Ethical Issues Raised by Proposals to Treat Addiction Using Deep Brain Stimulation

Deep Brain Stimulation for Substance Use Disorders? An Exploratory Qualitative Study of Perspectives of People Currently in Treatment

OBJECTIVE

Although previous studies have discussed the promise of deep brain stimulation (DBS) as a possible treatment for substance use disorders (SUDs) and collected researcher perspectives on possible ethical issues surrounding it, none have consulted people with SUDs themselves. We addressed this gap by interviewing people with SUDs.

METHODS

Participants viewed a short video introducing DBS, followed by a 1.5-hour semistructured interview on their experiences with SUDs and their perspective on DBS as a possible treatment option. Interviews were analyzed by multiple coders who iteratively identified salient themes.

RESULTS

We interviewed 20 people in 12-step-based, inpatient treatment programs (10 [50%] White/Caucasian, 7 Black/African American [35%], 2 Asian [10%], 1 Hispanic/Latino [5%], and 1 [5%] Alaska Native/American Indian; 9 women [45%], 11 men [55%]). Interviewees described a variety of barriers they currently faced through the course of their disease that mirrored barriers often associated with DBS (stigma, invasiveness, maintenance burdens, privacy risks) and thus made them more open to the possibility of DBS as a future treatment option.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with SUDs gave relatively less weight to surgical risks and clinical burdens associated with DBS than previous surveys of provider attitudes anticipated. These differences derived largely from their experiences living with an often-fatal disease and encountering limitations of current treatment options. These findings support the study of DBS as a treatment option for SUDs, with extensive input from people with SUDs and advocates.

Authentic Self and Last Resort: International Perceptions of Psychiatric Neurosurgery

Psychiatric neurosurgery has resurfaced over the past two decades for the treatment of severe mental health disorders, with improved precision and safety over older interventions alongside the development of novel ones. Little is known, however, about current public opinions, expectations, hopes, and concerns over this evolution in neurotechnology, particularly given the controversial history of psychosurgery. To fill this knowledge gap, we conducted a study with eight focus groups in Vancouver and Montreal (Canada; n = 14), Berlin (Germany; n = 22), and Madrid (Spain; n = 12). Focus group texts were transcribed and analyzed using qualitative content analysis in the language local to each city, guided by the theoretical framework of pragmatic neuroethics. Findings indicate that participants across all cities hold concerns about the last resort nature of psychiatric neurosurgery and the potential impact on the authentic self of patients who undergo these procedures. The views captured serve to advance discussion on the appropriate timing for psychiatric neurosurgery, promote sound health policy for the allocation of this resource, and foster scientific literacy about advances for mental health internationally.

Addiction and Voluntariness: Five “Challenges” to Address in Moving the Discussion Forward

The question as to whether people with an addiction have control (and to what extent) over their addiction, and voluntarily decide to use substances is an ongoing source of controversy in the context of research on addiction, health policy and clinical practice. We describe and discuss a set of five challenges for further research into voluntariness (definition[s], measurement and study tools, first person perspectives, contextual understandings, and connections to broader frameworks) based on our own research experiences and those of others.

Deep Brain Stimulation in Anorexia Nervosa: Hope for the Hopeless or Exploitation of the Vulnerable? The Oxford Neuroethics Gold Standard Framework

Neurosurgical interventions for psychiatric disorders have a long and troubled history (1, 2) but have become much more refined in the last few decades due to the rapid development of neuroimaging and robotic technologies (2). These advances have enabled the design of less invasive techniques, which are more focused, such as deep brain stimulation (DBS) (3). DBS involves electrode insertion into specific neural targets implicated in pathological behavior, which are then repeatedly stimulated at adjustable frequencies. DBS has been used for Parkinson's disease and movement disorders since the 1960s (4-6) and over the last decade has been applied to treatment-refractory psychiatric disorders, with some evidence of benefit in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), major depressive disorder, and addictions (7). Recent consensus guidelines on best practice in psychiatric neurosurgery (8) stress, however, that DBS for psychiatric disorders remains at an experimental and exploratory stage. The ethics of DBS-in particular for psychiatric conditions-is debated (1, 8-10). Much of this discourse surrounds the philosophical implications of competence, authenticity, personality, or identity change following neurosurgical interventions, but there is a paucity of applied guidance on neuroethical best practice in psychiatric DBS, and health-care professionals have expressed that they require more (11). This paper aims to redress this balance by providing a practical, applied neuroethical gold standard framework to guide research ethics committees, researchers, and institutional sponsors. We will describe this as applied to our protocol for a particular research trial of DBS in severe and enduring anorexia nervosa (SE-AN) (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01924598, unique identifier NCT01924598), but believe it may have wider application to DBS in other psychiatric disorders.

Ethical Considerations in Deep Brain Stimulation for the Treatment of Addiction and Overeating Associated With Obesity

The success of deep brain stimulation (DBS) for movement disorders and the improved understanding of the neurobiologic and neuroanatomic bases of psychiatric diseases have led to proposals to expand current DBS applications. Recent preclinical and clinical work with Alzheimer's disease and obsessive-compulsive disorder, for example, supports the safety of stimulating regions in the hypothalamus and nucleus accumbens in humans. These regions are known to be involved in addiction and overeating associated with obesity. However, the use of DBS targeting these areas as a treatment modality raises common ethical considerations, which include informed consent, coercion, enhancement, threat to personhood, and manipulation of the reward center. Pilot studies for both of these conditions are currently investigational. If these studies show promise, then there is a need to address the ethical concerns related to the initiation of clinical trials including the reliability of preclinical evidence, patient selection, study design, compensation for participation and injury, cost-effectiveness, and the need for long-term follow-up. Multidisciplinary teams are necessary for the ethical execution of such studies. In addition to establishing safety and efficacy, the consideration of these ethical issues is vital to the adoption of DBS as a treatment for these conditions. We offer suggestions about the pursuit of future clinical trials of DBS for the treatment of addiction and overeating associated with obesity and provide a framework for addressing ethical concerns related to treatment.

Deep brain stimulation compared with methadone maintenance for the treatment of heroin dependence: a threshold and cost-effectiveness analysis

AIMS

To determine the success threshold at which a theoretical course of deep brain stimulation (DBS) would provide the same quality of life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness for heroin dependence as methadone maintenance treatment (MMT).

DESIGN

We constructed a decision analysis model to calculate QoL after 6 months of MMT and compared it to a theoretical course of DBS. We also performed a cost-effectiveness analysis using societal costs of heroin dependence, MMT and DBS.

SETTING

Systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients (n = 1191) from 15 trials administering 6 months of MMT and patients (n = 2937) from 45 trials of DBS for movement disorders.

MEASUREMENTS

Data on QoL before and after MMT, retention in MMT at 6 months, as well as complications of DBS and their impact on QoL in movement disorders.

FINDINGS

We found a QoL of 0.633 (perfect health = 1) in heroin addicts initiating MMT. Sixty-six per cent of patients completed MMT, but only 47% of them had opiate-free urine samples, resulting in an average QoL of 0.7148 (0.3574 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 6 months). A trial of DBS is less expensive ($81,000) than untreated (or relapsed) heroin dependence ($100,000), but more expensive than MMT ($58,000). A theoretical course of DBS would need a success rate of 36.5% to match MMT, but a success rate of 49% to be cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

The success rate, defined as the percentage of patients remaining heroin-free after 6 months of treatment, at which deep brain stimulation would be similarly cost-effective in treating opiate addiction to methadone maintenance treatment, is estimated at 49%.