Choice and Trade-offs: Parent Decision Making for Neurotechnologies for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy.

This qualitative study investigated factors that guide caregiver decision making and ethical trade-offs for advanced neurotechnologies used to treat children with drug-resistant epilepsy. Caregivers with affected children were recruited to semi-structured focus groups or interviews at one of 4 major epilepsy centers in Eastern and Western Canada and the USA (n = 22). Discussions were transcribed and qualitative analytic methods applied to examine values and priorities (eg, risks, benefits, adherence, invasiveness, reversibility) of caregivers pertaining to novel technologies to treat drug-resistant epilepsy. Discussions revealed 3 major thematic branches for decision making: (1) features of the intervention-risks and benefits, with an emphasis on an aversion to perceived invasiveness; (2) decision drivers-trust in the clinical team, treatment costs; and (3) quality of available information about neurotechnological options. Overall, caregivers' definition of treatment success is more expansive than seizure freedom. The full involvement of their values and priorities must be considered in the decision-making process.

Novel Neurotechnological Interventions for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: Physician Perspectives.

This qualitative study investigated factors that guide physicians' choices for minimally invasive and neuromodulatory interventions as alternatives to conventional surgery or medical management for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy. North American physicians were recruited to one of 4 focus groups at national conferences. Discussions were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. A pragmatic neuroethics framework was applied to interpret results. Discussions revealed 2 major thematic branches: (1) clinical decision making and (2) ethical considerations. Under clinical decision making, physicians emphasized scientific evidence and patient candidacy when assessing neurotechnologies for patients. Ongoing seizures without intervention was important for safety and neurodevelopment. Under ethical considerations, resource allocation, among other financial considerations for technology adoption, were considerable sources of pressure on decision making. Access to neurotechnology was a salient theme differentiating Canadian and American contexts. When assessing novel neurotechnological interventions for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy, physicians balance clinical and ethical factors to guide decision making and best practice.

Youth Weigh In: Views on Advanced Neurotechnology for Drug-Resistant Epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy affects over 500,000 children in North America of whom 30% have drug-resistant epilepsy. Advancements with neurotechnologies show promising benefits, but the perceptions of these procedures by youth is unknown. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 10 youth in British Columbia, Canada who underwent procedures for drug-resistant epilepsy involving different forms of neurotechnology (subdural grids, vagus nerve stimulation, responsive neurostimulation). Interviews were analyzed using the constant comparative qualitative method. RESULTS: Four major thematic categories emerged from the interviews. Treatment values, impact of the disorder, personal context, and impact of neurotechnology. CONCLUSIONS: Besides the predictable goal of seizure reduction, a desire for autonomy and the importance of trust in the medical team emerged as dominant values within the 4 thematic categories that were explicit to the use of new neurotechnologies for the management of drug-resistant epilepsy.

Neuromodulation for major depressive disorder: innovative measures to capture efficacy and outcomes.

Major depressive disorder is a common and debilitating disorder. Although most patients with this disorder benefit from established treatments, a subset of patients have symptoms that remain treatment resistant. Novel treatment approaches, such as deep brain stimulation, are urgently needed for patients with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder. These novel treatments are currently being tested in clinical trials in which success hinges on how accurately and comprehensively the primary outcome measure captures the treatment effect. In this Personal View, we argue that current measures used to assess outcomes in neurosurgical trials of major depressive disorder might be missing clinically important treatment effects. A crucial problem of continuing to use suboptimal outcome measures is that true signals of efficacy might be missed, thereby disqualifying potentially effective treatments. We argue that a re-evaluation of how outcomes are measured in these trials is much overdue and describe several novel approaches that attempt to better capture meaningful change.

Readiness for First-In-Human Neuromodulatory Interventions.

BACKGROUND: Novel neurointerventions present innovative therapeutic approaches to a range of treatment-refractory disorders. We sought to characterize factors that inform and define translational readiness for first-in-human (FIH) neuromodulatory trials. METHODS: We used a two-part methodology involving a scoping review of the biomedical literature on the readiness of FIH trials for both neurological and non-neurological applications, and semi-structured interviews with stakeholders about decision-making for neuromodulation using magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound as a case example. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty factors relevant to FIH readiness were identified in the scoping review. Trial design, adequacy of preclinical evidence, and risk were ubiquitous across biotechnologies. Target organ, target function, and inadequacy of animal models were dominant in the neurointervention literature. Interview results on the relative importance of these factors reveal divergent values, priorities, and understandings both between patients and clinicians and between patients affected by different conditions. CONCLUSION: Readiness of neurotechnology for FIH trials is defined by a multitude of interacting factors that pertain to clinical and nonclinical priorities, perceptions, and values.

Medical Methods Patents in Neuromodulation.

There is a rapidly growing number of patents on methods of modulating brain regions. Despite this trend, and the massive potential of neuromodulation for treating patients, researchers and physicians who use neuromodulation techniques and technologies often have little idea of the significant ways these patents could affect their work. This article describes medical method patents, including a brief history of their development, and analyzes their potential direct and indirect effects on neuromodulation treatment and research efforts. As neuromodulation rapidly matures into a commercial and medical reality it is important to consider these effects in a forward thinking and value driven manner. The paper concludes with recommendations concerning how neuromodulation method patents may be used, or not, depending on the values of the inventor.

Opinions on the preclinical evaluation of novel therapies for spinal cord injury: a comparison between researchers and spinal cord-injured individuals.

We previously conducted a survey to gather the opinions and perspectives of scientific and clinical researchers on what levels of preclinical evidence were needed to justify translating a promising neuroprotective or neuroregenerative therapy in spinal cord injury (SCI) into a human clinical trial (Kwon et al., 2010 ). Here we conducted an analogous survey of individuals living with SCI in which we gathered their expectations for the levels of preclinical evidence achieved by researchers in substantiating the neuroprotective and neuroregenerative therapies being offered to them in clinical trials. In total, 214 individuals with SCI completed the survey, and their responses were compared to the responses of the 235 scientists and clinicians who completed our previous survey. SCI individuals were more likely than SCI researchers to opine that demonstrating efficacy and safety in rodent models of SCI alone is sufficient to proceed with clinical trials. However, SCI individuals also reported strong support for large animal and primate model studies, and in the case of the latter, were actually more in agreement for the need for primate studies than researchers. SCI individuals also reported strong support for independent replication studies. In general, individuals with SCI had high expectations for the levels of preclinical evidence required to justify translating novel therapies into clinical trials. These expectations should be considered in the decisions to translate specific experimental therapies for SCI.

Evidence-based neuroethics for neurodevelopmental disorders.

Many neurodevelopmental disorders affect early brain development in ways that are still poorly understood; yet, these disorders can place an enormous toll on patients, families, and society as a whole and affect all aspects of daily living for patients and their families. We describe a pragmatic, evidence-based framework for engaging in empiric ethics inquiry for a large consortium of researchers in neurodevelopmental disorders and provide relevant case studies of pragmatic neuroethics. The 3 neurodevelopmental disorders that are at the focus of our research, cerebral palsy (CP), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD), bring unique and intersecting challenges of translating ethically research into clinical care for children and neonates. We identify and discuss challenges related to health care delivery in CP; neonatal neurological decision making; alternative therapies; and identity, integrity, and personhood.

ELSI priorities for brain imaging.

As one of the most compelling technologies for imaging the brain, functional MRI (fMRI) produces measurements and persuasive pictures of research subjects making cognitive judgments and even reasoning through difficult moral decisions. Even after centuries of studying the link between brain and behavior, this capability presents a number of novel significant questions. For example, what are the implications of biologizing human experience? How might neuroimaging disrupt the mysteries of human nature, spirituality, and personal identity? Rather than waiting for an ethical agenda to emerge from some unpredictable combination of the concerns of ethicists and researchers, the attention of journalists, or after controversy is sparked by research that cannot be retracted, we queried key figures in bioethics and the humanities, neuroscience, media, industry, and patient advocacy in focus groups and interviews. We identified specific ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI) that highlight researcher obligations and the nonclinical impact of the technology at this new frontier.