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

Use of Invasive Brain-Computer Interfaces in Pediatric Neurosurgery: Technical and Ethical Considerations

Invasive brain-computer interfaces hold promise to alleviate disabilities in individuals with neurologic injury, with fully implantable brain-computer interface systems expected to reach the clinic in the upcoming decade. Children with severe neurologic disabilities, like quadriplegic cerebral palsy or cervical spine trauma, could benefit from this technology. However, they have been excluded from clinical trials of intracortical brain-computer interface to date. In this manuscript, we discuss the ethical considerations related to the use of invasive brain-computer interface in children with severe neurologic disabilities. We first review the technical hardware and software considerations for the application of intracortical brain-computer interface in children. We then discuss ethical issues related to motor brain-computer interface use in pediatric neurosurgery. Finally, based on the input of a multidisciplinary panel of experts in fields related to brain-computer interface (functional and restorative neurosurgery, pediatric neurosurgery, mathematics and artificial intelligence research, neuroengineering, pediatric ethics, and pragmatic ethics), we then formulate initial recommendations regarding the clinical use of invasive brain-computer interfaces in children.

Clinical innovation ethics frameworks: A systematic narrative review

BACKGROUND

It is common for doctors to engage in clinical innovation-i.e. to use novel interventions that differ from standard practice, and that have not yet been shown to be safe or effective according to the usual standards of evidence-based medicine-in the belief that this will benefit their patients. Clinical innovation is currently poorly defined and lacks cohesive oversight mechanisms.

METHODS

A systematic narrative review, with the aim of identifying areas of similarity and divergence in innovation ethics frameworks developed across different medical specialties.

RESULTS

47 articles were included in the review. Few ethical issues raised by the ethics frameworks appear to be unique to distinct areas of practice. While variations exist in the oversight mechanisms suggested, these are again not specific to areas of practice, but rather reflect either cautious or more permissive attitudes towards clinical innovation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is considerable overlap amongst ethics frameworks developed for use in diverse areas of practice. This reflects a tendency to treat innovative interventions in each area of practice as "exceptional" and a failure to develop "higher order" frameworks such as those that have been developed for research. Those involved in the oversight of clinical innovation need to aim for a balance between exceptionalism and harmonisation.

Influencing discussions and use of Neuroadvancements: Perspectives of Canadian occupational therapists

BACKGROUND: The early involvement of many actors including health professionals is identified in neuroethics and neurogovernance discussions as crucial in constructing conversations around awareness, reaction, and knowledge development pertaining to the ethical, legal, and societal consequences of neuroscientific or neurotechnological advancements (NA). Occupational Therapists (OTs) have a stake in NA; however, OTs are rarely mentioned within this context. Lifelong learning (LL) could be used to increase OTs knowledge on NA and its consequences. However, LL is rarely mentioned within neuroethics and neurogovernance discussions. OBJECTIVE: The study’s purpose is to understand the role of OTs as professionals and citizens in neuroethics and neurogovernance discussions and to examine the utility of LL processes put in place for OTs to empower OTs to contribute in a meaningful way to NA discussions. METHODS: 8 semi-structured interviews with OTs were conducted and analyzed using a directed content analysis. RESULTS: Although participants believed OTs can provide a holistic perspective to neurogovernance discussions, their knowledge on NA and its consequences is limited, and LL is not used as a tool to remain informed about such consequences. CONCLUSION: More education on NA and its consequences throughout their OT degree and through LL opportunities is warranted to facilitate their involvement.

Combining Trauma Script Exposure With rTMS to Reduce Symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Innovative therapeutic interventions for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are required. We opted to facilitate fear extinction by combining trauma script exposure with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to reduce symptoms of PTSD.

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy and safety of 10 Hz rTMS of the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex simultaneously with exposure to personal traumatic narrative were studied in patients with PTSD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This trial was a single-center randomized controlled trial (NCT02584894). Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive eight daily sessions of 110% of motor threshold high frequency (HF) 10 Hz rTMS (110% HF rTMS) or 70% low frequency (LF) 1 Hz rTMS (70% LF rTMS) with trauma script exposure in both groups. Severity of PTSD, depression, and anxiety were assessed before and after study treatment (one month, three months) by an assessor masked to the trial group assignment. The primary outcome was the severity of PTSD assessed by the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS). We used mixed linear regression models for statistical comparisons.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients (65.8% females) were randomly assigned to 110% HF rTMS (n = 18, 31.3 ± 10.0 years, 13 females) or 70% LF rTMS (n = 20, 33.5 ± 11.1 years, 12 females). From baseline to three months, mean CAPS scores decreased by 51% in the 110% HF rTMS group (from 83.7 ± 14.4 to 41.8 ± 31.9) and by 36.9% in the 70% LF rTMS group (from 81.8 ± 15.6 to 51.6 ± 23.7), but with no significant difference in improvement (time by treatment interaction -3.61 [95% confidence interval (CI), -9.70 to 2.47]; p = 0.24; effect size 0.53). One serious adverse event occurred during the study (psychogenic nonepileptic seizure).

CONCLUSION

We found no evidence of difference in clinical improvement or remission rates between the 110% HF and 70% LF stimulation. These findings may reflect the importance of exposure procedure and that larger number of participants is needed.

Influencing discussions and use of neuroadvancements as professionals and citizens: Perspectives of Canadian speech-language pathologists and audiologists

BACKGROUND: Early involvement of stakeholders in neuroethics and neurogovernance discourses of neuroscientific and neurotechnological advancements is seen as essential to curtail negative consequences. Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and audiologists (AUs) make use of neuroadvancements including cochlear implants, brain-computer interfaces, and deep-brain stimulation. Although they have a stake in neuroethics and neurogovernance discussions, they are rarely mentioned in having a role, whether as professionals or as citizens. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to explore the role of SLPs and AUs as professionals and citizens in neuroethics and neurogovernance discussions and examine the utility of lifelong learning mechanisms to learn about the implications of neuroadvancements to contribute in a meaningful way to these discussions. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews conducted with 7 SLPs and 3 AUs were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants stated that their roles expected from them as professionals and as citizens indicate the importance to be knowledgeable on ethical, legal, and social implications of neuroadvancements and that lifelong learning is not used to learn about these implications. CONCLUSION: More must be done to facilitate the participation of SLPs and AUs in neuroethics and neurogovernance discussions, which would enrich the neuroethics and neurogovernance discourses benefitting patients, professionals, and the public.

Concerns About Psychiatric Neurosurgery and How They Can Be Overcome: Recommendations for Responsible Research

Background

Psychiatric neurosurgery is experiencing a revival. Beside deep brain stimulation (DBS), several ablative neurosurgical procedures are currently in use. Each approach has a different profile of advantages and disadvantages. However, many psychiatrists, ethicists, and laypeople are sceptical about psychiatric neurosurgery.

Methods

We identify the main concerns against psychiatric neurosurgery, and discuss the extent to which they are justified and how they might be overcome. We review the evidence for the effectiveness, efficacy and safety of each approach, and discuss how this could be improved. We analyse whether and, if so, how randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be used in the different approaches, and what alternatives are available if conducting RCTs is impossible for practical or ethical reasons. Specifically, we analyse the problem of failed RCTs after promising open-label studies.

Results

The main concerns are: (i) reservations based on historical psychosurgery, (ii) concerns about personality changes, (iii) concerns regarding localised interventions, and (iv) scepticism due to the lack of scientific evidence. Given the need for effective therapies for treatment-refractory psychiatric disorders and preliminary evidence for the effectiveness of psychiatric neurosurgery, further research is warranted and necessary. Since psychiatric neurosurgery has the potential to modify personality traits, it should be held to the highest ethical and scientific standards.

Conclusions

Psychiatric neurosurgery procedures with preliminary evidence for efficacy and an acceptable risk–benefit profile include DBS and micro- or radiosurgical anterior capsulotomy for intractable obsessive–compulsive disorder. These methods may be considered for individual treatment attempts, but multi-centre RCTs are necessary to provide reliable evidence.

From vision to action: Canadian leadership in ethics and neurotechnology

This chapter explores the complex neuroethical aspects of neurosurgery and neuromodulation in the context of Canadian healthcare and innovation, as seen through the lens of the Pan Canadian Neurotechnology Ethics Consortium (PCNEC). Highlighted are key areas of ethical focus, each with its own unique challenges: technical advances, readiness and risk, vulnerable populations, medico-legal issues, training, and research. Through an exploration of Canadian neurotechnological practice from these various clusters, we provide a critical review of progress, describe opportunities to address areas of debate, and seek to foster ethical innovation. Underpinning this comprehensive review are the fundamental principles of solution-oriented, practical neuroethics, with beneficence and justice at the core. In our view, it is a moral imperative that neurotechnological advancements include a delineation of ethical priorities for future guidelines, oversight, and interactions.

Deep Brain Stimulation for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Real World Experience Post-FDA-Humanitarian Use Device Approval

Background: While case series have established the efficacy of deep brain stimulation (DBS) in treating obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), it has been our experience that few OCD patients present without comorbidities that affect outcomes associated with DBS treatment. Here we present our experience with DBS therapy for OCD in patients who all have comorbid disease, together with the results of our programming strategies. Methods: For this case series, we assessed five patients who underwent ventral capsule/ventral striatum (VC/VS) DBS for OCD between 2015 and 2019 at the University of Colorado Hospital. Every patient in this cohort exhibited comorbidities, including substance use disorders, eating disorder, tic disorder, and autism spectrum disorder. We conducted an IRB-approved, retrospective study of programming modifications and treatment response over the course of DBS therapy. Results: In addition to patients' subjective reports of improvement, we observed significant improvement in the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (44%), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (53%), the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (27%), and the Hamilton Anxiety Rating scales (34.9%) following DBS. With respect to co-morbid disease, there was a significant improvement in a patient with tic disorder's Total Tic Severity Score (TTSS) (p = 0.005). Conclusions: DBS remains an efficacious tool for the treatment of OCD, even in patients with significant comorbidities in whom DBS has not previously been investigated. Efficacious treatment results not only from the accurate placement of the electrodes by the surgeon but also from programming by the psychiatrist.

Utility of science, technology and innovation governance for occupational discourses from the perspective of occupational therapy students

BACKGROUND

Science, technology and innovation (STI) governance concerns itself with the societal impact of STI. Occupation, whether used with the meaning of paid, unpaid work or any activity that is considered meaningful to the individual on an everyday basis, is one area of societal impact of STI. Fields such as occupational therapy, occupational science and occupational health and safety concern themselves with the relationship between occupation and the health and well-being of human beings albeit all with different foci.

OBJECTIVE

To ascertain the knowledge of students from two Occupational Therapy programs on STI governance, specific STI products and their views on the impact of STI governance and STI products on occupational therapy and its clients.

METHODS

Online survey employing Yes/No' questions with comment boxes and open-ended textbox questions. Descriptive quantitative and thematic qualitative data was generated.

RESULTS

Students were unfamiliar with STI governance discourses but felt that they should be aware of them. Students stated that how one governs STI impacts occupational therapy on all levels and that the occupational therapy community has expertise that would enrich STI governance discourses around occupation.

CONCLUSION

Education actions seem to be warranted on the level of students and practitioners by the occupational therapy and STI governance communities.

Neuro-Advancements and the Role of Nurses as Stated in Academic Literature and Canadian Newspapers

Neurosciences and neurotechnologies (from now on called neuro-advancements) constantly evolve and influence all facets of society. Neuroethics and neuro-governance discourses focus on the impact of neuro-advancements on individuals and society, and stakeholder involvement is identified as an important aspect of being able to deal with such an impact. Nurses engage with neuro-advancements within their occupation, including neuro-linked assistive technologies, such as brain-computer interfaces, cochlear implants, and virtual reality. The role of nurses is multifaceted and includes being providers of clinical and other health services, educators, advocates for their field and their clients, including disabled people, researchers, and influencers of policy discourses. Nurses have a stake in how neuro-advancements are governed, therefore, being influencers of neuroethics and neuro-governance discourses should be one of these roles. Lifelong learning and professional development could be one mechanism to increase the knowledge of nurses about ethical, social, and legal issues linked to neuro-advancements, which in turn, would allow nurses to provide meaningful input towards neuro-advancement discussions. Disabled people are often the recipients of neuro-advancements and are clients of nurses, therefore, they have a stake in the way nurses interact with neuro-advancements and influence the sociotechnical context of neuro-advancements, which include neuro-linked assistive devices. We performed a scoping review to investigate the role of narrative around nurses in relation to neuro-advancements within academic literature and newspapers. We found minimal engagement with the role of nurses outside of clinical services. No article raised the issue of nurses having to be involved in neuro-ethics and neuro-governance discussions or how lifelong learning could be used to gain that competency. Few articles used the term assistive technology or assistive device and no article covered the engagement of nurses with disabled people within a socio-technical context. We submit that the role narrative falls short of what is expected from nurses and shows shortcomings at the intersection of nurses, socio-technical approaches to neuro-assistive technologies and other neuro-advancements and people with disabilities. Neuro-governance and neuroethic discourses could be a useful way for nurses and disabled people to co-shape the socio-technical context of neuro-advancements, including neuro-assistive technologies. Lifelong learning initiatives should be put in place to provide the knowledge necessary for nurses to take part in the neuroethics and neuro-governance discussion.

Role and Scope Coverage of Speech-Related Professionals Linked to Neuro-Advancements within the Academic Literature and Canadian Newspapers

Speech-related professionals such as speech language pathologists (SLPs) and audiologists make use of neuro-advancements including neurotechnologies such as cochlear implants (CIs), brain-computer interfaces, and deep brain stimulation. Speech-related professionals could occupy many roles in relation to their interaction with neuro-advancements reflecting the roles expected of them by their professional organizations. These roles include: service provider, promoter of neuro-products such as CIs, educator of others, neuro-related knowledge producer and researcher, advocates for their fields and their clients in relation to neuro-advancements, and influencers of neuro-policy, neuroethics and neuro-governance discussions. Lifelong learning, also known as professional development, is used as a mechanism to keep professionals up to date on knowledge needed to perform their work and could be used to support the fulfillment of all the roles in relation to neuro-advancements. Using 300 English language Canadian newspapers and academic articles from SCOPUS and the 70 databases of EBSCO-Host as sources, we found that the neuro-advancement content linked to speech-related professionals centered around CIs and brain computer interfaces, with other neuro-technologies being mentioned much less. Speech-related professionals were mostly mentioned in roles linked to clinical service provision, but rarely to not at all in other roles such as advocate, researcher or influencer of neuroethics and neuro-governance discussions. Furthermore, lifelong learning was not engaged with as a topic. The findings suggest that the mentioning of and engagement with roles of speech-related professionals linked to neuro-advancements falls short given the expectations of roles of speech-related professionals for example. We submit that these findings have implications for the education of speech-related professionals, how others perceive the role and identity of speech-related professionals, and how speech-related professionals perceive their own role.

Call of Duty at the Frontier of Research: Normative Epistemology for High-Risk/High-Gain Studies of Deep Brain Stimulation

Research participants are entitled to many rights that may easily come into conflict. The most important ones are that researchers respect their autonomy as persons and act on the principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Since 2014, research subjects from numerous states in the United States of America also have a legal "right to try" that allows them, under certain circumstances, to receive experimental (i.e., preliminarily tested) interventions, including medical devices, before official approval from the United States Food and Drug Administration. In the context of experimental interventions, such as deep brain stimulation (DBS) for Alzheimer's disease, this article argues that research participants ought never to have a legal "right to try" without a corresponding "right to be sure." The latter refers to external epistemic justification construed in terms of reliance on reliable evidence. This article demonstrates that the mere complexity of intervention ensembles, as in the case of DBS for Alzheimer's disease which serves as a paradigm example, illustrate how unanswered and/or unasked open questions give rise to a "combinatorial explosion" of uncertainties that require epistemic responses that no single research team alone is likely able to provide. From this assessment, several epistemic asymmetrical relations between researchers and participants are developed. By elucidating these epistemic asymmetries, this article unravels the reasons why open science, transparent exhaustive data reporting, preregistration, and continued constant critical appraisal via pre- and postpublication peer review are not scientific virtues of moral excellence but rather ordinary obligations of the scientific work routine required to increase reliability and strength of evidence.

Opening the debate on deep brain stimulation for Alzheimer disease - a critical evaluation of rationale, shortcomings, and ethical justification

BACKGROUND

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) as investigational intervention for symptomatic relief from Alzheimer disease (AD) has generated big expectations. Our aim is to discuss the ethical justification of this research agenda by examining the underlying research rationale as well as potential methodological pitfalls. The shortcomings we address are of high ethical importance because only scientifically valid research has the potential to be ethical.

METHOD

We performed a systematic search on MEDLINE and EMBASE. We included 166 publications about DBS for AD into the analysis of research rationale, risks and ethical aspects. Fifty-eight patients were reported in peer-reviewed journals with very mixed results. A grey literature search revealed hints for 75 yet to be published, potentially enrolled patients.

RESULTS

The results of our systematic review indicate methodological shortcomings in the literature that are both scientific and ethical in nature. According to our analysis, research with human subjects was performed before decisive preclinical research was published examining the specific research question at stake. We also raise the concern that conclusions on the potential safety and efficacy have been reported in the literature that seem premature given the design of the feasibility studies from which they were drawn. In addition, some publications report that DBS for AD was performed without written informed consent from some patients, but from surrogates only. Furthermore, registered ongoing trials plan to enroll severely demented patients. We provide reasons that this would violate Art. 28 of the Declaration of Helsinki, because DBS for AD involves more than minimal risks and burdens, and because its efficacy and safety are not yet empirically established to be likely.

CONCLUSION

Based on our empirical analysis, we argue that clinical research on interventions of risk class III (Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency) should not be exploratory but grounded on sound, preclinically tested, and disease-specific a posteriori hypotheses. This also applies to DBS for dementia as long as therapeutic benefits are uncertain, and especially when research subjects with cognitive deficits are involved, who may foreseeably progress to full incapacity to provide informed consent during the required follow-up period.

Neuroethics and the NIH BRAIN Initiative

The Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies® (BRAIN) Initiative is focused on developing new tools and neurotechnologies to revolutionize our understanding of how the brain functions in health and disease, in large part to address the growing societal impact of neurological, mental health, and substance abuse disorders. Recent advances in neurotechnology are delivering unprecedented ways to interrogate and modulate brain function, and the BRAIN Initiative is focused on translation for human medical uses over the next decade. Since its inception, the NIH component of the BRAIN Initiative has utilized an iterative model of integrating ethics into the scientific trajectory of the Initiative, most recently with the creation of a Neuroethics Division of the NIH BRAIN Initiative Multi-Council Working Group. The Division serves as a resource of expertise, to help the BRAIN Initiative navigate issues involving ethics. Here we discuss the BRAIN Initiative, and its implications and aspirations for neuroethics. We also discuss new opportunities for collaboration and for integrating stakeholder voices.