Enrolling in deep brain stimulation research for depression: influences on potential subjects' decision making

Ethical considerations in rapid and novel treatments in psychiatry

New treatment modalities for mental illness are deeply needed, and emerging therapeutic agents such as psychedelics, ketamine, and neuromodulatory technologies have been welcomed by many researchers and patients. These treatment approaches have also been observed to raise novel ethical questions, and to pose new and different versions of familiar ethical questions in clinical treatment and research. We present an overview and introduction to these issues organized around three specific domains of ethical concern: informed consent, the role of expectancy in clinical response, and distributive justice.

Shared decision-making interventions for people with mental health conditions

BACKGROUND

One person in every four will suffer from a diagnosable mental health condition during their life. Such conditions can have a devastating impact on the lives of the individual and their family, as well as society.  International healthcare policy makers have increasingly advocated and enshrined partnership models of mental health care. Shared decision-making (SDM) is one such partnership approach. Shared decision-making is a form of service user-provider communication where both parties are acknowledged to bring expertise to the process and work in partnership to make a decision.  This review assesses whether SDM interventions improve a range of outcomes. This is the first update of this Cochrane Review, first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of SDM interventions for people of all ages with mental health conditions, directed at people with mental health conditions, carers, or healthcare professionals, on a range of outcomes including: clinical outcomes, participation/involvement in decision-making process (observations on the process of SDM; user-reported, SDM-specific outcomes of encounters), recovery, satisfaction, knowledge, treatment/medication continuation, health service outcomes, and adverse outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran searches in January 2020 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (2009 to January 2020). We also searched trial registers and the bibliographies of relevant papers, and contacted authors of included studies.  We updated the searches in February 2022. When we identified studies as potentially relevant, we labelled these as studies awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised controlled trials, of SDM interventions in people with mental health conditions (by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review included 13 new studies, for a total of 15 RCTs. Most participants were adults with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder, in higher-income countries. None of the studies included children or adolescents.  Primary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve clinical outcomes, such as psychiatric symptoms, depression, anxiety, and readmission, compared with control due to very low-certainty evidence. For readmission, we conducted subgroup analysis between studies that used usual care and those that used cognitive training in the control group. There were no subgroup differences. Regarding participation (by the person with the mental health condition) or level of involvement in the decision-making process, we are uncertain if SDM interventions improve observations on the process of SDM compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. On the other hand, SDM interventions may improve SDM-specific user-reported outcomes from encounters immediately after intervention compared with no intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.01; 3 studies, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there was insufficient evidence for sustained participation or involvement in the decision-making processes. Secondary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve recovery compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. We are uncertain if SDM interventions improve users' overall satisfaction. However, one study (241 participants) showed that SDM interventions probably improve some aspects of users' satisfaction with received information compared with no intervention: information given was rated as helpful (risk ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.65); participants expressed a strong desire to receive information this way for other treatment decisions (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.68); and strongly recommended the information be shared with others in this way (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.58). The evidence was of moderate certainty for these outcomes. However, this same study reported there may be little or no effect on amount or clarity of information, while another small study reported there may be little or no change in carer satisfaction with the SDM intervention. The effects of healthcare professional satisfaction were mixed: SDM interventions may have little or no effect on healthcare professional satisfaction when measured continuously, but probably improve healthcare professional satisfaction when assessed categorically. We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve knowledge, treatment continuation assessed through clinic visits, medication continuation, carer participation, and the relationship between users and healthcare professionals because of very low-certainty evidence. Regarding length of consultation, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect compared with no intervention (SDM 0.09, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.41; 2 studies, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). On the other hand, we are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve length of hospital stay due to very low-certainty evidence. There were no adverse effects on health outcomes and no other adverse events reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review update suggests that people exposed to SDM interventions may perceive greater levels of involvement immediately after an encounter compared with those in control groups. Moreover, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect on the length of consultations.  Overall we found that most evidence was of low or very low certainty, meaning there is a generally low level of certainty about the effects of SDM interventions based on the studies assembled thus far. There is a need for further research in this area.

"Nothing to Lose, Absolutely Everything to Gain": Patient and Caregiver Expectations and Subjective Outcomes of Deep Brain Stimulation for Treatment-Resistant Depression

Background: How "success" is defined in clinical trials of deep brain stimulation (DBS) for refractory psychiatric conditions has come into question. Standard quantitative psychopathology measures are unable to capture all changes experienced by patients and may not reflect subjective beliefs about the benefit derived. The decision to undergo DBS for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is often made in the context of high desperation and hopelessness that can challenge the informed consent process. Partners and family can observe important changes in DBS patients and play a key role in the recovery process. Their perspectives, however, have not been investigated in research to-date. The aim of this study was to qualitatively examine patient and caregivers' understanding of DBS for TRD, their expectations of life with DBS, and how these compare with actual experiences and outcomes. Methods: A prospective qualitative design was adopted. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants (six patients, five caregivers) before DBS-implantation and 9-months after stimulation initiation. All patients were enrolled in a clinical trial of DBS of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis. Interviews were thematically analyzed with data saturation achieved at both timepoints. Results: Two primary themes identified were: (1) anticipated vs. actual outcomes, and (2) trial decision-making and knowledge. The decision to undergo DBS was driven by the intolerability of life with severe depression coupled with the exhaustion of all available treatment options. Participants had greater awareness of surgical risks compared with stimulation-related risks. With DBS, patients described cognitive, emotional, behavioral and physical experiences associated with the stimulation, some of which were unexpected. Participants felt life with DBS was like "a roller coaster ride"-with positive, yet unsustained, mood states experienced. Many were surprised by the lengthy process of establishing optimum stimulation settings and felt the intervention was still a "work in progress." Conclusion: These findings support existing recommendations for iterative informed consent procedures in clinical trials involving long-term implantation of neurotechnology. These rich and descriptive findings hold value for researchers, clinicians, and individuals and families considering DBS. Narrative accounts capture patient and family needs and should routinely be collected to guide patient-centered approaches to DBS interventions.

Informed Consent Decision-Making in Deep Brain Stimulation

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has proved useful for several movement disorders (Parkinson’s disease, essential tremor, dystonia), in which first and/or second line pharmacological treatments were inefficacious. Initial evidence of DBS efficacy exists for refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder, treatment-resistant major depressive disorder, and impulse control disorders. Ethical concerns have been raised about the use of an invasive surgical approach involving the central nervous system in patients with possible impairment in cognitive functioning and decision-making capacity. Most of the disorders in which DBS has been used might present with alterations in memory, attention, and executive functioning, which may have an impact on the mental capacity to give informed consent to neurosurgery. Depression, anxiety, and compulsivity are also common in DBS candidate disorders, and could also be associated with an impaired capacity to consent to treatment or clinical research. Despite these issues, there is limited empirical knowledge on the decision-making levels of these patients. The possible informed consent issues of DBS will be discussed by focusing on the specific treatable diseases.

Patient Perspectives on Deep Brain Stimulation Clinical Research in Early Stage Parkinson's Disease

The FDA has approved a multicenter, double-blind, Phase III, pivotal trial testing deep brain stimulation (DBS) in 280 people with very early stage Parkinson's disease (PD; IDE#G050016). In partnership with The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research, we conducted a survey to investigate motivating factors, barriers, and gender differences among potentially eligible patients for participation in a trial testing DBS in early PD compared to standard medical treatment. The majority of survey respondents (72%) indicated they would consider learning more about participating. Early PD patients are therefore likely to consider enrolling in trials of invasive therapies that may slow symptom progression and help future patients.

Deep Brain Stimulation as Clinical Innovation: An Ethical and Organizational Framework to Sustain Deliberations About Psychiatric Deep Brain Stimulation

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) for psychiatric disorders needs to be investigated in proper research trials. However, there are rare circumstances in which DBS could be offered to psychiatric patients as a form of surgical innovation, therefore potentially blurring the lines between these research trials and health care. In this article, we discuss the conditions under which surgical innovation may be accepted as a practice falling at the frontiers of standard clinical care and research per se. However, recognizing this distinction does not settle all ethical issues. Our article offers ethical guideposts to allow clinicians, surgical teams, institutions, and institutional review boards to deliberate about some of the fundamental issues that should be considered before surgical innovation with psychiatric DBS is undertaken. We provide key guiding questions to sustain this deliberation. Then we review the normative and empirical literature that exists to guide reflection about the ethics of surgical innovation and psychiatric DBS with respect to general ethical questions pertinent to psychiatric DBS, multidisciplinary team perspectives in psychiatric DBS, mechanisms for oversight in psychiatric DBS, and capacity and consent in psychiatric DBS. The considerations presented here are to recognize the very specific nature of surgical innovation and to ensure that surgical innovation in the context of psychiatric DBS remains a limited, special category of activity that does not replace appropriate surgical research or become the standard of care based on limited evidence.

ABBREVIATIONS

DBS, deep brain stimulationIRB, institutional review boardOCD, obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Ethics, Science and Mind Control: J. M. Rodríguez-Delgado’s Legacy

This work analyses the evolution of the scientific visibility of the neurophysiologist José Manuel Rodríguez Delgado. It examines the longitudinal evolution from 1955 to 2013 of an article (Delgado, Roberts, & Miller, 1954) studying the neurological basis of learning and motivation and compares it with a coetaneous article (Olds & Milner, 1954) with a similar subject and methodology. Both studies have been essential in Psychology. This work analyses the number of times each article has been cited between 1955–1984 and 1985–2013. The results show that the visibility of James Olds and Peter Milner’s article (expressed in number of citations between 1955–1984 and 1985–2013) has longitudinally increased (p < .001), whereas the number of citations received by José Manuel Rodríguez Delgado et al.’s article has significantly reduced (p < .001). The results are discussed and the low visibility of Delgado’s article is explained through historical and social factors, including the growing concern about compliance with bioethical and research guidelines and the controversial media projection of the Spanish scientist, not by the intrinsic value or the scientific repercussion of the compared articles.

Deep brain stimulation in the treatment of depression

Major depressive disorder is a worldwide disease with debilitating effects on a patient's life. Common treatments include pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, and electroconvulsive therapy. Many patients do not respond to these treatments; this has led to the investigation of alternative therapeutic modalities. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is one of these modalities. It was first used with success for treating movement disorders and has since been extended to the treatment of psychiatric disorders. Although DBS is still an emerging treatment, promising efficacy and safety have been demonstrated in preliminary trials in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Further, neuroimaging has played a pivotal role in identifying some DBS targets and remains an important tool for evaluating the mechanism of action of this novel intervention. Preclinical animal studies have broadened knowledge about the possible mechanisms of action of DBS for TRD, Given that DBS involves neurosurgery in patients with severe psychiatric impairment, ethical questions concerning capacity to consent arise; these issues must continue to be carefully considered.

Neuropsychological function before and after subcallosal cingulate deep brain stimulation in patients with treatment-resistant depression

BACKGROUND

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is a pervasive and difficult to treat condition for which deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subcallosal cingulate white matter (SCCwm) is an emerging therapeutic option. However, neuropsychological safety data for this novel treatment have only been published for a small number of subjects. Moreover, little is known regarding the neuropsychological profile present in TRD patients at baseline, prior to initiation of DBS therapy. This report describes the neuropsychological effects of TRD and acute and chronic DBS of the SCCwm in patients with unipolar and bipolar TRD.

METHODS

Patients with TRD (N = 17) were compared to a healthy control group (N = 15) on subtests from the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery and the Stroop Task. Patients were then tested again at subsequent time points of 1 and 6 months following the initiation of chronic DBS of the SCCwm.

RESULTS

Patients with TRD showed similar levels of performance to healthy controls on most neuropsychological measures, with the exception that the TRD group had slower processing speed. Patients with bipolar TRD, relative to those with unipolar TRD, obtained lower scores on measures of executive function and memory only at baseline. With acute and chronic SCCwm DBS, neuropsychological function improved in multiple domains including processing speed and executive function (planning, set shifting, response inhibition), and memory remained stable.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with TRD show slowed processing speed but otherwise largely preserved neuropsychological functioning. DBS of the SCCwm does not result in worsening of any aspect of neuropsychological function and may improve certain domains. Future research is warranted to better understand the effects of TRD and DBS on neuropsychological function.

Expectations and experiences of investigators and parents involved in a clinical trial for Duchenne/Becker muscular dystrophy

BACKGROUND

The social context of rare disease research is changing, with increased community engagement around drug development and clinical trials. This engagement may benefit patients and families but may also lead to heightened trial expectations and therapeutic misconception. Clinical investigators are also susceptible to harboring high expectations. Little is known about parental motivations and expectations for clinical trials for rare pediatric disorders.

PURPOSE

We describe the experience of parents and clinical investigators involved in a phase II clinical trial for Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy: their expectations, hopes, motivations, and reactions to the termination of the trial.

METHODS

This qualitative study was based on interviews with clinical investigators and parents of sons with Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy (DBMD) who participated in the phase IIa or IIb ataluren clinical trial in the United States. Interviews were transcribed and coded for thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Participants were 12 parents of affected boys receiving active drug and 9 clinical investigators. High trial expectations of direct benefit were reported by parents and many clinicians. Investigators described monitoring and managing parents' expectations; several worried about their own involvement in increasing parents' expectations. Most parents were able to differentiate their expectations from their optimistic hopes for a cure. Parents' expectations arose from other parents, advocacy organizations, and the sponsor. All parents reported some degree of clinical benefit to their children. Secondary benefits were hopefulness and powerful feelings associated with active efforts to affect the disease course. Parents and clinical investigators reported strong, close relationships that were mutually important. Parents and clinicians felt valued by the sponsor for the majority of the trial. When the trial abruptly stopped, they described loss of engagement, distress, and feeling unprepared for the possibility of trial termination.

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective study of one clinical trial. We were unable to recruit participants whose children received placebo. The interviews occurred during a time of significant uncertainty and distress for many of the participants.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study reflects complex outcomes of strong community engagement. The findings highlight a need for renewed education about, and support for, clinical trial termination and loss of drug access. The primary positive outcome was demonstration of strong relationships among committed parents and study teams. These relationships were highly valued by both parties and may suggest an ideal intervention opportunity for efforts to improve psychological well-being. A negative outcome attributed, in part, to community engagement was inappropriately high trial expectations. More optimistically, high expectations were attributed, in part, to the importance of hope and powerful feelings associated with active efforts to affect the disease course.

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) at the interface of neurology and psychiatry

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an emerging interventional therapy for well-screened patients with specific treatment-resistant neuropsychiatric diseases. Some neuropsychiatric conditions, such as Parkinson disease, have available and reasonable guideline and efficacy data, while other conditions, such as major depressive disorder and Tourette syndrome, have more limited, but promising results. This review summarizes both the efficacy and the neuroanatomical targets for DBS in four common neuropsychiatric conditions: Parkinson disease, Tourette syndrome, major depressive disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Based on emerging new research, we summarize novel approaches to optimization of stimulation for each neuropsychiatric disease and we review the potential positive and negative effects that may be observed following DBS. Finally, we summarize the likely future innovations in the field of electrical neural-network modulation.

The Promise of Heart Rate Variability Biofeedback: Evidence-Based Applications

Heart rate variability biofeedback has enjoyed increased popularity in recent years. In this review, empirical evidence from multiple sources is presented from the point of view of possible mechanisms of effect. While more research is clearly needed, the data thus far are certainly promising.

Neurosurgery and the dawning age of Brain-Machine Interfaces

Brain–machine interfaces (BMIs) are on the horizon for clinical neurosurgery. Electrocorticography-based platforms are less invasive than implanted microelectrodes, however, the latter are unmatched in their ability to achieve fine motor control of a robotic prosthesis capable of natural human behaviors. These technologies will be crucial to restoring neural function to a large population of patients with severe neurologic impairment – including those with spinal cord injury, stroke, limb amputation, and disabling neuromuscular disorders such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. On the opposite end of the spectrum are neural enhancement technologies for specialized applications such as combat. An ongoing ethical dialogue is imminent as we prepare for BMI platforms to enter the neurosurgical realm of clinical management.

Practical considerations in the development and refinement of subcallosal cingulate white matter deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression

BACKGROUND

Deep brain stimulation has been investigated in the past decade as a viable intervention for treatment-resistant depression.

METHODS

Several anatomic targets have been tested, with the most extensive published experience found for the subcallosal cingulate (SCC) white matter.

RESULTS

This article reviews the current state of clinical research of SCC deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression, including an overview of the rationale for targeting SCC, practical considerations for subject recruitment and evaluation, surgical planning, and stimulation parameters.

CONCLUSION

Clinical management of patients in the initial and long-term naturalistic phases of treatment, including the potential role for psychotherapeutic rehabilitation, is discussed.

The ethics of research on deep brain stimulation for depression: decisional capacity and therapeutic misconception

Research on deep brain stimulation (DBS) for treatment-resistant depression appears promising, but concerns have been raised about the decisional capacity of severely depressed patients and their potential misconceptions about the research. We assessed 31 DBS research participants with the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR), a well-validated capacity measure, and with a scale to measure therapeutic misconception, which occurs when subjects do not recognize key differences between treatment and clinical research. Correlations with baseline depressive symptoms were explored. Subjects' performance on the MacCAT-CR was excellent, but therapeutic misconception was still apparent. A trend toward significance was found in the correlation between baseline depression ratings and total therapeutic misconception score. Responses to open-ended prompts revealed both reassuring and concerning statements related to expectations of risk, benefit, and individualization. Even severely depressed patients did not manifest impairments in their capacity to consent to DBS research. Therapeutic misconception, however, remained prevalent.

Participants' Perceptions of Deep Brain Stimulation Research for Treatment-Resistant Depression: Risks, Benefits, and Therapeutic Misconception

BACKGROUND

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is the focus of great interest and numerous studies. Given the state of this research, the risks of DBS, the uncertainty of direct benefits, and the potential for therapeutic misconception (TM), examination of research participants' perspectives is critical to addressing concerns about the adequacy of consent among people with TRD.

METHODS

Among 31 participants considering DBS studies at two sites, self-report questionnaires were used to examine three dimensions of TM (eight true/false items). Additional Likert-scale items assessed perceptions of risks, potential benefits, and altruistic motivations.

RESULTS

Participants correctly identified the surgery itself as the riskiest study procedure, although only four participants rated the surgery as "high risk." Most participants rated the entire DBS study as "moderate" or lower risk. Participants rated the likelihood of others benefiting in the future more strongly than they did the likelihood of personal benefit. Participants held positive attitudes toward research, and were moderately altruistic. Nearly two-thirds of the 31 participants (64.5%) answered at least one of the true/false TM items incorrectly.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals considering DBS studies for TRD demonstrated reasonable perceptions of risks and benefits, distinguished among procedural risks, and expressed hopes for personal benefit as well as altruism. Findings related to TM were mixed: Participants understood the experimental stage of DBS for depression and endorsed the possibility of no personal benefit, yet there was some evidence for TM. Although these findings are reassuring, investigators must nevertheless remain vigilant about identifying and addressing potential misconceptions.