Timing of dialysis in acute kidney injury using routinely collected data and dynamic treatment regimes.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Defining the optimal moment to start renal replacement therapy (RRT) in acute kidney injury (AKI) remains challenging. Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressed this question whilst using absolute criteria such as pH or serum potassium. However, there is a need for identification of the most optimal cut-offs of these criteria. We conducted a causal analysis on routinely collected data (RCD) to compare the impact of different pre-specified dynamic treatment regimes (DTRs) for RRT initiation based on time-updated levels of potassium, pH, and urinary output on 30-day ICU mortality. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASUREMENTS: Patients in the ICU of Ghent University Hospital were included at the time they met KDIGO-AKI-stage ≥ 2. We applied inverse-probability-of-censoring-weighted Aalen-Johansen estimators to evaluate 30-day survival under 81 DTRs prescribing RRT initiation under different thresholds of potassium, pH, or persisting oliguria. RESULTS: Out of 13,403 eligible patients (60.8 ± 16.8 years, SOFA 7.0 ± 4.1), 5622 (63.4 ± 15.3 years, SOFA 8.2 ± 4.2) met KDIGO-AKI-stage ≥ 2. The DTR that delayed RRT until potassium ≥ 7 mmol/l, persisting oliguria for 24-36 h, and/or pH < 7.0 (non-oliguric) or < 7.2 (oliguric) despite maximal conservative treatment resulted in a reduced 30-day ICU mortality (from 12.7% [95% CI 11.9-13.6%] under current standard of care to 10.5% [95% CI 9.5-11.7%]; risk difference 2.2% [95% CI 1.3-3.8%]) with no increase in patients starting RRT (from 471 [95% CI 430-511] to 475 [95% CI 342-572]). The fivefold cross-validation benchmark for the optimal DTR resulted in 30-day ICU mortality of 10.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Our causal analysis of RCD to compare RRT initiation at different thresholds of refractory low pH, high potassium, and persisting oliguria identified a DTR that resulted in a decrease in 30-day ICU mortality without increase in number of RRTs. Our results suggest that the current criteria to start RRT as implemented in most RCTs may be suboptimal. However, as our analysis is hypothesis generating, this optimal DTR should ideally be validated in a multicentric RCT.

Explainability in medicine in an era of AI-based clinical decision support systems.

The combination of "Big Data" and Artificial Intelligence (AI) is frequently promoted as having the potential to deliver valuable health benefits when applied to medical decision-making. However, the responsible adoption of AI-based clinical decision support systems faces several challenges at both the individual and societal level. One of the features that has given rise to particular concern is the issue of explainability, since, if the way an algorithm arrived at a particular output is not known (or knowable) to a physician, this may lead to multiple challenges, including an inability to evaluate the merits of the output. This "opacity" problem has led to questions about whether physicians are justified in relying on the algorithmic output, with some scholars insisting on the centrality of explainability, while others see no reason to require of AI that which is not required of physicians. We consider that there is merit in both views but find that greater nuance is necessary in order to elucidate the underlying function of explainability in clinical practice and, therefore, its relevance in the context of AI for clinical use. In this paper, we explore explainability by examining what it requires in clinical medicine and draw a distinction between the function of explainability for the current patient versus the future patient. This distinction has implications for what explainability requires in the short and long term. We highlight the role of transparency in explainability, and identify semantic transparency as fundamental to the issue of explainability itself. We argue that, in day-to-day clinical practice, accuracy is sufficient as an "epistemic warrant" for clinical decision-making, and that the most compelling reason for requiring explainability in the sense of scientific or causal explanation is the potential for improving future care by building a more robust model of the world. We identify the goal of clinical decision-making as being to deliver the best possible outcome as often as possible, and find-that accuracy is sufficient justification for intervention for today's patient, as long as efforts to uncover scientific explanations continue to improve healthcare for future patients.

Digital pills for the remote monitoring of medication intake: a stakeholder analysis and assessment of marketing approval and patent granting policies.

This article explores whether 'digital pills' that track medication intake should be used to enhance adherence. We concentrate on psychiatric conditions since these pose unique challenges. We analyze two public policies that potentially encourage the development of systems for remote monitoring of intake, namely the granting of patents and marketing authorization, and identify key stakeholders and their main interests so as to discuss whether these policies provide disproportionate benefits to some. The stakeholders identified are patients, system providers, drug manufacturers, insurers or healthcare systems, physicians, data users, and society at large. We discuss relevant industry reports, regulatory data, patent documents, and academic literature, and argue that there is concern that the drivers for these tracking systems are revenue and the monitoring of 'compliance' rather than 'adherence'. While accepting that the use of these systems can be justified in some circumstances, in our view these systems pose risks to patient autonomy, Shared Decision-Making, and privacy. We also find that policies on granting patents and marketing authorization overly favor the commercial actors and put patients' interests at risk. Accordingly, we propose that additional safeguards are required.

Improving control over euthanasia of persons with psychiatric illness: Lessons from the first Belgian criminal court case concerning euthanasia.

Background: Belgium is one of very few countries that legally allow euthanasia for suffering caused by psychiatric illness. In the first criminal trial in Belgium of physicians involved in euthanasia, three physicians recently faced the accusation of "murder by poisoning," for allegedly having failed to comply with several requirements of the Belgian Euthanasia Law in granting the euthanasia request a woman suffering from psychiatric illness. Although all three physicians were acquitted, the case generated much debate among policy makers, medical professionals, and the general public. Method: We use this trial as the starting point for a critical analysis of the adequacy of the three-level control system established in the Euthanasia Law, as it is applied in the evaluation of euthanasia requests from persons who suffer unbearably from a psychiatric illness. This analysis is based on information presented during the criminal trial as well as information on the euthanasia that was published in the press. Results: Our analysis highlights substantial problems in the assessment and granting of the euthanasia request. The patient was euthanized without it having been substantiated that her psychiatric illness had no prospect of improvement and that her suffering could not be alleviated. The three-step control system enshrined in the Law and promoted by the Federal Control and Evaluation Commission for Euthanasia appears to have failed at each level. Conclusion: To evaluate requests for euthanasia for mental suffering caused by psychiatric illness, the requirements of the Belgian Euthanasia Law should be complemented by mandating the advice of two psychiatrists, and face-to-face discussions between all physicians involved. In parallel with the process of evaluating the euthanasia request, a treatment track should be guaranteed where reasonable evidence-based treatments and recovery-oriented options are tried.

An exploration of expectations and perceptions of practicing physicians on the implementation of computerized clinical decision support systems using a Qsort approach.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in incorporating clinical decision support (CDS) into electronic healthcare records (EHR). Successful implementation of CDS systems depends on acceptance of them by healthcare workers. We used a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods starting from Qsort methodology to explore expectations and perceptions of practicing physicians on the use of CDS incorporated in EHR. METHODS: The study was performed in a large tertiary care academic hospital. We used a mixed approach with a Q-sort based classification of pre-defined reactions to clinical case vignettes combined with a thinking-aloud approach, taking into account COREQ recommendations The open source software of Ken-Q Analysis version 1.0.6. was used for the quantitative analysis, using principal components and a Varimax rotation. For the qualitative analysis, a thematic analysis based on the four main themes was performed based on the audiotapes and field notes. RESULTS: Thirty physicians were interviewed (7 in training, 8 junior staff and 15 senior staff; 16 females). Nearly all respondents were strongly averse towards interruptive messages, especially when these also were obstructive. Obstructive interruption was considered to be acceptable only when it increases safety, is adjustable to user expertise level and/or allows deviations when the end-user explains why a deviation is desirable in the case at issue. Transparency was deemed an essential feature, which seems to boil down to providing sufficient clarification on the factors underlying the recommendations of the CDS, so that these can be compared against the physicians' existing knowledge, beliefs and convictions. CONCLUSION: Avoidance of disruptive workflows and transparency of the underlying decision processes are important points to consider when developing CDS systems incorporated in EHR.

"Many roads lead to Rome and the Artificial Intelligence only shows me one road": an interview study on physician attitudes regarding the implementation of computerised clinical decision support systems.

Research regarding the drivers of acceptance of clinical decision support systems (CDSS) by physicians is still rather limited. The literature that does exist, however, tends to focus on problems regarding the user-friendliness of CDSS. We have performed a thematic analysis of 24 interviews with physicians concerning specific clinical case vignettes, in order to explore their underlying opinions and attitudes regarding the introduction of CDSS in clinical practice, to allow a more in-depth analysis of factors underlying (non-)acceptance of CDSS. We identified three general themes from the results. First, 'the perceived role of the AI', including items referring to the tasks that may properly be assigned to the CDSS according to the respondents. Second, 'the perceived role of the physician', referring to the aspects of clinical practice that were seen as being fundamentally 'human' or non-automatable. Third, 'concerns regarding AI', including items referring to more general issues that were raised by the respondents regarding the introduction of CDSS in general and/or in clinical medicine in particular. Apart from the overall concerns expressed by the respondents regarding user-friendliness, we will explain how our results indicate that our respondents were primarily occupied by distinguishing between parts of their job that should be automated and aspects that should be kept in human hands. We refer to this distinction as 'the division of clinical labor.' This division is not based on knowledge regarding AI or medicine, but rather on which parts of a physician's job were seen by the respondents as being central to who they are as physicians and as human beings. Often the respondents' view that certain core parts of their job ought to be shielded from automation was closely linked to claims concerning the uniqueness of medicine as a domain. Finally, although almost all respondents claimed that they highly value their final responsibility, a closer investigation of this concept suggests that their view of 'final responsibility' was not that demanding after all.

A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma: How semantic black boxes and opaque artificial intelligence confuse medical decision-making.

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare comes with opportunities but also numerous challenges. A specific challenge that remains underexplored is the lack of clear and distinct definitions of the concepts used in and/or produced by these algorithms, and how their real world meaning is translated into machine language and vice versa, how their output is understood by the end user. This "semantic" black box adds to the "mathematical" black box present in many AI systems in which the underlying "reasoning" process is often opaque. In this way, whereas it is often claimed that the use of AI in medical applications will deliver "objective" information, the true relevance or meaning to the end-user is frequently obscured. This is highly problematic as AI devices are used not only for diagnostic and decision support by healthcare professionals, but also can be used to deliver information to patients, for example to create visual aids for use in shared decision-making. This paper provides an examination of the range and extent of this problem and its implications, on the basis of cases from the field of intensive care nephrology. We explore how the problematic terminology used in human communication about the detection, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of concepts of intensive care nephrology becomes a much more complicated affair when deployed in the form of algorithmic automation, with implications extending throughout clinical care, affecting norms and practices long considered fundamental to good clinical care.

The concept of justifiable healthcare and how big data can help us to achieve it.

Over the last decades, the face of health care has changed dramatically, with big improvements in what is technically feasible. However, there are indicators that the current approach to evaluating evidence in health care is not holistic and hence in the long run, health care will not be sustainable. New conceptual and normative frameworks for the evaluation of health care need to be developed and investigated. The current paper presents a novel framework of justifiable health care and explores how the use of artificial intelligence and big data can contribute to achieving the goals of this framework.

Euthanasia in Belgium: Shortcomings of the Law and Its Application and of the Monitoring of Practice.

In 2002 with the passing of the Euthanasia Law, Belgium became one of the few countries worldwide to legalize euthanasia. In the 18 years since the passing of the law, much has changed. We argue that in Belgium a widening of the use of euthanasia is occurring and that this can be ethically and legally problematic. This is in part related to the fact that several legal requirements intended to operate as safeguards and procedural guarantees in reality often fail to operate as such. We focus on three kinds of safeguards or procedural guarantees: (1) the legally defined due care criteria for eligibility for euthanasia; (2) the consultation of a second (and sometimes third) physician; and (3) the reporting of euthanasia cases to the Federal Control and Evaluation Commission for Euthanasia. We will show how each of these three safeguards can exhibit shortcomings in theory and practice.

Remote digital monitoring of medication intake: methodological, medical, ethical and legal reflections.

In 2017, regulatory approval was given in the US for a 'digital pill', a pill for which actual ingestion could be remotely monitored. The pill, Abilify Mycite is marketed by Otsuka but the monitoring system derives from Proteus Digital Health. In this paper, we focus on this digital pill and another equivalent system from AiCure which relies on facial recognition. Both systems not only remind the patient to take a pill but also verify the actual intake. In this process, patient-related data beyond the fact that the pill has been taken are also collected and sent to a remote computer system of the system-providing company and possibly to third parties.Although marketed as 'innovative', the introduction of such systems raises questions as to the limitation of patient autonomy, secondary uses of patient data, impact on the physician's liability, and artificial inflation of drug prices. Whereas incorrect medication taking can be problematic, it can be questioned whether remote intake-monitoring systems are, from an ethical, legal and social perspective, the ideal way to address this. In this paper, we will reflect on this question from the position of the different potential stakeholders involved.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide in the context of psychiatric disorders: sharing experiences from the Low Countries. / Eutanazja i wspomagane samobójstwo w kontekscie zaburzen psychicznych w krajach niderlandzkich: doswiadczenie poparte praktyka.

Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide (E/PAS) in the context of unbearable psychological or emotional suffering related to psychiatric disorders (psychiatric E/PAS) is ahighly debated topic. In Belgium and The Netherlands, the law allows for psychiatric E/PAS since 2002. The aim of this article is to give an overview of the Belgian and Dutch experiences and the questions raised during the last decade of real-life experiences with psychiatric E/PAS. We use the available national data on psychiatric E/PAS to present a quantitative overview of the current situation. In addition, we identified different challenges; i.e. ethical, medicalpsychiatric and legal, that increasingly impact and change the attitudes within the medical and psychiatric professional community towards psychiatric E/PAS.

Psychiatric patients requesting euthanasia: Guidelines for sound clinical and ethical decision making.

BACKGROUND: Since Belgium legalised euthanasia, the number of performed euthanasia cases for psychological suffering in psychiatric patients has significantly increased, as well as the number of media reports on controversial cases. This has prompted several healthcare organisations and committees to develop policies on the management of these requests. METHOD: Five recent initiatives that offer guidance on euthanasia requests by psychiatric patients in Flanders were analysed: the protocol of Ghent University Hospital and advisory texts of the Flemish Federation of Psychiatry, the Brothers of Charity, the Belgian Advisory Committee on Bioethics, and Zorgnet-Icuro. These were examined via critical point-by-point reflection, focusing on all legal due care criteria in order to identify: 1) proposed measures to operationalise the evaluation of the legal criteria; 2) suggestions of additional safeguards going beyond these criteria; and 3) remaining fields of tension. RESULTS: The initiatives are well in keeping with the legal requirements but are often more stringent. Additional safeguards that are formulated include the need for at least two positive advices from at least two psychiatrists; an a priori evaluation system; and a two-track approach, focusing simultaneously on the assessment of the patient's euthanasia request and on that person's continuing treatment. Although the initiatives are similar in intent, some differences in approach were found, reflecting different ethical stances towards euthanasia and an emphasis on practical clinical assessment versus broad ethical reflection. CONCLUSIONS: All initiatives offer useful guidance for the management of euthanasia requests by psychiatric patients. By providing information on, and proper operationalisations of, the legal due care criteria, these initiatives are important instruments to prevent potential abuses. Apart from the additional safeguards suggested, the importance of a decision-making policy that includes many actors (e.g. the patient's relatives and other care providers) and of good aftercare for the bereaved are rightly stressed. Shortcomings of the initiatives relate to the aftercare of patients whose euthanasia request is rejected, and to uncertainty regarding the way in which attending physicians should manage negative or conflicting advices, or patients' suicide threats in case of refusal. Given the scarcity of data on how thoroughly and uniformly requests are handled in practice, it is unclear to what extent the recommendations made in these guidelines are currently being implemented.

'Capacity for Discernment' and Euthanasia on Minors in Belgium.

In 2014, the Belgian Euthanasia Law was amended so as to extend the possibility of obtaining euthanasia to minors who have the capacity for discernment. The amendment led to considerable debate among Belgian legal experts, health care professionals and ethicists, in large part due to concerns about the scope and assessment of the minor's 'capacity for discernment', a concept first introduced in Belgian medical law by the amendment. This article offers a critical legal analysis of the concept of 'capacity for discernment' and its implications for euthanasia practice in Belgium. We do so by focusing on a ruling of the Belgian Constitutional Court of 29 October 2015, where the concept figured prominently in the examination of the constitutionality of the amendment. This approach also allows us to shed light on the interpretation of several core aspects of the original 2002 Euthanasia Law and its 2014 amendment.

Similar or the Same? Why Biosimilars are not the Solution.

Advancements in the field of biotechnology have accelerated the development of drugs that are manufactured from cultures of living cells, commonly referred to as "biologics." Due to the complexity of the production process, generic biologics are unlikely to be chemically identical to the reference product, and accordingly are referred to as "biosimilars." Encouraging the development of biosimilars has been presented as the key solution to decrease prices and increase access to biologics, but the development and use of biosimilars continues to raise problems, none of which can easily be addressed. Developing a biosimilar requires considerable time and financial resources, and legitimate safety concerns necessitate elaborate clinical testing of biosimilars. As a consequence, the introduction of biosimilars onto the market has not resulted in significant price reductions, and concerns regarding the substitution and interchangeability of original biologics with biosimilars persist. This article will explain how the biologics production process distorts the trade-offs that traditionally guided both patent protection and regulatory exclusivities: disclosure as a key condition for benefiting from the corresponding monopoly position. Hence, we propose establishing a mechanism of mandatory deposit of the original biologic's cell line at the stage of the regulatory approval as the most effective remedy.

Genuine participation in participant-centred research initiatives: the rhetoric and the potential reality.

The introduction of Web 2.0 technology, along with a population increasingly proficient in Information and Communications Technology (ICT), coupled with the rapid advancements in genetic testing methods, has seen an increase in the presence of participant-centred research initiatives. Such initiatives, aided by the centrality of ICT interconnections, and the ethos they propound seem to further embody the ideal of increasing the participatory nature of research, beyond what might be possible in non-ICT contexts alone. However, the majority of such research seems to actualise a much narrower definition of 'participation'-where it is merely the case that such research initiatives have increased contact with participants through ICT but are otherwise non-participatory in any important normative sense. Furthermore, the rhetoric of participant-centred initiatives tends to inflate this minimalist form of participation into something that it is not, i.e. something genuinely participatory, with greater connections with both the ICT-facilitated political contexts and the largely non-ICT participatory initiatives that have expanded in contemporary health and research contexts. In this paper, we highlight that genuine (ICT-based) 'participation' should enable a reasonable minimum threshold of participatory engagement through, at least, three central participatory elements: educative, sense of being involved and degree of control. While we agree with criticisms that, at present, genuine participation seems more rhetoric than reality, we believe that there is clear potential for a greater ICT-facilitated participatory engagement on all three participatory elements. We outline some practical steps such initiatives could take to further develop these elements and thereby their level of ICT-facilitated participatory engagement.

The challenges of the expanded availability of genomic information: an agenda-setting paper.

Rapid advances in microarray and sequencing technologies are making genotyping and genome sequencing more affordable and readily available. There is an expectation that genomic sequencing technologies improve personalized diagnosis and personalized drug therapy. Concurrently, provision of direct-to-consumer genetic testing by commercial providers has enabled individuals' direct access to their genomic data. The expanded availability of genomic data is perceived as influencing the relationship between the various parties involved including healthcare professionals, researchers, patients, individuals, families, industry, and government. This results in a need to revisit their roles and responsibilities. In a 1-day agenda-setting meeting organized by the COST Action IS1303 "Citizen's Health through public-private Initiatives: Public health, Market and Ethical perspectives," participants discussed the main challenges associated with the expanded availability of genomic information, with a specific focus on public-private partnerships, and provided an outline from which to discuss in detail the identified challenges. This paper summarizes the points raised at this meeting in five main parts and highlights the key cross-cutting themes. In light of the increasing availability of genomic information, it is expected that this paper will provide timely direction for future research and policy making in this area.

Patenting Foundational Technologies: Lessons From CRISPR and Other Core Biotechnologies.

In 2012, a new and promising gene manipulation technique, CRISPR-Cas9, was announced that seems likely to be a foundational technique in health care and agriculture. However, patents have been granted. As with other technological developments, there are concerns of social justice regarding inequalities in access. Given the technologies' "foundational" nature and societal impact, it is vital for such concerns to be translated into workable recommendations for policymakers and legislators. Colin Farrelly has proposed a moral justification for the use of patents to speed up the arrival of technology by encouraging innovation and investment. While sympathetic to his argument, this article highlights a number of problems. By examining the role of patents in CRISPR and in two previous foundational technologies, we make some recommendations for realistic and workable guidelines for patenting and licensing.

Raising the Barriers to Access to Medicines in the Developing World - The Relentless Push for Data Exclusivity.

Since the adoption of the WTO-TRIPS Agreement in 1994, there has been significant controversy over the impact of pharmaceutical patent protection on the access to medicines in the developing world. In addition to the market exclusivity provided by patents, the pharmaceutical industry has also sought to further extend their monopolies by advocating the need for additional 'regulatory' protection for new medicines, known as data exclusivity. Data exclusivity limits the use of clinical trial data that need to be submitted to the regulatory authorities before a new drug can enter the market. For a specified period, generic competitors cannot apply for regulatory approval for equivalent drugs relying on the originator's data. As a consequence, data exclusivity lengthens the monopoly for the original drug, impairing the availability of generic drugs. This article illustrates how the pharmaceutical industry has convinced the US and the EU to impose data exclusivity on their trade partners, many of them developing countries. The key arguments formulated by the pharmaceutical industry in favor of adopting data exclusivity and their underlying ethical assumptions are described in this article, analyzed, and found to be unconvincing. Contrary to industry's arguments, it is unlikely that data exclusivity will promote innovation, especially in developing countries. Moreover, the industry's appeal to a property rights claim over clinical test data and the idea that data exclusivity can prevent the generic competitors from 'free-riding' encounters some important problems: Neither legitimize excluding all others.