ABSTRACT
In May 2023, a disclaimer posted on ClinicalTrials.gov dismisses accountability for the accuracy of registered information. For spinal cord injury, inconsistencies in intervention classification, phase designation, and lack of study protocols and results threaten the integrity of the database and put users at risk. An investment in what the resource should be rather than what it is not will give it the authority commensurate with the requirements for its regulatory use and informed decision-making for prospective trial participants.
Subject(s)
Spinal Cord Injuries , Humans , Prospective Studies , Spinal Cord Injuries/therapy , Social ResponsibilityABSTRACT
People with disorders of consciousness (DoC) are characteristically unable to synchronously participate in decision-making about clinical care or research. The inability to self-advocate exacerbates preexisting socioeconomic and geographic disparities, which include the wide variability observed across individuals, hospitals, and countries in access to acute care, expertise, and sophisticated diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic interventions. Concerns about equity for people with DoC are particularly notable when they lack a surrogate decision-maker (legally referred to as "unrepresented" or "unbefriended"). Decisions about both short-term and long-term life-sustaining treatment typically rely on neuroprognostication and individual patient preferences that carry additional ethical considerations for people with DoC, as even individuals with well thought out advance directives cannot anticipate every possible situation to guide such decisions. Further challenges exist with the inclusion of people with DoC in research because consent must be completed (in most circumstances) through a surrogate, which excludes those who are unrepresented and may discourage investigators from exploring questions related to this population. In this article, the Curing Coma Campaign Ethics Working Group reviews equity considerations in clinical care and research involving persons with DoC in the following domains: (1) access to acute care and expertise, (2) access to diagnostics and therapeutics, (3) neuroprognostication, (4) medical decision-making for unrepresented people, (5) end-of-life decision-making, (6) access to postacute rehabilitative care, (7) access to research, (8) inclusion of unrepresented people in research, and (9) remuneration and reciprocity for research participation. The goal of this discussion is to advance equitable, harmonized, guideline-directed, and goal-concordant care for people with DoC of all backgrounds worldwide, prioritizing the ethical standards of respect for autonomy, beneficence, and justice. Although the focus of this evaluation is on people with DoC, much of the discussion can be extrapolated to other critically ill persons worldwide.
Subject(s)
Consciousness Disorders , Humans , Consciousness Disorders/therapy , Biomedical Research/ethics , Healthcare Disparities/ethics , Health Equity , Decision Making/ethics , Critical Care/ethicsABSTRACT
Despite increased efforts of government and non-government organisations to intervene via harm reduction and education initiatives, the opioid crisis has continued to worsen and has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. In British Columbia, Canada, opioid overdose deaths in 2021 are the highest ever recorded. Neuromodulation procedures such as deep brain stimulation and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation have gained traction as treatments for opioid use disorder in various countries such as Germany, the Netherlands, the United States and China. However, these treatment options have been met with apprehension from both clinicians and patients, likely owing to fear, stigma and reluctance to label addiction as a brain disorder. Further complicating this landscape are socio-demographic factors, as marginalised communities are disproportionately burdened by addiction, while having poor access to care and a history of distrust in the health system. This multifactorial challenge involving many sociocultural factors requires culturally sensitive, interdisciplinary approaches to ensure direct-to-brain innovations are implemented ethically and equitably. This review summarises the state of the science for using neuromodulation to treat opioid use disorder, as well as the available ethical discourse surrounding the expansion of clinical trials and eventual widespread clinical implementation. Additional ethics discussions highlight opportunities for the engineering and clinical evolution of neuromodulation for opioid use disorder trials.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Opiate Overdose , Opioid-Related Disorders , Humans , Pandemics , Opioid-Related Disorders/therapy , British ColumbiaABSTRACT
Geographic, social, political, and economic factors shape access to advanced neurotechnologies, yet little previous research has explored the barriers, enablers, and areas of opportunity for equitable and meaningful access for diverse patient communities across Canada. We applied a mixed-mode approach involving semi-structured interviews and rating scale questions to consult with 24 medical experts who are involved in the care of patients who undergo functional neurosurgery targeting the brain. Seven major themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: Health care system, Neurotechnology features, Patient demographics, Target condition features, Ethics, Upstream barriers and enablers, and Areas of opportunity. Descriptive statistics of the Likert-scale responses suggest that interviewees perceive a disparity between the imperative of access to advanced neurotechnologies for people living in rural and remote areas and the likelihood of achieving such access. The results depict a complex picture of access to functional neurosurgery in Canada with pockets of excellence and a motivation to improve the availability of care for vulnerable populations through the expansion of distributed care models, improved health care system efficiencies, increasing funding and support for patient travel, and increasing awareness about and advocacy for advanced neurotechnologies.
Subject(s)
Brain , Neurosurgery , Humans , Canada , Motivation , Neurosurgical ProceduresABSTRACT
Electroencephalographic monitoring provides critical diagnostic and management information about patients with epilepsy and seizure mimics. Admission to an epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU) is the gold standard for such monitoring in major medical facilities worldwide. In many countries, access can be challenged by limited resources compared to need. Today, triaging admission to such units is generally approached by unwritten protocols that vary by institution. In the absence of explicit guidance, decisions can be ethically taxing and are easy to challenge. In an effort to address this gap, we propose a two-component approach to EMU triage that takes into account the unique landscape of epilepsy monitoring informed by triage literature from other areas of medicine. Through the strategic component, we focus on the EMU wait list management infrastructure at the institutional level. Through the principled component, we apply a combination of the ethical principles of prioritarianism, utilitarianism and justice to triage; and we use individual case examples to illustrate how they apply. The effective implementation of this approach to specific epilepsy centres will need to be customised to the nuances of different settings, including diverse practice patterns, patient populations and constraints on resource distribution, but the conceptual consolidation of its components can alleviate some of the pressures imposed by the complex decisions involved in EMU triage.
Subject(s)
Epilepsy , Triage , Humans , Epilepsy/diagnosis , Seizures/diagnosis , Monitoring, Physiologic , HospitalizationABSTRACT
Spinal cord injury (SCI) affects between 250,000-500,000 people globally each year. While the medical aspects of SCI have received considerable attention in the academic literature, discourse pertaining to its ethical implications is more limited. The experience of SCI is shaped by intersecting demographic and identity factors such as gender, race, and culture that necessitate an intersectional and value-based approach to ethics-related research that is properly situated in context. Given this background, we conducted a content analysis of academic studies exploring the perspectives and priorities of individuals with SCI published in peer-reviewed journals in the decade between 2012-2021. Terms pertaining to SCI and ethics were combined in a search of two major publication databases. We documented overall publication patterns, recruitment and research methods, reporting of demographic variables, and ethics-related discourse. Seventy (70) papers met inclusion criteria and were categorized by their major foci. Findings reveal a gap in reporting of participant demographics, particularly with respect to race and ethnicity, geographic background, and household income. We discuss these person-centered themes and gaps that must be closed in the reporting and supporting of SCI research.
Subject(s)
Biomedical Research , Spinal Cord Injuries , Humans , Spinal Cord Injuries/epidemiology , Spinal Cord Injuries/therapy , Biomedical Research/ethicsABSTRACT
Digital research methodologies are driving a revolution in health technology but do not yet fully engage diverse and historically underrepresented populations. In this paper, we explore the ethical imperative for such engagement alongside accompanying challenges related to recruitment, appreciation of risk, and confidentiality, among others. We critically analyze existing research ethics frameworks and find that their reliance on individualistic and autonomy-focused models of research ethics does not offer adequate protection in the context of the diversity imperative. To meet the requirements of justice and inclusivity in digital research, methods will benefit from a reorientation toward more participatory practices.
Subject(s)
Biomedical Technology , Ethics, Research , Humans , Research Design , Social JusticeABSTRACT
Interest in disorders of consciousness (DoC) has grown substantially over the past decade and has illuminated the importance of improving understanding of DoC biology; care needs (use of monitoring, performance of interventions, and provision of emotional support); treatment options to promote recovery; and outcome prediction. Exploration of these topics requires awareness of numerous ethics considerations related to rights and resources. The Curing Coma Campaign Ethics Working Group used its expertise in neurocritical care, neuropalliative care, neuroethics, neuroscience, philosophy, and research to formulate an informal review of ethics considerations along the continuum of research involving persons with DoC related to the following: (1) study design; (2) comparison of risks versus benefits; (3) selection of inclusion and exclusion criteria; (4) screening, recruitment, and enrollment; (5) consent; (6) data protection; (7) disclosure of results to surrogates and/or legally authorized representatives; (8) translation of research into practice; (9) identification and management of conflicts of interest; (10) equity and resource availability; and (11) inclusion of minors with DoC in research. Awareness of these ethics considerations when planning and performing research involving persons with DoC will ensure that the participant rights are respected while maximizing the impact and meaningfulness of the research, interpretation of outcomes, and communication of results.
Subject(s)
Coma , Consciousness Disorders , Humans , Consciousness Disorders/therapy , Consciousness Disorders/diagnosis , Prognosis , Communication , ConsciousnessABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Novel and minimally invasive neurotechnologies offer the potential to reduce the burden of epilepsy while avoiding the risks of conventional resective surgery. Few neurotechnologies have been tested in randomized controlled trials with pediatric populations, leaving clinicians to face decisions about whether to recommend these treatments with insufficient evidence about the relevant risks and benefits. This study specifically explores the preferences of clinicians for treating pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) with novel neurotechnologies. METHODS: A discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was designed to elicit the preferences of clinicians with experience in treating children with DRE using novel neurotechnological interventions. The preferences for six key attributes used when making treatment decisions (chances of clinically significant improvement in seizures, major and minor risks from intervention, availability of evidence, financial burden for the family, and access to the intervention) were estimated using a conditional logit model. The estimates from this model were then used to predict the adoption of existing novel neurotechnological interventions. RESULTS: Sixty-eight clinicians completed the survey: 33 neurosurgeons, 28 neurologists, and 7 other clinicians. Most clinicians were working in the United States (74%), and the remainder (26%) in Canada. All attributes, apart from the nearest location with access to the intervention, influenced preferences significantly. The chance of clinically significant improvement in seizures was the most positive influence on clinician preferences, but low-quality evidence and a higher risk of major complications could offset these preferences. Of the existing neurotechnological interventions, vagus nerve stimulation was predicted to have the highest likelihood of adoption; deep brain stimulation had the lowest likelihood of adoption. SIGNIFICANCE: The preferences of clinicians are drive primarily by the likelihood of achieving seizure freedom for their patients, but preferences for an intervention are largely eradicated if only low quality of evidence supporting the intervention is available. Until better evidence supporting the use of potentially effective, novel neurotechnologies becomes available, clinicians are likely to prefer more established treatments.
Subject(s)
Drug Resistant Epilepsy , Epilepsy , Vagus Nerve Stimulation , Child , Choice Behavior , Decision Making , Drug Resistant Epilepsy/therapy , Humans , SeizuresABSTRACT
The increasing dementia prevalence worldwide is driving the testing of novel therapeutic approaches, such as invasive brain technologies, despite limited clinical evidence and the risk of accelerating cognitive decline. Our manuscript (a) reviews the NIH Clinicaltrials.gov database for deep brain stimulation, stem cell implantation, and gene therapy trials on people with dementia; (b) discusses issues on beneficence, nonmaleficence, and autonomy associated with these trials; and (c) proposes nine recommendations that build on elements from the Declaration of Helsinki. We found 49 preregistered high-risk trials from nine countries planning to or involving 11,801 people with Alzheimer's or Lewy body dementia or dementia secondary to Parkinson's or Huntington's disease. Most of the people with Alzheimer's who are in these trials are from North America and East Asia. There is substantial heterogeneity in the enrolment criteria, even for trials recruiting only those with Alzheimer's disease. Although most trials enrol people in mild to moderate stages of Alzheimer's disease, trials in China enrol people who have severe Alzheimer's. Our findings highlight a pressing need to review and refine the enrolment criteria for invasive neural trials in people with dementia, considering risks, potential benefits, and capacity for informed consent. As a multidisciplinary team from Australia, the USA, Canada, and Germany with expertise in neurology, neuroscience, and ethics, we examine how it is essential to balance the risks of invasive neural research in a vulnerable population with limited capacity to provide informed consent to help advance the body of knowledge regarding a disease with limited therapeutic options.
Subject(s)
Alzheimer Disease , Cognitive Dysfunction , Alzheimer Disease/therapy , Australia , Brain , Canada , HumansABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The Curing Coma Campaign (CCC) is a multidisciplinary global initiative focused on evaluation, diagnosis, treatment, research, and prognostication for patients who are comatose due to any etiology. To support this mission, the CCC Ethics Working Group conducted a survey of CCC collaborators to identify the ethics priorities of the CCC and the variability in priorities based on country of practice. METHODS: An electronic survey on the ethics priorities for the CCC was developed using rank-choice questions and distributed between May and July 2021 to a listserv of the 164 collaborators of the CCC. The median rank for each topic and subtopic was determined. Comparisons were made on the basis of country of practice. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 93 respondents (57% response rate); 67% practiced in the United States. On the basis of respondent ranking of each topic, the prioritization of ethics topics across respondents was as follows: (1) clinical care, (2) diagnostic definitions, (3) clinical research, (4) implementation/innovation, (5) family, (6) data management, (7) public engagement/perceptions, and (8) equity. Respondents who practiced in the United States were particularly concerned about public engagement, the distinction between clinical care and research, disclosure of results from clinical research to families, the definition of "personhood," and the distinction between the self-fulfilling prophecy/nihilism and medical futility. Respondents who practiced in other countries were particularly concerned about diagnostic modalities for clinical care, investigational drugs/devices for clinical research, translation of research into practice, and the definition of "minimally conscious state." CONCLUSIONS: Collaborators of the CCC considered clinical care, diagnostic definitions, and clinical research the top ethics priorities of the CCC. These priorities should be considered as the CCC explores ways to improve evaluation, diagnosis, treatment, research, and prognostication of patients with coma and associated disorders of consciousness. There is some variability in ethics priorities based on country of practice.
Subject(s)
Coma , Coma/diagnosis , Coma/therapy , Humans , Surveys and Questionnaires , United StatesABSTRACT
Open Science is calling for a radical re-thinking of existing scientific practices. Within the neuroimaging community, Open Science practices are taking the form of open data repositories and open lab notebooks. The broad sharing of data that accompanies Open Science, however, raises some difficult ethical and legal issues. With neuroethics as a focusing lens, we explore eight central concerns posed by open data with regard to human brain imaging studies: respect for individuals and communities, concern for marginalized communities, consent, privacy protections, participatory research designs, contextual integrity, fusions of clinical and research goals, and incidental findings. Each consideration assists in bringing nuance to the potential benefits for open data sharing against associated challenges. We combine current understandings with forward-looking solutions to key issues. We conclude by underscoring the need for new policy tools to enhance the potential for responsible open data.
Subject(s)
Bioethics , Biomedical Research , Brain/diagnostic imaging , Intersectoral Collaboration , Neuroimaging , Privacy , Biomedical Research/ethics , Biomedical Research/standards , Community-Based Participatory Research/ethics , Community-Based Participatory Research/standards , Humans , Incidental Findings , Information Dissemination , Neuroimaging/ethics , Neuroimaging/standardsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This study explores how parents of children with high-risk neuroblastoma incorporate information from multiple sources into treatment decision-making for their children as they evaluate the trustworthiness of the sources. METHODS: Following ethics board approval, parents of children with high-risk neuroblastoma were recruited through purposive sampling from a tertiary care pediatric oncology program in Vancouver, BC, Canada. Participants completed an in-depth, semistructured interview with a study member. The qualitative descriptive methodology was utilized to code interview transcripts and identify emergent themes. RESULTS: Nine parents of children with high-risk neuroblastoma during upfront therapy (n=4) or treatment of refractory disease (n=5) were included. Despite almost universal access of web-based information, parents acknowledged distrust in the reliability and consistency of these sources. Open communication between parents and physicians about sources of information outside the clinic and access to regulated, accurate information is highly valued. The impact on the quality of life and the costs, both financial and personal, of travel are key factors in decision-making. DISCUSSION: Health care providers shoulder an immense responsibility to augment and contextualize information available about high-risk neuroblastoma for parents to maximize benefit in decision-making. Health care providers should guide access to accurate, evidence-based resources that can be monitored and continuously updated.
Subject(s)
Decision Making , Information Seeking Behavior , Neuroblastoma/therapy , Parents/psychology , Physicians/psychology , Trust , Child, Preschool , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Infant , Male , Neuroblastoma/pathology , Neuroblastoma/psychology , Professional-Family RelationsABSTRACT
Neuroimaging genetics is a rapidly developing field that combines neuropsychiatric genetics studies with imaging modalities to investigate how genetic variation influences brain structure and function. As both genetic and imaging technologies improve further, their combined power may hold translational potential in terms of improving psychiatric nosology, diagnosis, and treatment. While neuroimaging genetics studies offer a number of scientific advantages, they also face challenges. In response to some of these challenges, global neuroimaging genetics collaborations have been created to pool and compare brain data and replicate study findings. Attention has been paid to ethical issues in genetics, neuroimaging, and multi-site collaborative research, respectively, but there have been few substantive discussions of the ethical issues generated by the confluence of these areas in global neuroimaging genetics collaborations. Our discussion focuses on two areas: benefits and risks of global neuroimaging genetics collaborations and the potential impact of neuroimaging genetics research findings in low- and middle-income countries. Global neuroimaging genetics collaborations have the potential to enhance relations between countries and address global mental health challenges, however there are risks regarding inequity, exploitation and data sharing. Moreover, neuroimaging genetics research in low- and middle-income countries must address the issue of feedback of findings and the risk of essentializing and stigmatizing interpretations of mental disorders. We conclude by examining how the notion of solidarity, informed by an African Ethics framework, may justify some of the suggestions made in our discussion.
Subject(s)
Genetics, Medical/ethics , Mental Disorders/diagnostic imaging , Mental Disorders/genetics , Multicenter Studies as Topic/ethics , Neuroimaging/ethics , Developing Countries , Global Health , Humans , International Cooperation , Intersectoral CollaborationABSTRACT
Despite years of warnings by the academic community that for most of the stem cell-based therapies offered in the private arena little evidence of efficacy exists, these services have been increasingly offered by Canadian private clinics. Recently, as the culmination of years of clashes between stem cell researchers and therapy providers, Health Canada issued a statement prohibiting any type of cell therapy that is not specifically approved. In this climate of conflict, a small group representing both these communities as well as the government gathered in Vancouver to identify common values, and agree on principles to move forward constructively. This historic moment demonstrated that even in this contentious space a meeting-of-minds in between researchers, clinicians, ethicists, entrepreneurs and other stakeholders is possible.
Subject(s)
Health Policy/trends , Stem Cell Transplantation/economics , Stem Cell Transplantation/trends , Canada , Delivery of Health Care , Health Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Stakeholder Participation , Stem Cell Transplantation/methods , Stem Cells/metabolismABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Media coverage of disorders and medical advancements can impact public perception regarding the riskiness, effectiveness, and accessibility of treatment options. We studied that coverage for epilepsy with a focus on surgical interventions and emerging neurotechnologies. METHODS: Epilepsy-related English language articles published through 2019 were retrieved from online International news media with a circulation of 80,000 or above. We used directed content analysis of news articles to code content into a priori categories both to identify salient themes and to characterize their valence. RESULTS: One hundred forty-six unique articles matched our search terms. Overall, there was a steady increase in epilepsy reporting over time, with a majority of articles published with a positive tone. Neuromodulation was the focus of over 50% of all the articles in the time points analyzed. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) and deep-brain stimulation (DBS) were discussed more prominently than other types of neurotechnological interventions; VNS was the neurotechnological focus in 39% of the pediatric articles; resective surgery was the focus in 34% of adult articles. Access, support, and epilepsy literacy were the central themes in the context of ethical, legal, and social issues. SIGNIFICANCE: News media can influence the trust that the public places in science and medicine, and by extension, influences health policy. As innovations in neurotechnology for epilepsy emerge, understanding of individual and societal values is essential to their beneficial evolution and translation to care.
Subject(s)
Deep Brain Stimulation/trends , Epilepsy/therapy , Health Literacy/trends , Health Policy/trends , Mass Media/trends , Vagus Nerve Stimulation/trends , Adult , Child , Child, Preschool , Epilepsy/epidemiology , Female , Health Literacy/methods , Humans , Male , Vagus Nerve Stimulation/methodsABSTRACT
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.