Precarious hope: Ethical considerations for offering experimental fetal therapies outside of research after initial studies in humans.

OBJECTIVE: Risks and benefits of experimental fetal therapies can remain uncertain after initial clinical studies, especially long-term effects. Nevertheless, pregnant individuals may request them, hoping to benefit their future child. Guidance about offering experimental fetal therapies outside research (as "innovative therapy") is limited, despite their ethical complexity. We propose points for clinicians and reviewers to consider when deciding whether and how to offer experimental fetal therapies as innovative therapies after initial clinical studies. METHOD: We used conceptual analysis and a current case to develop points for consideration, grounded in broader debates on innovative therapy and the unique challenges associated with experimental fetal therapies. RESULTS: Clinicians should evaluate whether offering experimental fetal therapies as innovative therapy is appropriate for a pregnant individual and their fetus. The anticipated risk-benefit ratio for the fetus should be favorable. For the pregnant individual, risks may outweigh benefits, within reasonable limits. Medical resources should be sufficient to ensure appropriate care. Clinicians should support pregnant individuals in making informed choices. Clinicians offering innovative therapies with more than minimal risk should collect and report data on outcomes. Independent review should take place. CONCLUSION: Considering these points may advance the interests of fetuses, future children, and their families.

Continuing trial responsibilities for implantable neural devices.

Participants of neural implant studies have research-related posttrial care needs (e.g., hardware replacements). Gaps in plans for posttrial care are currently common, which can have major consequences for patients. Professionals and organizations involved should address important unmet posttrial needs.

Should Ovarian Tissue Cryopreservation in Pediatric Patients with Turner Syndrome Be Limited to the Research Setting?

Now that ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) has become standard of care for patients receiving gonadotoxic therapies, discussion has turned toward offering OTC to pediatric patients with Turner syndrome outside of research. Although patients with Turner syndrome have unmet fertility needs and the authors support efforts for fertility preservation in these individuals, safety and efficacy data about OTC in this population are limited. Building on longstanding debates around offering experimental therapies as research or outside of research (as "innovative therapy"), we considered the suitability of offering OTC for patients with Turner syndrome as innovative therapy. On the basis of pathophysiology and preliminary research data, we argue that there is significant uncertainty about whether the risk-benefit profile of OTC for patients with Turner syndrome is favorable. This reduces the weight of arguments in favor of offering it as innovative therapy. Furthermore, as Turner syndrome is rare, widespread availability of OTC could make it difficult to develop generalizable knowledge. The benefits of innovative therapy for acquiring experience from use in humans and avoiding research-related procedures are of limited importance too, as OTC is already an established procedure, and current studies involve limited procedures that restrict access. OTC should therefore only be offered to patients with Turner syndrome in research settings until additional data suggest that the risk-benefit profile is likely favorable.

"It's Pretty Sad If You Get Used to It": A Qualitative Study of First Responder Experiences with Opioid Overdose Emergencies.

BACKGROUND: First responders play a vital role in the United States opioid drug overdose crisis, a public health emergency that has claimed many lives. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate first responders' experiences and attitudes toward opioid overdose emergencies and the ongoing crisis, as well as emotional effects, coping strategies, and support systems. METHODS: A convenience sample of first responders (n = 18) at the Columbus Fire Division, with experience responding to opioid emergencies, participated in semi-structured telephone interviews between September 2018 and February 2019. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using content analysis for themes. RESULTS: While almost all participants described overdose emergencies as routine, they recalled some as memorable and emotionally impactful. Almost all respondents were frustrated by the high rates of overdose among their patients and the lack of sustainable improvements in outcomes, yet expressed a strong moral commitment to caring for patients and saving lives. Themes of burnout, compassion fatigue, and hopelessness emerged, as did themes of increased compassion and empathy. Support for personnel experiencing emotional difficulty was either lacking or underutilized. Further, many felt public policies should prioritize more permanent resources and improve access to care, and believed that people who use drugs should face greater accountability. CONCLUSION: First responders perceive a moral and professional duty to treat patients who overdose, despite their frustrations. They may benefit from additional occupational support to cope with the resultant emotional effects of their role in the crisis. Addressing macro-level factors contributing to the overdose crisis and improving patient outcomes could also positively affect first responder wellbeing.

Survey of Investigators About Sharing Human Research Data in the Neurosciences.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In the neurosciences, significant opportunities for sharing individual-level data are underexploited. Commentators suggest various barriers to data sharing, which may need to be addressed. Investigators' perspectives on the main barriers are unclear. Furthermore, bioethicists have raised concerns about the potential misuse of neuroscience data, although discussions are hampered by uncertainty about the potential risks. It is unclear how common sensitive data are obtained and whether investigators judge them as sensitive. METHODS: An online survey was disseminated among 1,190 principal investigators (PIs) of active National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institute of Mental Health, or NIH Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies Initiative grants involving human subject research. RESULTS: A total of 397 investigators responded to the survey (response rate 33%). Most investigators (84%) support efforts to increase sharing of deidentified individual-level data. However, investigators perceive many barriers to data sharing. The largest barriers were costs and time; limited interpretation of the data without understanding the context of data collection; lack of incentives; limited standardization and norms for data acquisition, formatting, and description; and heterogeneity of data types. Several types of data described as sensitive in the literature are common among neuroscience studies, for example, neural correlates of behavior, emotions, or decision making (71%) and/or predictive data (54%). Although most investigators consider it unlikely or extremely unlikely for their research data to be misused to harm individual research participants (82%), the majority were at least slightly concerned about potential harm to individuals if their research data were misused (65%). Investigators with more easily reidentifiable data, data from vulnerable groups, and neural data were more concerned about the likelihood of misuse and/or magnitude of harm of misuse of their research data. DISCUSSION: We hope these data help prioritize the development of tools and strategies to overcome the main barriers to data sharing. Furthermore, these data provide input on what may be sensitive data for which additional safeguards should be considered.

A new ethical framework to determine acceptable risks in fetal therapy trials.

OBJECTIVE: Fetal therapy trials pose complex ethical challenges because risks and benefits to both fetuses and pregnant persons must be considered. Existing regulatory guidance is limited and many proposed ethical frameworks have unnecessarily restrictive criteria that would block the development and implementation of important new fetal therapies. We aimed to develop a new ethical framework for assessing the risks and benefits of fetal therapy trials. METHODS: We reviewed existing regulatory and ethical guidance on fetal therapy trials. We used conceptual analysis to design a new ethical framework, which is grounded in general ethical principles for clinical research. RESULTS: We propose a new framework for assessing the risks and benefits of fetal therapy trials. We suggest that the potential benefits of a fetal therapy trial - for the fetus, the pregnant person, and society - should outweigh the risks for the fetus and the pregnant person. Furthermore, the risk-benefit profile for just the fetus and the risk-benefit profile for just the pregnant person should be appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: We hope that this new framework will permit important studies while protecting pregnant persons and fetuses from disproportionate harms.

A New Ethical Framework for Assessing the Unique Challenges of Fetal Therapy Trials.

New fetal therapies offer important prospects for improving health. However, having to consider both the fetus and the pregnant woman makes the risk-benefit analysis of fetal therapy trials challenging. Regulatory guidance is limited, and proposed ethical frameworks are overly restrictive or permissive. We propose a new ethical framework for fetal therapy research. First, we argue that considering only biomedical benefits fails to capture all relevant interests. Thus, we endorse expanding the considered benefits to include evidence-based psychosocial effects of fetal therapies. Second, we reject the commonly proposed categorical risk and/or benefit thresholds for assessing fetal therapy research (e.g., only for life-threatening conditions). Instead, we propose that the individual risks for the pregnant woman and the fetus should be justified by the benefits for them and the study's social value. Studies that meet this overall proportionality criterion but have mildly unfavorable risk-benefit ratios for pregnant women and/or fetuses may be acceptable.

Ethical challenges for a new generation of early-phase pediatric gene therapy trials.

After decades of setbacks, gene therapy (GT) is experiencing major breakthroughs. Five GTs have received US regulatory approval since 2017, and over 900 others are currently in development. Many of these GTs target rare pediatric diseases that are severely life-limiting, given a lack of effective treatments. As these GTs enter early-phase clinical trials, specific ethical challenges remain unresolved in three domains: evaluating risks and potential benefits, selecting participants fairly, and engaging with patient communities. Drawing on our experience as clinical investigators, basic scientists, and bioethicists involved in a first-in-human GT trial for an ultrarare pediatric disease, we analyze these ethical challenges and offer points to consider for future GT trials.

Assessing potential cures: are there distinctive elements of value beyond health gain?

Assessing the 'value' of potential cures can be challenging, as some have suggested that cures may offer distinctive benefits from noncurative treatments. We explore what these - previously unspecified - additional benefits may be. We suggest that three new elements of value seem distinctive to cures: liberation from the identity of being diseased, liberation from the stigma associated with the disease and liberation from the burden of ongoing therapy. However, including additional elements of value in health technology assessment may result in double counting and requires consideration of potential opportunity costs. We suggest health technology assessment should explore the relevance of these three elements of value and may have good reasons to - judiciously - integrate them through the deliberative process.

Advantages of Using Lotteries to Select Participants for High-Demand Covid-19 Treatment Trials.

As hospitals have experienced a surge of Covid-19 patients, investigators of Covid-19 treatment trials face a difficult problem: when an institution has more eligible and interested patients than trial slots, who should be enrolled? Defining a clear strategy for selecting participants for "high-demand" Covid-19 treatment trials is important to avoid ad hoc and potentially biased decision-making by local investigators, which could inadvertently compromise a trial's social value, participants' interests, or fairness. In this article, we propose a set of ethical criteria for evaluating participant-selection strategies for such trials. We argue that the pandemic context-in particular, great urgency to develop safe and effective treatments, uncertainty surrounding Covid-19, and strain on the health care system that limits the time and effort available for trial enrollment-favors participant-selection strategies that optimize the ease of enrollment and, ideally, social value. A lottery and, where possible, a weighted lottery have important advantages in these respects.

Ethical Challenges of Risk, Informed Consent, and Posttrial Responsibilities in Human Research With Neural Devices: A Review.

Importance: Developing more and better diagnostic and therapeutic tools for central nervous system disorders is an ethical imperative. Human research with neural devices is important to this effort and a critical focus of the National Institutes of Health Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative. Despite regulations and standard practices for conducting ethical research, researchers and others seek more guidance on how to ethically conduct neural device studies. This article draws on, reviews, specifies, and interprets existing ethical frameworks, literature, and subject matter expertise to address 3 specific ethical challenges in neural devices research: analysis of risk, informed consent, and posttrial responsibilities to research participants. Observations: Research with humans proceeds after careful assessment of the risks and benefits. In assessing whether risks are justified by potential benefits in both invasive and noninvasive neural device research, the following categories of potential risks should be considered: those related to surgery, hardware, stimulation, research itself, privacy and security, and financial burdens. All 3 of the standard pillars of informed consent-disclosure, capacity, and voluntariness-raise challenges in neural device research. Among these challenges are the need to plan for appropriate disclosure of information about atypical and emerging risks of neural devices, a structured evaluation of capacity when that is in doubt, and preventing patients from feeling unduly pressured to participate. Researchers and funders should anticipate participants' posttrial needs linked to study participation and take reasonable steps to facilitate continued access to neural devices that benefit participants. Possible mechanisms for doing so are explored here. Depending on the study, researchers and funders may have further posttrial responsibilities. Conclusions and Relevance: This ethical analysis and points to consider may assist researchers, institutional review boards, funders, and others engaged in human neural device research.

The relative importance of genetic parenthood.

RESEARCH QUESTION: How much do patients with severe infertility and their gynaecologists value genetic parenthood relative to other key treatment characteristics? DESIGN: A discrete choice experiment included the following treatment characteristics: genetic parenthood, pregnancy rate, curing infertility, maternal health, child health and costs. The questionnaire was disseminated between 2015 and 2016 among Dutch and Belgian patients with severe infertility and their gynaecologists. RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 173 patients and 111 gynaecologists. When choosing between treatments that varied in safety, effectiveness and costs, the treatment's ability to lead to genetic parenthood did not affect the treatment preference of patients with severe infertility (n = 173). Genetic parenthood affected the treatment preference of gynaecologists (n = 111) less than all other treatment characteristics. Patients indicated that they would switch to a treatment that did not enable genetic parenthood in return for a child health risk reduction of 3.6%, a cost reduction of €3500, an ovarian hyperstimulation risk reduction of 4.6%, a maternal cancer risk reduction of 2.7% or a pregnancy rate increase of 18%. Gynaecologists made similar trade-offs. CONCLUSIONS: While awaiting replication of this study in larger populations, these findings challenge the presumed dominant importance of genetic parenthood. This raises questions about whether donor gametes could be presented as a worthy alternative earlier in treatment trajectories and whether investments in novel treatments enabling genetic parenthood, like in-vitro gametogenesis, are proportional to their future clinical effect.

The ethics of clinical applications of germline genome modification: a systematic review of reasons.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the reasons for or against the future clinical application of germline genome modification (GGM)? SUMMARY ANSWER: A total of 169 reasons were identified, including 90 reasons for and 79 reasons against future clinical application of GGM. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: GGM is still unsafe and insufficiently effective for clinical purposes. However, the progress made using Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR)- CRISPR-associated system (Cas) has led scientists to expect to overcome the technical hurdles in the foreseeable future. This has invited a debate on the socio-ethical and legal implications and acceptability of clinical applications of GGM. However, an overview of the reasons presented in this debate is missing. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: MEDLINE was systematically searched for articles published between January 2011 and June 2016. Articles covering reasons for or against clinical application of intentional modification of the nuclear DNA of the germline were included. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Two researchers independently extracted the reported reasons from the articles and grouped them into categories through content analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The systematic search yielded 1179 articles and 180 articles were included. Most papers were written by professionals in ethics, (science) journalism and biomedical sciences. Overall, 169 reasons were identified, including 90 reasons for, and 79 reasons against future clinical application of GGM. None of the included articles mentioned more than 60/169 reasons. The reasons could be categorized into: (i) quality of life of affected individuals; (ii) safety; (iii) effectiveness; (iv) existence of a clinical need or alternative; (v) costs; (vi) homo sapiens as a species (i.e. relating to effects on our species); (vii) social justice; (viii) potential for misuse; (ix) special interests exercising influence; (x) parental rights and duties; (xi) comparability to acceptable processes; (xii) rights of the unborn child; and (xiii) human life and dignity. Considerations relating to the implementation processes and regulation were reported. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We cannot ensure completeness as reasons may have been omitted in the reviewed literature and our search was limited to MEDLINE and a 5-year time period. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Besides needing (pre)clinical studies on safety and effectiveness, authors call for a sound pre-implementation process. This overview of reasons may assist a thorough evaluation of the responsible introduction of GGM. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): University of Amsterdam, Alliance Grant of the Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute (I.D.), and Clinical Center, Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Program (S.H.). There are no competing interests.

Potential consequences of clinical application of artificial gametes: a systematic review of stakeholder views.

BACKGROUND: Recent progress in the formation of artificial gametes, i.e. gametes generated from progenitors or somatic cells, has led to scientific and societal discussion about their use in medically assisted reproduction. In animals, live births have already been achieved using artificial gametes of varying (cell type) sources and biological research seems to be progressing steadily toward clinical application in humans. Artificial gametes could potentially help not only infertile heterosexual couples of reproductive age of which one or both partners lacks functional gametes, but also post-menopausal women and same-sex couples, to conceive a child who will be genetically related to them. But as clinical application of these new technologies may have wider societal consequences, a proactive consideration of the possible impact seems timely and important. This review aims to contribute to this by providing a systematic overview of the potential consequences of clinical application of artificial gametes anticipated by different stakeholders. METHODS: The electronic database 'Medline/Pubmed' was systematically searched with medical subject heading terms (MesH) for articles published in English between January 1970 and December 2013. Articles were selected based on eligibility and reference lists of eligible studies were hand searched. The reported potential consequences of clinical application of artificial gametes were extracted from the articles and were grouped into categories by content analysis. Per category, we noted which stakeholders referred to which potential consequences, based on author affiliations and, if applicable, study participants. RESULTS: The systematic search yielded 2424 articles, and 84 studies were included after screening. Nine positive consequences, 21 specific consequences requiring consideration and 22 recommendations referring to clinical application of artificial gametes were documented. All positive consequences, consequences requiring consideration and recommendations could be categorized under the following eight objectives to be safeguarded during clinical application of artificial gametes: (i) timing the implementation of new treatments correctly, (ii) meeting 'plausible demands of patients', (iii) improving and safeguarding public health, (iv) promoting the progress of medical science in the interest of future patients, (v) providing treatments that are morally acceptable for the general public, (vi) controlling medical practice, (vii) offering treatments that allow acquisition of informed consent and (viii) funding treatments fairly. Professionals specialized in biomedical science, science journalists and professionals specialized in ethics all addressed these eight objectives on artificial gametes, whereas professionals specialized in law or political science addressed seven objectives. Although one study reported on the perspective of parents of under-aged patients on three objectives, the perspectives of patients themselves were not reported by the reviewed literature. CONCLUSION: Of course, clinical introduction of artificial gametes should only be considered on the basis of reassuring outcomes of appropriate preclinical effectiveness and safety studies. In addition, potential users' views on the desirability and acceptability of artificial gametes should be studied before clinical introduction. A societal debate including all stakeholders is needed to determine the relative importance of all arguments in favor of and against the introduction of artificial gametes into clinical practice. More broadly, establishing pre-implementation processes for new medical techniques is relevant for all fields of medicine.

Artificial gametes: a systematic review of biological progress towards clinical application.

BACKGROUND: Recent progress in the formation of artificial gametes, i.e. gametes generated by manipulation of their progenitors or of somatic cells, has led to scientific and societal discussion about their use in medically assisted reproduction (MAR). Artificial gametes could potentially help infertile men and women but also post-menopausal women and gay couples conceive genetically related children. This systematic review aimed to provide insight in the progress of biological research towards clinical application of artificial gametes. METHODS: The electronic database 'Medline/Pubmed' was systematically searched with medical subject heading (MesH) terms, and reference lists of eligible studies were hand searched. Studies in English between January 1970 and December 2013 were selected based on meeting a priori defined starting- and end-points of gamete development, including gamete formation, fertilization and the birth of offspring. For each biologically plausible method to form artificial gametes, data were extracted on the potential to generate artificial gametes that might be used to achieve fertilization and to result in the birth of offspring in animals and humans. RESULTS: The systematic search yielded 2424 articles, and 70 studies were included after screening. In animals, artificial sperm and artificial oocytes generated from germline stem cells (GSCs), embryonic stem cells (ESCs) and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) have resulted in the birth of viable offspring. Also in animals, artificial sperm and artificial oocytes have been generated from somatic cells directly, i.e. without documentation of intermediate stages of stem- or germ cell development or (epi)genetic status. Finally, although the subsequent embryos showed hampered development, haploidization by transplantation of a somatic cell nucleus into an enucleated donor oocyte has led to fertilized artificial oocytes. In humans, artificial sperm has been generated from ESCs and iPSCs. Artificial human oocytes have been generated from GSCs, ESCs and somatic cells (without documentation of intermediate stages of stem- or germ cell development). Fertilization of a human artificial oocyte after haploidization by transplantation of a somatic cell nucleus into an enucleated donor oocyte was also reported. Normal developmental potential, epigenetic and genetic stability and birth of children has not been reported following the use of human artificial gametes. In animals, artificial oocytes from a male have been created and fertilized and artificial sperm from a female has been fertilized and has resulted in the birth of viable offspring. In humans, artificial sperm has been generated from female iPSCs. To date, no study has reported the birth of human offspring from artificial gametes. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review of the literature indicated that in animals live births have already been achieved using artificial gametes of varying (cell type) sources. Although experimental biological research is progressing steadily towards future clinical application, data on functionality, safety and efficiency of (human) artificial gametes are still preliminary. Although defining artificial gametes by start- and end-points limited the number of included studies, the search resulted in a clear overview of the subject. Clinical use of artificial gametes would expand the treatment possibilities of MAR and would have implications for society. Before potential clinical use, the societal and ethical implications of artificial gametes should be reflected on.