1
|
Are Patients With Cancer Best Managed in a Clinical Trial? JAMA 2024:2819131. [PMID: 38767580 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2024.1235] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/22/2024]
Abstract
This Viewpoint analyzes how the NCCN’s boxed statement that all cancer is best managed in a clinical trial cannot be applied to all patients and calls for its removal from its clinical practice guidelines.
Collapse
|
2
|
The Use of Authorized Concealment to Minimize Nocebo Side Effects: A Survey of US Public Attitudes. PSYCHOTHERAPY AND PSYCHOSOMATICS 2023; 92:391-398. [PMID: 38043522 DOI: 10.1159/000535011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/18/2023] [Accepted: 10/31/2023] [Indexed: 12/05/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION To minimize nocebo effects, it may be possible to employ authorized concealment, in which clinicians tell patients about the nocebo phenomenon and ask if they would prefer not to be informed about mild treatment side effects. OBJECTIVE The objective of the study was to understand public evaluations of authorized concealment for reducing nocebo effects. METHODS An online cross-sectional survey was completed by a demographically diverse US national community sample between June 2 and 6, 2023. Participants were 1,012 adults residing in 48 states, ages ranging from 18 to 94 (mean = 43.2), 65.4% regularly taking medication, and 66.6% reporting a chronic physical or mental health condition. After learning about nocebo effects, participants rated and estimated their likelihood of consenting to four potential methods for authorized concealment of mild side effects. The four methods were ranked for preference and ranked again with the options of (1) receiving all side-effect information and (2) having the opportunity to select among disclosure methods. RESULTS A majority of participants (86.2%) positively endorsed at least one authorized concealment method and 88.2% estimated they would consent to at least one method. Authorized concealment in which individuals learned only the most common side effects or had side-effect information available online received more positive ratings and rankings. A final ranking yielded preferences for receiving all side-effect information (30.4%) and having the opportunity to select side-effect disclosure method (31.8%). CONCLUSIONS Our study suggests that many in the public could be open to authorized concealment for mild side effects when it is explained in reference to nocebo effects.
Collapse
|
3
|
Ethical Outreach for Rural Cancer Care in the United States: Balancing Access With Optimal Clinical Outcomes. JCO Oncol Pract 2023; 19:225-229. [PMID: 36689691 DOI: 10.1200/op.22.00629] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/25/2023] Open
|
4
|
Introduction to the Special Section. PERSPECTIVES IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE 2023; 66:1-2. [PMID: 38766888 DOI: 10.1353/pbm.2023.0000] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/26/2024]
|
5
|
Frequency of Adverse Events in the Placebo Arms of COVID-19 Vaccine Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5:e2143955. [PMID: 35040967 PMCID: PMC8767431 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.43955] [Citation(s) in RCA: 79] [Impact Index Per Article: 39.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/02/2021] [Accepted: 11/22/2021] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Importance Adverse events (AEs) after placebo treatment are common in randomized clinical drug trials. Systematic evidence regarding these nocebo responses in vaccine trials is important for COVID-19 vaccination worldwide especially because concern about AEs is reported to be a reason for vaccination hesitancy. Objective To compare the frequencies of AEs reported in the placebo groups of COVID-19 vaccine trials with those reported in the vaccine groups. Data Sources For this systematic review and meta-analysis, the Medline (PubMed) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched systematically using medical subheading terms and free-text keywords for trials of COVID-19 vaccines published up to July 14, 2021. Study Selection Randomized clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines that investigated adults aged 16 years or older were selected if they assessed solicited AEs within 7 days of injection, included an inert placebo arm, and provided AE reports for both the vaccine and placebo groups separately. Full texts were reviewed for eligibility by 2 independent reviewers. Data Extraction and Synthesis Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by 2 reviewers, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline and using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Meta-analyses were based on random-effects models. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcomes were the proportions of placebo recipients reporting overall, systemic, and local (injection-site) AEs as well as logarithmic odds ratios (ORs) to evaluate group differences. Outcomes were tested for significance using z tests with 95% CIs. Results Twelve articles with AE reports for 45 380 participants (22 578 placebo recipients and 22 802 vaccine recipients) were analyzed. After the first dose, 35.2% (95% CI, 26.7%-43.7%) of placebo recipients experienced systemic AEs, with headache (19.3%; 95% CI, 13.6%-25.1%) and fatigue (16.7%; 95% CI, 9.8%-23.6%) being most common. After the second dose, 31.8% (95% CI, 28.7%-35.0%) of placebo recipients reported systemic AEs. The ratio between placebo and vaccine arms showed that nocebo responses accounted for 76.0% of systemic AEs after the first COVID-19 vaccine dose and for 51.8% after the second dose. Significantly more vaccine recipients reported AEs, but the group difference for systemic AEs was small after the first dose (OR, -0.47; 95% CI, -0.54 to -0.40; P < .001; standardized mean difference, -0.26; 95% CI, -0.30 to -0.22) and large after the second dose (OR, -1.36; 95% CI, -1.86 to -0.86; P < .001; standardized mean difference, -0.75; 95% CI, -1.03 to -0.47). Conclusions and Relevance In this systematic review and meta-analysis, significantly more AEs were reported in vaccine groups compared with placebo groups, but the rates of reported AEs in the placebo arms were still substantial. Public vaccination programs should consider these high rates of AEs in placebo arms.
Collapse
|
6
|
Abstract
Drawing on a recent case report of a pregnant, brain-dead woman who gave birth to a healthy child after over seven months of intensive care treatment, this essay rejects the established doctrine in medicine that brain death constitutes the biological death of the human being. The essay describes three policy options with respect to determination of death and vital organ transplantation in the case of patients who are irreversibly comatose but remain biologically alive.
Collapse
|
7
|
Ethical trade-offs in vaccine development and distribution-Response to Gurwitz. Vaccine 2021; 39:1028-1029. [PMID: 33546811 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.01.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2020] [Revised: 12/09/2020] [Accepted: 01/04/2021] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
|
8
|
Human Infection Challenge Experiments: Then and Now. Ethics Hum Res 2021; 43:42-44. [PMID: 33723914 PMCID: PMC8250507 DOI: 10.1002/eahr.500088] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
In the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, ethicists, researchers, and journalists have recommended studies that deliberately infect healthy volunteers with the coronavirus as a scientific means of expediting vaccine development. In this essay, we trace the history of infection challenge experiments and reflect on the Nuremberg Code of 1947, issued in response to brutal human experiments conducted by Nazi investigators in concentration camps. We argue that the Code continues to offer valuable guidance for assessing the ethics of this controversial form of research, with respect particularly to the acceptable limits to research risks and the social value of research necessary to justify exposing human participants to these risks.
Collapse
|
9
|
SARS-CoV-2 Infection Challenge Experiments in Nonhuman Primates: An Ethical Perspective. Clin Infect Dis 2021; 73:2121-2125. [PMID: 33786589 PMCID: PMC8083670 DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciab278] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/14/2021] [Accepted: 03/26/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has stimulated massive investment in biomedical research with the aims of understanding the disease and developing effective vaccine and therapeutic interventions. What role should animal research play in this scientific endeavor? Both the urgency to evaluate candidate interventions for human use and growing societal concern about ethical treatment of (nonhuman) animals put into question the justifiability of animal research as a precursor to clinical trials. Yet forgoing animal research in the rush to undertake human testing might expose human research participants to unacceptable risks. In this article, we apply a recently developed framework of principles for animal research ethics in exploring ethical questions raised by a SARS-CoV-2 infection challenge experiment involving rhesus macaques, which evaluated the protective efficacy of the mRNA-1273 vaccine that was recently approved for emergency use. Our aim is to illuminate the ethical issues while introducing, and illustrating the use of, the framework.
Collapse
|
10
|
|
11
|
|
12
|
The Legality and Ethics of Mandating COVID-19 Vaccination. PERSPECTIVES IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE 2021; 64:479-493. [PMID: 34840152 DOI: 10.1353/pbm.2021.0037] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
In light of ongoing concerns in the US that COVID-19 vaccine uptake is stagnating and that cases remain high amongst the unvaccinated, there is growing interest in increasing uptake by mandating vaccination. COVID-19 vaccine mandates must be understood and assessed in terms of who is requiring vaccination and who is required to be vaccinated. This essay considers the legal and ethical implications of states mandating vaccination for children and adults, as well as of employers mandating vaccines for employees. We conclude that COVID-19 vaccine mandates are legally and ethically permissible.
Collapse
|
13
|
Liberty and Protection of Society During a Pandemic: Revisiting John Stuart Mill. PERSPECTIVES IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE 2021; 64:200-210. [PMID: 33994392 DOI: 10.1353/pbm.2021.0016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
John Stuart Mill's classic text, On Liberty, maps the scope and limits on individual freedom. His "harm principle"-that liberty can be legitimately restricted by government or society only to prevent harm to others-has had a great influence on contemporary public health ethics. This essay examines Mill's philosophy of liberty as it pertains to public health interventions in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Particular applications include examination of face masks, lockdowns, and mandatory vaccination.
Collapse
|
14
|
Allocating a COVID-19 Vaccine: Balancing National and International Responsibilities. Milbank Q 2020; 99:450-466. [PMID: 33295679 DOI: 10.1111/1468-0009.12494] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Policy Points In this paper we propose a middle-ground policy for the distribution of an effective COVID-19 vaccine, between a cosmopolitan approach that rejects entirely nation-state priority and unbridled vaccine nationalism that disregards obligations to promote an equitable global allocation of an effective vaccine over time. Features of the COVAX partnership, a collaboration among the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), and the World Health Organization (WHO) to develop and distribute COVID-19 vaccines make it an appropriate framework for a middle-ground policy.
Collapse
|
15
|
Proportionality, Pandemics, and Medical Ethics. Am J Med 2020; 133:1243-1244. [PMID: 32653418 PMCID: PMC7347467 DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.06.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2020] [Revised: 06/02/2020] [Accepted: 06/02/2020] [Indexed: 11/02/2022]
|
16
|
Abstract
Throughout the COVID-19 crisis, much attention has been devoted to the fraught question of how to allocate intensive care unit beds and mechanical ventilators if the supply of these resources is insufficient to provide them to all patients considered to be in need. The authors believe that the deployment of aggressive medical technology to win the “war” against the pandemic may represent the triumph of deeply human instincts over optimal policy.
Collapse
|
17
|
|
18
|
Abstract
Despite their ubiquitous presence, placebos and placebo effects retain an ambiguous and unsettling presence in biomedicine. Specifically focused on chronic pain, this review examines the effect of placebo treatment under three distinct frameworks: double blind, deception, and open label honestly prescribed. These specific conditions do not necessarily differentially modify placebo outcomes. Psychological, clinical, and neurological theories of placebo effects are scrutinized. In chronic pain, conscious expectation does not reliably predict placebo effects. A supportive patient-physician relationship may enhance placebo effects. This review highlights "predictive coding" and "bayesian brain" as emerging models derived from computational neurobiology that offer a unified framework to explain the heterogeneous evidence on placebos. These models invert the dogma of the brain as a stimulus driven organ to one in which perception relies heavily on learnt, top down, cortical predictions to infer the source of incoming sensory data. In predictive coding/bayesian brain, both chronic pain (significantly modulated by central sensitization) and its alleviation with placebo treatment are explicated as centrally encoded, mostly non-conscious, bayesian biases. The review then evaluates seven ways in which placebos are used in clinical practice and research and their bioethical implications. In this way, it shows that placebo effects are evidence based, clinically relevant, and potentially ethical tools for relieving chronic pain.
Collapse
|
19
|
|
20
|
Current Practice Diagnosing Brain Death Is Not Consistent With Legal Statutes Requiring the Absence of All Brain Function. J Intensive Care Med 2020; 37:153-156. [DOI: 10.1177/0885066620939037] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
The legal standard for the determination of death by neurologic criteria in the United States is laid out in the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA), which requires the irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain. Most other nations endorse a “whole-brain” standard as well. However, current practice in the determination of death by neurologic criteria is not consistent with this legal standard, because some patients who are diagnosed as brain-dead, in fact retain some brain function, or retain the capacity for the return of some brain function. In response, the American Academy of Neurology published updated guidelines, which assert that hypothalamic function is consistent with the neurological standard enshrined in the UDDA. Others have suggested that it is an open question whether the hypothalamus and pituitary are part of “the entire brain,” as delineated in the UDDA. While we agree that determination of death practices are worthy of continued dialogue and refinement in practice that dialogue must adhere to reasonable standards of logic and scientific accuracy.
Collapse
|
21
|
|
22
|
Primary care providers' use of and attitudes towards placebos: An exploratory focus group study with US physicians. Br J Health Psychol 2020; 25:596-614. [PMID: 32472982 DOI: 10.1111/bjhp.12429] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/20/2020] [Revised: 04/24/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To examine how primary care physicians define placebo concepts, use placebos in clinical practice, and view open-label placebos (OLPs). DESIGN Semi-structured focus groups that were audio-recorded and content-coded. METHODS Two focus groups with a total of 15 primary care physicians occurred at medical centres in the New England region of the United States. Prior experience using placebo treatments and attitudes towards open-label placebos were explored. Themes were analysed using an inductive data-driven approach. RESULTS Physicians displayed a nuanced understanding of placebos and placebo effects in clinical contexts which sometimes focused on relational factors. Some respondents reported that they prescribed treatments with no known pharmacological effect for certain conditions and symptoms ('impure placebos') and that such prescriptions were more common for pain disorders, functional disorders, and medically unexplained symptoms. Opinions about OLP were mixed: Some viewed OLPs favourably or considered them 'harmless'; however, others strongly rejected OLPs as disrespectful to patients. Other issues in relation to OLPs included the following: lack of guidelines, legal and reputational concerns, and the notion that such treatments would run counter to customary medical practice. CONCLUSIONS A number of physicians reported prescribing impure placebos in clinical care. Although some primary care physicians were resistant to the possibility of recommending OLPs, others regarded OLPs more favourably, viewing them as potential treatments, albeit with restricted potential. Statement of contribution What is already known? Many physicians report prescribing drugs for the purposes of eliciting a placebo effect. Initial evidence for the efficacy of open-label placebos is promising. What does this study add? A more nuanced description of the circumstances under which primary care physicians report placebo prescribing. A qualitative account of physician attitudes about using open-label placebos in clinical practice.
Collapse
|
23
|
|
24
|
Revisiting the Distinction and the Connection Between Research and Practice. PERSPECTIVES IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE 2020; 63:277-292. [PMID: 33416653 DOI: 10.1353/pbm.2020.0019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
The Belmont Report addresses the distinction between practice and research as guidance for which activities should be evaluated prospectively by a research ethics committee. This essay argues that the distinction between clinical practice and clinical research has a more fundamental significance for understanding the ethics of clinical research. After discussing the important connections between clinical research and clinical practice, the essay examines in detail ethically significant differences between these two sorts of activities. This sets the stage for a critique of clinical equipoise, widely regarded as a fundamental principle of clinical research ethics.
Collapse
|
25
|
Introduction to the Special Issue on the Belmont Report. PERSPECTIVES IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE 2020; 63:219. [PMID: 33416648 DOI: 10.1353/pbm.2020.0027] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
|
26
|
Bioethics as a Vocation. PERSPECTIVES IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE 2020; 63:429-443. [PMID: 33416617 DOI: 10.1353/pbm.2020.0031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
This essay offers practical guidance for the activity of bioethics scholarship in the form of maxims or rules of thumb, explicated by the author's work in bioethics research, mentoring, peer review, and journal editing. It is organized into three sections: (1) education, (2) seeking ideas for projects, and (3) writing papers.
Collapse
|
27
|
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: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.4] [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
|
28
|
Drawing the line on physician-assisted death. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS 2019; 45:190-197. [PMID: 30463933 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2018-105003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2018] [Revised: 10/10/2018] [Accepted: 10/27/2018] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
Drawing the line on physician assistance in physician-assisted death (PAD) continues to be a contentious issue in many legal jurisdictions across the USA, Canada and Europe. PAD is a medical practice that occurs when physicians either prescribe or administer lethal medication to their patients. As more legal jurisdictions establish PAD for at least some class of patients, the question of the proper scope of this practice has become pressing. This paper presents an argument for restricting PAD to the terminally ill that can be accepted by defenders as well as critics of PAD for the terminally ill. The argument appeals to fairness-based paternalism and the social meaning of medical practice. These two considerations interact in various ways, as the paper explains. The right way to think about the social meaning of medical practice bears on fair paternalism as it relates to PAD and vice versa. The paper contends that these considerations have substantial force when directed against proposals to extend PAD to non-terminally ill patients, but considerably less force when directed against PAD for the terminally ill. The paper pays special attention to the case of non-terminally ill patients who suffer from treatment-resistant depression, as these patients present a potentially strong case for extending PAD beyond the terminally ill.
Collapse
|
29
|
On Collaboration in Bioethics Scholarship. PERSPECTIVES IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE 2019; 62:31-40. [PMID: 31031296 DOI: 10.1353/pbm.2019.0002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
In this essay, I reflect on a career largely devoted to collaborative scholarship in bioethics. I describe the process of collaborative research and writing, including the mentorship collaboration, and discuss ethical issues posed by collaborative scholarship.
Collapse
|
30
|
Abstract
Results from small clinical trials suggesting that placebos can be ethically and effectively used in clinical practice warrant further study, argue Ted Kaptchuk and Franklin Miller
Collapse
|
31
|
The Limits and Hazards of Clinical Equipoise on Cardiology Study Design and Conduct. JAMA Cardiol 2018; 3:791-792. [PMID: 29955806 DOI: 10.1001/jamacardio.2018.1691] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022]
|
32
|
Response-Evaluating human trials: FDA's role. Science 2018; 360:1308-1309. [PMID: 29930129 DOI: 10.1126/science.aau0865] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/02/2022]
|
33
|
|
34
|
|
35
|
Sham-Controlled Trials for Coronary Interventions: Ethically Acceptable and Ethically Important. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018; 71:95-97. [PMID: 29301633 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.11.032] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
|
36
|
Medical Futility and "Brain Death". PERSPECTIVES IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE 2018; 60:400-402. [PMID: 29375070 DOI: 10.1353/pbm.2018.0014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/07/2023]
Abstract
Judgments of futility are always relative to some goal. In light of that proposition, continued treatment for those diagnosed as "brain dead" is not necessarily futile.
Collapse
|
37
|
Abstract
What is known as the "placebo effect" has received increasing attention in recent years in scientific investigation and the news media. The concept of the placebo effect, however, is subject to confusion and misleading implications, especially when applied broadly. This essay argues that it is desirable to confine the concept, as applied to biomedicine, to the therapeutic effects of deliberate placebo interventions. The author examines in detail the conceptual problems in characterizing the therapeutic benefits that flow from communication in the clinician-patient relationship as placebo effects.
Collapse
|
38
|
Advice and care for patients who die by voluntarily stopping eating and drinking is not assisted suicide. BMC Med 2017; 15:222. [PMID: 29282122 PMCID: PMC5745593 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-017-0994-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/17/2017] [Accepted: 12/13/2017] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND A competent patient has the right to refuse foods and fluids even if the patient will die. The exercise of this right, known as voluntarily stopping eating and drinking (VSED), is sometimes proposed as an alternative to physician assisted suicide. However, there is ethical and legal uncertainty about physician involvement in VSED. Are physicians advising of this option, or making patients comfortable while they undertake VSED, assisting suicide? This paper attempts to resolve this ethical and legal uncertainty. DISCUSSION The standard approach to resolving this conundrum has been to determine whether VSED itself is suicide. Those who claim that VSED is suicide invariably claim that physician involvement in VSED amounts to assisting suicide. Those who claim that VSED is not suicide claim that physician involvement in VSED does not amount to assisting suicide. We reject this standard approach. CONCLUSION We instead argue that, even if VSED is classified as a kind of suicide, physician involvement in VSED is not a form of assisted suicide. Physician involvement in VSED does not therefore fall within legal provisions that prohibit VSED.
Collapse
|
39
|
Reframing Consent for Clinical Research: A Function-Based Approach. THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS : AJOB 2017; 17:3-11. [PMID: 29148951 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2017.1388448] [Citation(s) in RCA: 79] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/16/2023]
Abstract
Although informed consent is important in clinical research, questions persist regarding when it is necessary, what it requires, and how it should be obtained. The standard view in research ethics is that the function of informed consent is to respect individual autonomy. However, consent processes are multidimensional and serve other ethical functions as well. These functions deserve particular attention when barriers to consent exist. We argue that consent serves seven ethically important and conceptually distinct functions. The first four functions pertain principally to individual participants: (1) providing transparency; (2) allowing control and authorization; (3) promoting concordance with participants' values; and (4) protecting and promoting welfare interests. Three other functions are systemic or policy focused: (5) promoting trust; (6) satisfying regulatory requirements; and (7) promoting integrity in research. Reframing consent around these functions can guide approaches to consent that are context sensitive and that maximize achievable goals.
Collapse
|
40
|
|
41
|
Do the 'brain dead' merely appear to be alive? JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS 2017; 43:747-753. [PMID: 28848063 PMCID: PMC5749302 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2016-103867] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/06/2016] [Revised: 04/19/2017] [Accepted: 05/14/2017] [Indexed: 05/20/2023]
Abstract
The established view regarding 'brain death' in medicine and medical ethics is that patients determined to be dead by neurological criteria are dead in terms of a biological conception of death, not a philosophical conception of personhood, a social construction or a legal fiction. Although such individuals show apparent signs of being alive, in reality they are (biologically) dead, though this reality is masked by the intervention of medical technology. In this article, we argue that an appeal to the distinction between appearance and reality fails in defending the view that the 'brain dead' are dead. Specifically, this view relies on an inaccurate and overly simplistic account of the role of medical technology in the physiology of a 'brain dead' patient. We conclude by offering an explanation of why the conventional view on 'brain death', though mistaken, continues to be endorsed in light of its connection to organ transplantation and the dead donor rule.
Collapse
|
42
|
Abstract
Mood disorders, including major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorder (BD), are highly prevalent, frequently disabling, and sometimes deadly. Additional research and more effective medications are desperately needed, but clinical trials research in mood disorders is fraught with ethical issues. Although many authors have discussed these issues, most do so from a theoretical viewpoint. This manuscript uses available empirical data to inform a discussion of the primary ethical issues raised in mood disorders research. These include issues of consent and decision-making capacity, including patients' motivations for participating in research. We also address drug withdrawals, placebo controls, and the overall safety of research. Finally, we examine the extant literature for studies discussing potential indirect benefits of clinical trials research to participants. Taken together, the evidence suggests that clinical trials research incorporating drug withdrawals and placebo controls can be conducted safely and ethically, even in patients with severe or treatment-resistant mood disorders. In fact, given the dearth of effective treatment options for this population, it is our opinion that a moral imperative exists to extend the offer of research participation to severely ill or treatment-resistant groups.
Collapse
|
43
|
Effects of placebos without deception compared with no treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid Based Med 2017; 10:97-107. [PMID: 28452193 DOI: 10.1111/jebm.12251] [Citation(s) in RCA: 130] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/22/2016] [Accepted: 03/16/2017] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To investigate the clinical efficacy of open-label placebos compared with no treatment in a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), and clinical trials registers and screened reference lists. The search was run on 27th April 2015. We included all randomized controlled trials of any medical condition with open-label placebo and no-treatment groups. Authors independently assessed records and extracted data. We excluded nonrandomized trials and nonclinical studies. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane criteria. We used random-effects model for meta-analysis. RESULTS We screened 348 publications, assessed 24 articles for eligibility and identified five trials (260 participants) that met inclusion criteria. The clinical conditions were: irritable bowel syndrome, depression, allergic rhinitis, back pain, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The risk of bias was moderate. We found a positive effect for nondeceptive placebos (standardized mean difference 0.88, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.14, P < 0.00001, I2 = 1%). CONCLUSIONS Open-label placebos appear to have positive clinical effects compared to no treatment. Caution is warranted when interpreting these results due to the limited number of trials identified, lack of blinding, and the fact that positive messages were included alongside open-label placebos. Larger definitive trials are now warranted to explore the potential patient benefit of open-label placebos, to investigate the relative contributions of positive suggestions, and ethical implications.
Collapse
|
44
|
Challenging the Conventional Wisdom: From Philosophy to Bioethics. PERSPECTIVES IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE 2017; 60:3-18. [PMID: 28890445 DOI: 10.1353/pbm.2017.0015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/07/2023]
Abstract
Philosophy is a core discipline that has contributed importantly to bioethics. In this essay, the author traces his trajectory from philosophy to bioethics, oriented around the theme of challenging the conventional wisdom. Three topics are discussed to illustrate this theme: the ethics of randomized trials, determination of death and organ transplantation, and pragmatism as a method of bioethics. In addition, the author offers some general reflections on the relationship between philosophy and bioethics. Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men.-John Dewey (1917).
Collapse
|
45
|
Introduction to the Special Issue. PERSPECTIVES IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE 2017; 60:1. [PMID: 28890444 DOI: 10.1353/pbm.2017.0014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/07/2023]
|
46
|
Abstract
As expected responses of 90 middle-aged men to a request for directions were influenced by the female experimenter's attire.
Collapse
|
47
|
Phase I Cancer Trials and Palliative Care: Antagonism, Irrelevance, or Synergy? J Pain Symptom Manage 2016; 52:437-45. [PMID: 27233136 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2016.02.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2015] [Revised: 02/06/2016] [Accepted: 02/26/2016] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
This article synthesizes the presentations and conclusions of an international symposium on Phase 1 oncology trials, palliative care, and ethics held in 2014. The purpose of the symposium was to discuss the intersection of three independent trends that unfolded in the past decade. First, large-scale reviews of hundreds of Phase I trials have indicated there is a relatively low risk of serious harm and some prospect of clinical benefit that can be meaningful to patients. Second, changes in the design and analysis of Phase I trials, the introduction of "targeted" investigational agents that are generally less toxic, and an increase in Phase I trials that combine two or more agents in a novel way have changed the conduct of these trials and decreased fears and apprehensions about participation. Third, the field of palliative care in cancer has expanded greatly, offering symptom management to late-stage cancer patients, and demonstrated that it is not mutually exclusive with disease-targeted therapies or clinical research. Opportunities for collaboration and further research at the intersection of Phase 1 oncology trials and palliative care are highlighted.
Collapse
|
48
|
|
49
|
|
50
|
Abstract
Internal and external locus-of-control individuals supplied the name and address of their "best friend" who was then asked to complete a locus-of-control scale. While friends predicted locus-of-control similarity, no actual similarity existed between them. These results are discussed in light of an attraction-friendship continuum.
Collapse
|