1
|
Lee DH, Woo BS, Park YH, Lee JH. General Treatments Promoting Independent Living in Parkinson's Patients and Physical Therapy Approaches for Improving Gait-A Comprehensive Review. MEDICINA (KAUNAS, LITHUANIA) 2024; 60:711. [PMID: 38792894 PMCID: PMC11123276 DOI: 10.3390/medicina60050711] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2024] [Revised: 04/18/2024] [Accepted: 04/24/2024] [Indexed: 05/26/2024]
Abstract
This study delves into the multifaceted approaches to treating Parkinson's disease (PD), a neurodegenerative disorder primarily affecting motor function but also manifesting in a variety of symptoms that vary greatly among individuals. The complexity of PD symptoms necessitates a comprehensive treatment strategy that integrates surgical interventions, pharmacotherapy, and physical therapy to tailor to the unique needs of each patient. Surgical options, such as deep brain stimulation (DBS), have been pivotal for patients not responding adequately to medication, offering significant symptom relief. Pharmacotherapy remains a cornerstone of PD management, utilizing drugs like levodopa, dopamine agonists, and others to manage symptoms and, in some cases, slow down disease progression. However, these treatments often lead to complications over time, such as motor fluctuations and dyskinesias, highlighting the need for precise dosage adjustments and sometimes combination therapies to optimize patient outcomes. Physical therapy plays a critical role in addressing the motor symptoms of PD, including bradykinesia, muscle rigidity, tremors, postural instability, and akinesia. PT techniques are tailored to improve mobility, balance, strength, and overall quality of life. Strategies such as gait and balance training, strengthening exercises, stretching, and functional training are employed to mitigate symptoms and enhance functional independence. Specialized approaches like proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF), the Bobath concept, and the use of assistive devices are also integral to the rehabilitation process, aimed at improving patients' ability to perform daily activities and reducing the risk of falls. Innovations in technology have introduced robotic-assisted gait training (RAGT) and other assistive devices, offering new possibilities for patient care. These tools provide targeted support and feedback, allowing for more intensive and personalized rehabilitation sessions. Despite these advancements, high costs and accessibility issues remain challenges that need addressing. The inclusion of exercise and activity beyond structured PT sessions is encouraged, with evidence suggesting that regular physical activity can have neuroprotective effects, potentially slowing disease progression. Activities such as treadmill walking, cycling, and aquatic exercises not only improve physical symptoms but also contribute to emotional well-being and social interactions. In conclusion, treating PD requires a holistic approach that combines medical, surgical, and therapeutic strategies. While there is no cure, the goal is to maximize patients' functional abilities and quality of life through personalized treatment plans. This integrated approach, along with ongoing research and development of new therapies, offers hope for improving the management of PD and the lives of those affected by this challenging disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dae-Hwan Lee
- IM Rehabilitation Hospital, 2140, Cheongnam-ro, Seowon-gu, Cheongju-si 28702, Chungcheongbuk-do, Republic of Korea; (D.-H.L.); (B.-S.W.); (Y.-H.P.)
| | - Bong-Sik Woo
- IM Rehabilitation Hospital, 2140, Cheongnam-ro, Seowon-gu, Cheongju-si 28702, Chungcheongbuk-do, Republic of Korea; (D.-H.L.); (B.-S.W.); (Y.-H.P.)
| | - Yong-Hwa Park
- IM Rehabilitation Hospital, 2140, Cheongnam-ro, Seowon-gu, Cheongju-si 28702, Chungcheongbuk-do, Republic of Korea; (D.-H.L.); (B.-S.W.); (Y.-H.P.)
| | - Jung-Ho Lee
- Department of Physical Therapy, University of Kyungdong, 815, Gyeonhwon-ro, Munmak-eup, Wonju-si 26495, Gangwon-do, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Pearsall C, Constant M, Saltzman BM, Parisien RL, Levine W, Trofa D. The Fragility of Statistical Significance in Sham Orthopaedic Surgery: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2023; 31:e994-e1002. [PMID: 37678845 DOI: 10.5435/jaaos-d-23-00245] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/24/2023] [Accepted: 07/26/2023] [Indexed: 09/09/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to determine the stability of statistical findings among sham surgery randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in orthopaedic surgery using fragility analysis. METHODS PubMed systematic review was conducted to include studies reporting dichotomous outcomes pertaining to sham surgery. The final review included eight RCTs involving only partial meniscectomies and vertebroplasties from 2009 to 2020. With a fixed sample size with dichotomous outcome measures (events versus non-events), the Total Fragility Index (TFI), which is composed of the fragility index (FI) and reverse fragility index (RFI), was calculated by altering the ratio of events to non-events in an iterative fashion until results were reversed from significant to nonsignificant findings (FI) or vice versa (RFI). The TFI, FI, and RFI were divided by their sample sizes to obtain the respective total fragility quotient, fragility quotient (FQ), and reverse fragility quotient. Median fragility indices and quotients were reported for all studies. RESULTS The eight RCTs included 50 dichotomous outcomes involving either partial meniscectomies or vertebroplasties, with a median TFI and total fragility quotient of 5 [interquartile range (IQR) 4 to 6] and 0.035 (IQR 0.028 to 0.048), respectively, indicating that a median of five total patients or 3.5 per 100 patients would need to experience a different outcome to reverse significant or insignificant findings for each of the eight trials. Among the 8 statistically significant ( P < 0.05) outcome events (16%), the respective FI and FQ were 2 (IQR 1 to 5) and 0.018 (IQR 0.010 to 0.044). Among the 42 statistically insignificant outcome events (84%), the respective RFI and reverse fragility quotient were 5 (IQR 4 to 6) and 0.04 (IQR 0.034 to 0.048). The median number of patients lost to follow-up was 1.5 (IQR 0.5 to 2). CONCLUSION The unstable findings in partial meniscectomy and vertebroplasty sham surgical RCTs undermine their study conclusions and recommendations. We recommend using fragility analysis in future sham surgical RCTs to contextualize statistical findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level IV; Systematic Review.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christian Pearsall
- From the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY (Pearsall, Constant, Levine, and Trofa), the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, OrthoCarolina, Charlotte, NC (Saltzman), and the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, NY (Parisien)
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Drew CJG, Busse M. Considerations for clinical trial design and conduct in the evaluation of novel advanced therapeutics in neurodegenerative disease. INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF NEUROBIOLOGY 2022; 166:235-279. [PMID: 36424094 DOI: 10.1016/bs.irn.2022.09.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
The recent advances in the development of potentially disease modifying cell and gene therapies for neurodegenerative disease has resulted in the production of a number of promising novel therapies which are now moving forward to clinical evaluation. The robust evaluation of these therapies pose a significant number of challenges when compared to more traditional evaluations of pharmacotherapy, which is the current mainstay of neurodegenerative disease symptom management. Indeed, there is an inherent complexity in the design and conduct of these trials at multiple levels. Here we discuss specific aspects requiring consideration in the context of investigating novel cell and gene therapies for neurodegenerative disease. This extends to overarching trial designs that could be employed and the factors that underpin design choices such outcome assessments, participant selection and methods for delivery of cell and gene therapies. We explore methods of data collection that may improve efficiency in trials of cell and gene therapy to maximize data sharing and collaboration. Lastly, we explore some of the additional context beyond efficacy evaluations that should be considered to ensure implementation across relevant healthcare settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cheney J G Drew
- Centre For Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom; Brain Repair and Intracranial Neurotherapeutics Unit (BRAIN), College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
| | - Monica Busse
- Centre For Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom; Brain Repair and Intracranial Neurotherapeutics Unit (BRAIN), College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Beard DJ, Campbell MK, Blazeby JM, Carr AJ, Weijer C, Cuthbertson BH, Buchbinder R, Pinkney T, Bishop FL, Pugh J, Cousins S, Harris I, Lohmander LS, Blencowe N, Gillies K, Probst P, Brennan C, Cook A, Farrar-Hockley D, Savulescu J, Huxtable R, Rangan A, Tracey I, Brocklehurst P, Ferreira ML, Nicholl J, Reeves BC, Hamdy F, Rowley SC, Lee N, Cook JA. Placebo comparator group selection and use in surgical trials: the ASPIRE project including expert workshop. Health Technol Assess 2021; 25:1-52. [PMID: 34505829 PMCID: PMC8450778 DOI: 10.3310/hta25530] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/09/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The use of placebo comparisons for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions is increasingly being considered. However, a placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges. OBJECTIVES To provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials and to summarise any recommendations for designers, evaluators and funders of placebo-controlled surgical trials. DESIGN To carry out a state-of-the-art workshop and produce a corresponding report involving key stakeholders throughout. SETTING A workshop to discuss and summarise the existing knowledge and to develop the new guidelines. RESULTS To assess what a placebo control entails and to assess the understanding of this tool in the context of surgery is considered, along with when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable). We have considered ethics arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be carried out and interpreted. The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with a high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect. CONCLUSIONS The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. An outline for best practice was produced in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (ASPIRE) guidelines for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial. LIMITATIONS Although the workshop participants involved international members, the majority of participants were from the UK. Therefore, although every attempt was made to make the recommendations applicable to all health systems, the guidelines may, unconsciously, be particularly applicable to clinical practice in the UK NHS. FUTURE WORK Future work should evaluate the use of the ASPIRE guidelines in making decisions about the use of a placebo-controlled surgical trial. In addition, further work is required on the appropriate nomenclature to adopt in this space. FUNDING Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research programme.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David J Beard
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Jane M Blazeby
- Centre for Surgical Research, NIHR Bristol and Weston Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Andrew J Carr
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Charles Weijer
- Departments of Medicine, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Philosophy, Western University, London, ON, Canada
| | - Brian H Cuthbertson
- Department of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Rachelle Buchbinder
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Thomas Pinkney
- Academic Department of Surgery, University of Birmingham, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Felicity L Bishop
- Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Jonathan Pugh
- The Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Sian Cousins
- Centre for Surgical Research, NIHR Bristol and Weston Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Ian Harris
- Faculty of Medicine, South Western Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - L Stefan Lohmander
- Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Orthopedics, Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Natalie Blencowe
- Centre for Surgical Research, NIHR Bristol and Weston Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Katie Gillies
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Pascal Probst
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | | | - Andrew Cook
- Wessex Institute, University of Southampton, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | | | - Julian Savulescu
- The Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Richard Huxtable
- Centre for Surgical Research, NIHR Bristol and Weston Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Amar Rangan
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
| | - Irene Tracey
- Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Peter Brocklehurst
- Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Manuela L Ferreira
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, Institute of Bone and Joint Research, Northern Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Jon Nicholl
- School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Barnaby C Reeves
- Clinical Trials Evaluation Unit Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol, UK
| | - Freddie Hamdy
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Naomi Lee
- Editorial Department, The Lancet, London, UK
| | - Jonathan A Cook
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Reply to Banik. Pain 2020; 161:1939-1940. [PMID: 32701853 DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001909] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
6
|
Gorayeb RP, Forjaz MJ, Ferreira AG, Ferreira JJ. Use of Sham Interventions in Randomized Controlled Trials in Neurosurgery. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2020; 81:456-462. [PMID: 32438420 DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1709161] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The use of sham interventions in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is essential to minimize bias. However, their use in surgical RCTs is rare and subject to ethical concerns. To date, no studies have looked at the use of sham interventions in RCTs in neurosurgery. METHODS This study evaluated the frequency, type, and indication of sham interventions in RCTs in neurosurgery. RCTs using sham interventions were also characterized in terms of design and risk of bias. RESULTS From a total of 1,102 identified RCTs in neurosurgery, 82 (7.4%) used sham interventions. The most common indication for the RCT was the treatment of pain (67.1%), followed by the treatment of movement disorders and other clinical problems (18.3%) and brain injuries (12.2%). The most used sham interventions were saline injections into spinal structures (31.7%) and peripheral nerves (10.9%), followed by sham interventions in cranial surgery (26.8%), and spine surgery (15.8%). Insertion of probes or catheters for a sham lesions was performed in 14.6%.In terms of methodology, most RCTs using sham interventions were double blinded (76.5%), 9.9% were single blinded, and 13.6% did not report the type of blinding. CONCLUSION Sham-controlled RCTs in neurosurgery are feasible. Most aim to minimize bias and to evaluate the efficacy of pain management methods, especially in spinal disorders. The greatest proportion of sham-controlled RCTs involves different types of substance administration routes, with sham surgery the less commonly performed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rodrigo Panico Gorayeb
- Laboratory of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal
| | - Maria João Forjaz
- National School of Public Health, Institute of Health Carlos III and REDISSEC, Madrid, Spain
| | | | - Joaquim José Ferreira
- Laboratory of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal.,Instituto de Medicina Molecular, Lisbon, Portugal
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Beard DJ, Campbell MK, Blazeby JM, Carr AJ, Weijer C, Cuthbertson BH, Buchbinder R, Pinkney T, Bishop FL, Pugh J, Cousins S, Harris IA, Lohmander LS, Blencowe N, Gillies K, Probst P, Brennan C, Cook A, Farrar-Hockley D, Savulescu J, Huxtable R, Rangan A, Tracey I, Brocklehurst P, Ferreira ML, Nicholl J, Reeves BC, Hamdy F, Rowley SC, Cook JA. Considerations and methods for placebo controls in surgical trials (ASPIRE guidelines). Lancet 2020; 395:828-838. [PMID: 32145797 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(19)33137-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/14/2019] [Revised: 11/13/2019] [Accepted: 12/06/2019] [Indexed: 01/09/2023]
Abstract
Placebo comparisons are increasingly being considered for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions. The aim of this Review is to provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials. A placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges. This Review outlines what a placebo control entails and present understanding of this tool in the context of surgery. We consider when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable) in terms of ethical arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be done and interpreted. Use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided there is a strong scientific and ethical rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. This Review forms an outline for best practice and provides guidance, in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (known as ASPIRE) checklist, for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David J Beard
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| | - Marion K Campbell
- Health Services Research Unit, Health Sciences Building, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Jane M Blazeby
- Centre for Surgical Research Population Health Sciences, Beacon House, University of Bristol, Bristol
| | - Andrew J Carr
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Charles Weijer
- Rotman Institute of Philosophy, Western Interdisciplinary Research Building, Western University, London, ON, Canada
| | - Brian H Cuthbertson
- Department of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Rachelle Buchbinder
- Cabrini-Monash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Institute and Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Thomas Pinkney
- Academic Department of Surgery, Heritage Building, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Felicity L Bishop
- Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Jonathan Pugh
- The Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Sian Cousins
- Centre for Surgical Research Population Health Sciences, Beacon House, University of Bristol, Bristol
| | - Ian A Harris
- Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, South Western Sydney Clinical School, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - L Stefan Lohmander
- Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Department of Orthopaedics Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Natalie Blencowe
- Centre for Surgical Research Population Health Sciences, Beacon House, University of Bristol, Bristol
| | - Katie Gillies
- Health Services Research Unit, Health Sciences Building, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Pascal Probst
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | | | - Andrew Cook
- Wessex Institute, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK; University Hospital Southampton National Health Service Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | | | - Julian Savulescu
- The Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Richard Huxtable
- Centre for Surgical Research Population Health Sciences, Beacon House, University of Bristol, Bristol
| | - Amar Rangan
- Department of Health Sciences, Seebohm Rowntree Building, University of York, York, UK
| | - Irene Tracey
- Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Peter Brocklehurst
- Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Manuela L Ferreira
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, Institute of Bone and Joint Research, Northern Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Jon Nicholl
- School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | | | - Freddie Hamdy
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Old Road Campus Research Building, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Jonathan A Cook
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Hendriks S, Grady C, Chiong W, Fins JJ, Ford P, Goering S, Greely HT, Hutchison K, Kelly ML, Kim SY, Klein E, Lisanby SH, Mayberg H, Maslen H, Miller FG, Ramos KM, Rommelfanger K, Sheth SA, Wexler A. Ethical Challenges of Risk, Informed Consent, and Posttrial Responsibilities in Human Research With Neural Devices: A Review. JAMA Neurol 2019; 76:1506-1514. [PMID: 31621797 PMCID: PMC9395156 DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.3523] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Saskia Hendriks
- Department of Bioethics, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Christine Grady
- Department of Bioethics, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Winston Chiong
- Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Joseph J. Fins
- Division of Medical Ethics and CASBI, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA
| | - Paul Ford
- Center for Bioethics, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Sara Goering
- Department of Philosophy and Center for Neurotechnology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | | | - Katrina Hutchison
- Department of Philosophy, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science, Australia
| | - Michael L. Kelly
- Department of Neurosurgery, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, MetroHeath Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Scott Y.H. Kim
- Department of Bioethics, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Eran Klein
- Department of Philosophy and Center for Neurotechnology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
- Department of Neurology, Oregon Health and Sciences, University Portland, Portland, OR, USA
| | - Sarah H. Lisanby
- Division of Translational Research, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Helen Mayberg
- Neurology, Neurosurgery, Psychiatry and Neuroscience, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, NY, USA
| | - Hannah Maslen
- The Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Franklin G. Miller
- Division of Medical Ethics, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA
| | - Khara M. Ramos
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | | | - Sameer A. Sheth
- Cognitive Science and Neuromodulation Program, Department of Neurological Surgery, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA
| | - Anna Wexler
- Department of Medical Ethics & Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
|
10
|
Challenging traditional research: A synopsis of the National Research Collaborative Meeting (NRCM) in 2017. Int J Surg Protoc 2019; 15:8-11. [PMID: 31851748 PMCID: PMC6913551 DOI: 10.1016/j.isjp.2019.03.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/06/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The National Research Collaborative Meeting (NRCM) 2017 was jointly hosted between the West Midlands Research Collaborative (WMRC) and Student Audit and Research in Surgery (STARSurg) on 30th November 2017 in Birmingham. The NRCM 2017 theme was 'Challenging Traditional Research'. METHODS Narrative review, outlining key challenges and recommendations for trainee collaborative research groups across medical and surgical disciplines based on the core themes from the NRCM 2017 meeting. RESULTS Core themes of: (1) surgical oncology trials; (2) placebo-controlled surgical trials; (3) research funding; (4) medical student involvement in research; (5) emergency care; (6) patient and public involvement. Recommendations were made for planning future collaborative studies, based on these topic areas. CONCLUSIONS The collaborative research model has demonstrated longevity and effectiveness in delivering high-quality, practice-changing research both within the NHS and internationally. Learning between groups and highlighting areas for interdisciplinary collaboration will drive a meaningful, patient-centred agenda for the future.
Collapse
|
11
|
Polgar S, Mohamed S. Evidence-Based Evaluation of the Ethics of Sham Surgery for Parkinson's Disease. JOURNAL OF PARKINSON'S DISEASE 2019; 9:565-574. [PMID: 31282423 PMCID: PMC6700614 DOI: 10.3233/jpd-191577] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/28/2019] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
The stated purpose of sham or placebo surgery is to enable the implementation of surgical placebo-controlled trials (SPTs) for evaluating the safety and efficacy of surgical interventions. Exposing the participants to the burdens and harms of sham surgery has been justified on the grounds of the absolute necessity for controlling large placebo effects and observer bias, assumed to be associated with surgical procedures. In the present review, we argue that evidence obtained from SPTs of cellular therapies for the treatment of Parkinson's disease (PD) has failed to demonstrate either large and consistent placebo effects or decisive methodological advantages for relying on sham surgical controls. We outline several alternative assessment strategies and designs available to establish the efficacy of cellular therapies. It is concluded that the evidence evaluated in the present analysis indicated that use of sham surgery in the context of developing novel surgical procedures for PD is not necessary, and therefore, unethical under a utilitarian model.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephen Polgar
- School of Public Health and Psychology, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Sheeza Mohamed
- School of Life Sciences, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Savulescu J, Wartolowska K, Carr A. Randomised placebo-controlled trials of surgery: ethical analysis and guidelines. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS 2016; 42:776-783. [PMID: 27777269 PMCID: PMC5256399 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2015-103333] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/30/2015] [Revised: 09/06/2016] [Accepted: 09/27/2016] [Indexed: 05/03/2023]
Abstract
Use of a placebo control in surgical trials is a divisive issue. We argue that, in principle, placebo controls for surgery are necessary in the same way as for medicine. However, there are important differences between these types of trial, which both increase justification and limit application of surgical studies. We propose that surgical randomised placebo-controlled trials are ethical if certain conditions are fulfilled: (1) the presence of equipoise, defined as a lack of unbiased evidence for efficacy of an intervention; (2) clinically important research question; (3) the risk to patients is minimised and reasonable; (4) there is uncertainty about treatment allocation rather than deception; (5) there is preliminary evidence for efficacy, which justifies a placebo-controlled design; and (6) ideally, the placebo procedure should have some direct benefit to the patient, for example, as a diagnostic tool. Placebo-controlled trials in surgery will most often be justified when surgery is performed to improve function or relieve symptoms and when objective outcomes are not available, while the risk of mortality or significant morbidity is low. In line with medical placebo-controlled trials, the surgical trial (1) should be sufficiently powered and (2) standardised so that its results are valid, (3) consent should be valid, (4) the standard treatment or rescue medication should be provided if possible, and (5) after the trial, the patients should be told which treatment they received and there should be provision for post-trial care if the study may result in long-term negative effects. We comment and contrast our guidelines with those of the American Medical Association.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julian Savulescu
- Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford, UK
| | - Karolina Wartolowska
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Andy Carr
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Ciccozzi M, Menga R, Ricci G, Vitali MA, Angeletti S, Sirignano A, Tambone V. Critical review of sham surgery clinical trials: Confounding factors analysis. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 2016; 12:21-26. [PMID: 27872745 PMCID: PMC5109256 DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2016.10.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/16/2016] [Revised: 10/27/2016] [Accepted: 10/27/2016] [Indexed: 01/20/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Sham surgery (placebo surgery) is an intervention that omits the step thought to be therapeutically necessary. In surgical clinical trials, sham surgery serves an analogous purpose to placebo drugs, neutralizing biases such as the placebo effect. A critical review was performed to study the statistical relevance of the clinical trials about sham surgery in the light of potential confounding factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS For the critical review 52 articles were included. The possible confounding factors have been studied using a structured interpretative research form designed by the authors. This form includes the following ten confounding factors: I), lack of homogeneity among inclusion/exclusion criteria. II), false double blind. III), lack of post-surgery double blind. IV), power of the study. V), sample characteristics. VI), lost patients to Follow-up. VII), gender distribution. VIII), age equilibrium. IX), lack of psychological patient evaluation. X), lack of psychiatric patient evaluation. In most of the studies, at least one confounding factor was present. RESULTS The analysis of the confounding factors showed that they could influence the reliability of the surgical placebo effects. CONCLUSIONS The validity of sham surgery should be reconsidered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Massimo Ciccozzi
- Department of Infectious, Parasitic, and Immune-Mediated Diseases, Epidemiology Unit, Reference Centre on Phylogeny, Molecular Epidemiology, and Microbial Evolution (FEMEM), National Institute of Health, 00161 Rome, Italy; Unit of Clinical Pathology and Microbiology, University Campus Bio-Medico of Rome, Italy
| | - Rosa Menga
- Faculty of Medicine, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Italy
| | - Giovanna Ricci
- School of Law, University of Camerino, 62032 Camerino, Italy
| | | | - Silvia Angeletti
- Unit of Clinical Pathology and Microbiology, University Campus Bio-Medico of Rome, Italy
| | - Ascanio Sirignano
- School of Medical Sciences and Health Products, University of Camerino, 62032 Camerino, Italy
| | - Vittoradolfo Tambone
- Institute of Philosophy of Scientific and Technological Practice, University Campus Bio-Medico of Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Czerniak E, Biegon A, Ziv A, Karnieli-Miller O, Weiser M, Alon U, Citron A. Manipulating the Placebo Response in Experimental Pain by Altering Doctor's Performance Style. Front Psychol 2016; 7:874. [PMID: 27445878 PMCID: PMC4928147 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00874] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2016] [Accepted: 05/27/2016] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Performance is paramount in traditional healing rituals. From a Western perspective, such performative behavior can be understood principally as inducing patients’ faith in the performer’s supernatural healing powers and effecting positive changes through the same mechanisms attributed to the placebo response, which is defined as improvement of clinical outcome in individuals receiving inactive treatment. Here we examined the possibility of using theatrical performance tools, including stage directions and scripting, to reproducibly manipulate the style and content of a simulated doctor–patient encounter and influence the placebo response in experimental pain. Methods: A total of 122 healthy volunteers (18–45 years, 76 men) exposed to experimental pain (the cold pressor test) were assessed for pain threshold and tolerance before and after receiving a placebo cream from a “doctor” impersonated by a trained actor. The actor alternated between two distinct scripts and stage directions, i.e., performance styles created by a theater director/playwright, one emulating a standard doctor–patient encounter (scenario A) and the other emphasizing attentiveness and strong suggestion, elements also present in ritual healing (scenario B). The placebo response size was calculated as the %difference in pain threshold and tolerance after exposure relative to baseline. In addition, subjects demonstrating a ≥30% increase in pain threshold or tolerance relative to baseline were defined as responders. Each encounter was videotaped in its entirety. Results: Inspection of the videotapes confirmed the reproducibility and consistency of the distinct scenarios enacted by the “doctor”-performer. Furthermore, scenario B resulted in a significant increase in pain threshold relative to scenario A. Interestingly, this increase derived from the placebo responder subgroup; as shown by two-way analysis of variance (performance style, F = 4.30; p = 0.040; η2 = 0.035; style × responder status interaction term, F = 5.21; p = 0.024) followed by post hoc analysis showing a ∼60% increase in pain threshold in responders exposed to scenario B (p = 0.020). Conclusion: These results support the hypothesis that structured manipulation of physician’s verbal and non-verbal performance, designed to build rapport and increase faith in treatment, is feasible and may have a significant beneficial effect on the size of the response to placebo analgesia. They also demonstrate that subjects, who are not susceptible to placebo, are also not susceptible to performance style.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Efrat Czerniak
- Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv UniversityTel Aviv, Israel; The Joseph Sagol Neuroscience Center, Sheba Medical CenterTel Hashomer, Israel
| | - Anat Biegon
- Department of Neurology, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook NY, USA
| | - Amitai Ziv
- Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv UniversityTel Aviv, Israel; Israel Center for Medical Simulation (MSR), Sheba Medical CenterTel Hashomer, Israel
| | | | - Mark Weiser
- Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv UniversityTel Aviv, Israel; Department of Psychiatry, Sheba Medical CenterTel Hashomer, Israel
| | - Uri Alon
- Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, Weizmann Institute of ScienceRehovot, Israel; The Theatre Laboratory, Weizmann Institute of ScienceRehovot, Israel
| | - Atay Citron
- Theatre Department, University of Haifa Haifa, Israel
| |
Collapse
|