination of postmarketing commitments. METHODS: For new drugs and biologics approved in 2009-2012, we used public FDA documents, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Scopus, to determine postmarketing commitments and their characteristics known at the time of FDA approval; number subject to reporting requirements, for which FDA is required to make study status information available to the public ("506B studies"), and their statuses; and rates of registration and results reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov and publication in peer-reviewed journals for all clinical trials. RESULTS: Among 110 novel drugs and biologics approved by the FDA between 2009 and 2012, 61 (55.5%) had at least one postmarketing commitment at the time of first approval. Of 331 total postmarketing commitments, 33 (10.0%) were for new clinical trials; 27 of these were 506B studies subject to public reporting requirements, of which 12 (44.4%) did not have a recent (i.e., up-to-date) or closed (i.e., fulfilled or released) status provided publicly by the FDA. Although two postmarketing commitments were insufficiently described in FDA records to perform searches on ClinicalTrials.gov, nearly all (28, 90.3%) of the 31 remaining postmarketing commitments for new clinical trials were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Among the registered trials, 23 (23 of 28, 82.1%) were classified as completed or terminated, of which 22 (95.7%) had reported results. When considering all 29 completed or terminated clinical trials, registered or unregistered on ClinicalTrials.gov, only half (14, 48.3%) were published in peer-reviewed journals. CONCLUSIONS: While only 15% of postmarketing commitments agreed to by pharmaceutical companies at the time of FDA approval were for new clinical trials, these trials were nearly always registered with reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov. However, only half were published, and despite FDA public reporting requirements, recent status information was often unavailable for 506B studies.

Pivotal Trial Demographic Representation and Clinical Development Times for Oncology Therapeutics.

This study evaluates whether FDA-approved novel cancer therapeutics supported by pivotal trials with adequate representation of minoritized groups were associated with slower clinical development times than those with inadequate representation.

Incorporating ethical principles into clinical research protocols: a tool for protocol writers and ethics committees.

A novel Protocol Ethics Tool Kit ('Ethics Tool Kit') has been developed by a multi-stakeholder group of the Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center of Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard. The purpose of the Ethics Tool Kit is to facilitate effective recognition, consideration and deliberation of critical ethical issues in clinical trial protocols. The Ethics Tool Kit may be used by investigators and sponsors to develop a dedicated Ethics Section within a protocol to improve the consistency and transparency between clinical trial protocols and research ethics committee reviews. It may also streamline ethics review and may facilitate and expedite the review process by anticipating the concerns of ethics committee reviewers. Specific attention was given to issues arising in multinational settings. With the use of this Tool Kit, researchers have the opportunity to address critical research ethics issues proactively, potentially speeding the time and easing the process to final protocol approval.

Gatekeepers for pragmatic clinical trials.

To successfully implement a pragmatic clinical trial, investigators need access to numerous resources, including financial support, institutional infrastructure (e.g. clinics, facilities, staff), eligible patients, and patient data. Gatekeepers are people or entities who have the ability to allow or deny access to the resources required to support the conduct of clinical research. Based on this definition, gatekeepers relevant to the US clinical research enterprise include research sponsors, regulatory agencies, payers, health system and other organizational leadership, research team leadership, human research protections programs, advocacy and community groups, and clinicians. This article provides a framework to help guide gatekeepers' decision-making related to the use of resources for pragmatic clinical trials. Relevant ethical considerations for gatekeepers include (1) concern for the interests of individuals, groups, and communities affected by the gatekeepers' decisions, including protection from harm and maximization of benefits; (2) advancement of organizational mission and values; and (3) stewardship of financial, human, and other organizational resources. Separate from these ethical considerations, gatekeepers' actions will be guided by relevant federal, state, and local regulations. This framework also suggests that to further enhance the legitimacy of their decision-making, gatekeepers should adopt transparent processes that engage relevant stakeholders when feasible and appropriate. We apply this framework to the set of gatekeepers responsible for making decisions about resources necessary for pragmatic clinical trials in the United States, describing the relevance of the criteria in different situations and pointing out where conflicts among the criteria and relevant regulations may affect decision-making. Recognition of the complex set of considerations that should inform decision-making will guide gatekeepers in making justifiable choices regarding the use of limited and valuable resources.

The ethics and regulatory landscape of including vulnerable populations in pragmatic clinical trials.

Policies have been developed to protect vulnerable populations in clinical research, including the US federal research regulations (45 Code of Federal Regulations 46 Subparts B, C, and D). These policies generally recognize vulnerable populations to include pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, children, prisoners, persons with physical handicaps or mental disabilities, and disadvantaged persons. The aim has been to protect these populations from harm, often by creating regulatory and ethical checks that may limit their participation in many clinical trials. The recent increase in pragmatic clinical trials raises at least two questions about this approach. First, is exclusion itself a harm to vulnerable populations, as these groups may be denied access to understanding how health interventions work for them in clinical settings? Second, are groups considered vulnerable in traditional clinical trials also vulnerable in pragmatic clinical trials? We argue first that excluding vulnerable subjects from participation in pragmatic clinical trials can be harmful by preventing acquisition of data to meaningfully inform clinical decision-making in the future. Second, we argue that protections for vulnerable subjects in traditional clinical trial settings may not be translatable, feasible, or even ethical to apply in pragmatic clinical trials. We conclude by offering specific recommendations for appropriately protecting vulnerable research subjects in pragmatic clinical trials, focusing on pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, children, prisoners, persons with physical handicaps or mental disabilities, and disadvantaged persons.

Reporting of Demographics & Subgroup Analyses in Premarketing Studies of FDA Approved High-Risk Cardiovascular Devices, 2014-2022.

Background: Representation of diverse study populations in pivotal clinical trials for medical devices and subgroup analyses for demographic groups to explore differences in safety and effectiveness are essential to understanding the benefits and risks in diverse populations. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has taken many steps to improve transparency and subgroup analyses over the past decade, but there has not been a recent evaluation of demographic reporting and subgroup analyses. Methods: We reviewed all FDA Premarket Approvals for high-risk cardiovascular devices from 2014 to 2022, focusing on pivotal studies supporting device approval. We abstracted detailed demographic data about the age, sex, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic position of study participants. We also assessed the presence and results of subgroup analyses to understand the safety and effectiveness of devices across trial populations. Results: Analysis of 92 pivotal studies revealed that age and sex were reported in 96.7% of the studies, while race and ethnicity were reported in 71.7% and 58.7%, respectively. However, only 7.9% of studies explicitly detailed the participation of older adults (≥65 years) and no studies reported patients' socioeconomic position. Subgroup analyses by sex were conducted in 70.7% of studies, with 12.3% reporting significant differences. In contrast, analyses by race and ethnicity were performed in only 12.0% of the studies, with 9.1% reporting significant differences. Conclusion: Approximately one-third of pivotal studies for high-risk cardiovascular devices approved by the FDA from 2014 to 2022 did not report the race of study participants, nearly 40% did not report ethnicity, and more than 90% did not report the participation of older adults (≥65 years). Subgroup analyses were infrequently conducted by age or race and ethnicity. There is a need for better trial demographic reporting and conduct of subgroup analyses in premarketing studies to ensure the safety and effectiveness of medical devices for all patients.

Ethical issues in pediatric emergency mass critical care.

INTRODUCTION: As a result of recent events, including natural disasters and pandemics, mass critical care planning has become a priority. In general, planning involves limiting the scope of disasters, increasing the supply of medical resources, and allocating scarce resources. Entities at varying levels have articulated ethical frameworks to inform policy development. In spite of this increased focus, children have received limited attention. Children require special attention because of their unique vulnerabilities and needs. METHODS: In May 2008, the Task Force for Mass Critical Care published guidance on provision of mass critical care to adults. Acknowledging that the critical care needs of children during disasters were unaddressed by this effort, a 17-member Steering Committee, assembled by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education with guidance from members of the American Academy of Pediatrics, convened in April 2009 to determine priority topic areas for pediatric emergency mass critical care recommendations.Steering Committee members established subgroups by topic area and performed literature reviews of MEDLINE and Ovid databases. Draft documents were subsequently developed and revised based on the feedback from the Task Force. The Pediatric Emergency Mass Critical Care Task Force, composed of 36 experts from diverse public health, medical, and disaster response fields, convened in Atlanta, GA, on March 29-30, 2010. This document reflects expert input from the Task Force in addition to the most current medical literature. TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS: The Ethics Subcommittee recommends that surge planning seek to provide resources for children in proportion to their percentage of the population or preferably, if data are available, the percentage of those affected by the disaster. Generally, scarce resources should be allocated on the basis of need, benefit, and the conservation of resources. Estimates of need, benefit, and resource utilization may be more subjective or objective. While the Subcommittee favors more objective methods, pediatrics lacks a simple, validated scoring system to predict benefit or resource utilization. The Subcommittee hesitantly recommends relying on expert opinion while pediatric triage tools are developed. If resources remain inadequate, they should then be allocated based on queuing or lottery. Choosing between these methods is based on ethical, psychological, and practical considerations upon which the Subcommittee could not reach consensus. The Subcommittee unanimously believes the proposal to favor individuals between 15 and 40 yrs of age is inappropriate. Other age-based criteria and criteria based on social role remain controversial. The Subcommittee recommends continued work to engage all stakeholders, especially the public, in deliberation about these issues.

Design Thinking to Create a Remote Patient Monitoring Platform for Older Adults' Homes.

How might clinicians collect the vitals needed for effective scheduled video visits for older adults? This challenge was presented by AARP to graduate students in a Digital Health course at Tufts University School of Medicine. The design thinking process was used to create a product that would meet this need, keeping the needs and constraints of older adults, especially those with chronic conditions or other barriers to health, central to the solution. The initial steps involved understanding and empathizing with the target audience through interviews and by developing personas and scenarios that identified barriers and opportunities. The later steps were to ideate potential solutions, design a prototype, and define product success. The design thinking process led to the design of Home Health Hub, a remote patient monitoring (RPM) platform designed to meet the unique needs of older adults. Additionally, Home Health Hub can conceivably benefit all users of telehealth, regardless of health status-an important need during the COVID-19 pandemic, and in general due to increased use of virtual visits. Home Health Hub is one example of what can be achieved with the dedicated use of design thinking. The design thinking process can benefit public health practice as a whole by encouraging practitioners to delve into a problem to find the root causes and empathize with the needs and constraints of stakeholders to design innovative, human-centered solutions.

Implementation of 21st Century Cures Act Expanded Access Policies Requirements.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expanded access pathway allows patients with life-threatening or serious conditions to access investigational drugs outside of trials, under certain conditions. The 21st Century Cures Act ("Cures Act") requires certain drug companies to publicly disclose their expanded access policies. We characterized the proportion of applicable US biopharmaceutical companies, with an oncology related drug, implementing Cures Act requirements for expanded access policies and whether available policies contain the information described in the Act. We found about one-third of applicable biopharmaceutical companies (32%, 140/423) implemented the Cures Act requirement to have a public expanded access policy. Less than one-third of public policies contained all described information (31%, 44/140). Larger companies and those with at least one drug receiving an FDA expedited designation (59% vs. 21%; P < 0.001), or at least one FDA-approved drug (57% vs. 28%; P < 0.001) were more likely to have a public policy. Our results suggest the Cures Act may be having a limited impact on its goals of supporting timely medical decisions and closing informational gaps for patients and doctors around expanded access to investigational oncology therapies, especially for products sponsored by smaller and newer companies.

Reporting of Study Participant Demographic Characteristics and Demographic Representation in Premarketing and Postmarketing Studies of Novel Cancer Therapeutics.

Importance: Adequate representation of demographic subgroups in premarketing and postmarketing clinical studies is necessary for understanding the safety and efficacy associated with novel cancer therapeutics. Objective: To characterize and compare the reporting of demographic data and the representation of individuals by sex, age, and race in premarketing and postmarketing studies used by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to evaluate novel cancer therapeutics. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, premarketing and postmarketing studies for novel cancer therapeutics approved by the FDA from 2012 through 2016 were identified. Study demographic information was abstracted from publicly available sources, and US cancer population demographic data was abstracted from US Cancer Statistics. Analyses were conducted from February 25 through September 21, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The percentages of trials reporting sex, age, and race/ethnicity were calculated, and participation to prevalence ratios (PPRs) were calculated by dividing the percentage of study participants in each demographic group by the percentage of the US cancer population in each group. PPRs were constructed for premarketing and postmarketing studies and by cancer type. Underrepresentation was defined as PPR less than 0.8. Results: From 2012 through 2016, the FDA approved 45 cancer therapeutics. The study sample included 77 premarketing studies and 56 postmarketing studies. Postmarketing studies, compared with premarketing studies, were less likely to report patient sex (42 studies reporting [75.0%] vs 77 studies reporting [100%]; P < .001) and race (27 studies reporting [48.2%] vs 62 studies reporting [80.5%]; P < .001). Women were adequately represented in premarketing studies (mean [SD] PPR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.90-0.91) and postmarketing studies (mean PPR, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01). Although older adults and Black patients were underrepresented in premarketing studies (older adults: mean PPR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.72-0.74; Black patients: mean PPR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.31-0.32), these groups continued to be underrepresented in postmarketing studies (older adults: mean PPR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.75-0.76; Black patients: mean PPR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.21-0.21). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that older adults and Black patients were underrepresented in postmarketing studies of novel cancer therapeutics to a similar degree that they were underrepresented in premarketing studies. These findings suggest that postmarketing studies are not associated with improvements to gaps in demographic representation present at the time of FDA approval.

Evaluation of Drug Trials in High-, Middle-, and Low-Income Countries and Local Commercial Availability of Newly Approved Drugs.

Importance: Clinical research supporting US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approvals is largely conducted outside the US. Objective: To characterize where drugs were tested for FDA approval and to determine how commonly and quickly these drugs received marketing approval in the countries where they were tested, both overall and by country income level and geographical region. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis of trials supporting FDA approval of novel drugs in 2012 and 2014, sponsored by large drug companies, did not involve human participants. The settings were the countries hosting trials supporting US drug approval. Data sources included Drugs@FDA, ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and drug regulatory agency websites. Data analysis was completed March through September 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the proportion of drugs approved for marketing in the countries where they were tested for FDA approval within 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years of FDA approval and the proportion of countries contributing participants to trials supporting FDA approvals receiving market access to the drugs they helped test within 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years of FDA approval. Results: In 2012 and 2014, the FDA approved 34 novel drugs sponsored by large companies, on the basis of a total of 898 trials, 563 of which had location information available. Each drug was tested in a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 25 (18-37) unique countries, including a median (IQR) of 20 (13-25) high-income countries, 6 (4-11) upper-middle-income countries, and 1 (0-2) low-middle-income country. One drug was approved for marketing in all testing countries within 1 year of FDA approval and 15% (5 of 34 drugs) were approved in all testing countries within 5 years of FDA approval. Of the 70 countries contributing research participants for FDA drug approvals, 7% (5 countries) received market access to drugs they helped test within 1 year of FDA approval and 31% (22 countries) did so within 5 years. Access within 1 year occurred in 13% (5 of 39) of high-income countries, 0 of 22 upper-middle-income countries (0%), and 0 of 9 lower-middle-income countries (0%), whereas at 5 years access rates were 46% (18 of 39 countries), 9% (2 of 22 countries), and 22% (2 of 9 countries), respectively. Approvals were faster in high-income countries (median [IQR], 8 [0-11] months) than in upper-middle-income countries (median [IQR], 11 [5-29] months) or lower-middle-income countries (median [IQR], 17 [11-27] months) after FDA approval. Access was lowest in African countries. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that substantial gaps exist between where FDA-approved drugs are tested and where they ultimately become available to patients, raising concerns about the equitable distribution of research benefits at the population level.