As our understanding of the neurobiology of Alzheimer Disease deepens, it has become evident that early intervention is critical to achieving successful therapeutic impact. The availability of diagnostic criteria for preclinical Alzheimer Disease adds momentum to research directed at this goal and even to prevention. The landscape of therapeutic research is thus poised to undergo a dramatic shift in the next 5-10 years, with clinical trials involving subjects at risk for Alzheimer Disease who have few or no symptoms. These trials will also likely rely heavily on genetics, biomarkers, and or risk factor stratification to identify individuals at risk for Alzheimer Disease. Here, we propose a conceptual framework to guide this next generation of pharmacological and non-pharmacological clinical pursuit, and discuss some of the foreseeable ethical considerations that may accompany them.

The field of regenerative medicine is widely viewed as having the potential to improve treatment options for a broad range of conditions. Stem cell research in particular has been celebrated for its considerable clinical promise. Although measured enthusiasm surrounding this area of research is warranted, it must be balanced by patience and set in the context of a long-term perspective that is cognizant of the many steps required to bring safe and efficacious therapies to market. Creating therapeutic applications of stem cell technologies is an intricate process involving complex biology. It will require careful scientific investigation and evaluation under responsible ethical frameworks and regulatory standards in order to safely maximize their potential. Alongside the many promising avenues of responsible research currently underway in countries throughout the world, a global market has emerged where a wide range of putative stem cell-based interventions are sold on a direct-to-consumer basis and marketed over the internet.1,2,3,4

This qualitative study investigated factors that guide physicians' choices for minimally invasive and neuromodulatory interventions as alternatives to conventional surgery or medical management for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy. North American physicians were recruited to one of 4 focus groups at national conferences. Discussions were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. A pragmatic neuroethics framework was applied to interpret results. Discussions revealed 2 major thematic branches: (1) clinical decision making and (2) ethical considerations. Under clinical decision making, physicians emphasized scientific evidence and patient candidacy when assessing neurotechnologies for patients. Ongoing seizures without intervention was important for safety and neurodevelopment. Under ethical considerations, resource allocation, among other financial considerations for technology adoption, were considerable sources of pressure on decision making. Access to neurotechnology was a salient theme differentiating Canadian and American contexts. When assessing novel neurotechnological interventions for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy, physicians balance clinical and ethical factors to guide decision making and best practice.

This qualitative study investigated factors that guide caregiver decision making and ethical trade-offs for advanced neurotechnologies used to treat children with drug-resistant epilepsy. Caregivers with affected children were recruited to semi-structured focus groups or interviews at one of 4 major epilepsy centers in Eastern and Western Canada and the USA (n = 22). Discussions were transcribed and qualitative analytic methods applied to examine values and priorities (eg, risks, benefits, adherence, invasiveness, reversibility) of caregivers pertaining to novel technologies to treat drug-resistant epilepsy. Discussions revealed 3 major thematic branches for decision making: (1) features of the intervention-risks and benefits, with an emphasis on an aversion to perceived invasiveness; (2) decision drivers-trust in the clinical team, treatment costs; and (3) quality of available information about neurotechnological options. Overall, caregivers' definition of treatment success is more expansive than seizure freedom. The full involvement of their values and priorities must be considered in the decision-making process.

Objective

Novel and minimally invasive neurotechnologies offer the potential to reduce the burden of epilepsy while avoiding the risks of conventional resective surgery. Few neurotechnologies have been tested in randomized controlled trials with pediatric populations, leaving clinicians to face decisions about whether to recommend these treatments with insufficient evidence about the relevant risks and benefits. This study specifically explores the preferences of clinicians for treating pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) with novel neurotechnologies.

Methods

A discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was designed to elicit the preferences of clinicians with experience in treating children with DRE using novel neurotechnological interventions. The preferences for six key attributes used when making treatment decisions (chances of clinically significant improvement in seizures, major and minor risks from intervention, availability of evidence, financial burden for the family, and access to the intervention) were estimated using a conditional logit model. The estimates from this model were then used to predict the adoption of existing novel neurotechnological interventions.

Results

Sixty-eight clinicians completed the survey: 33 neurosurgeons, 28 neurologists, and 7 other clinicians. Most clinicians were working in the United States (74%), and the remainder (26%) in Canada. All attributes, apart from the nearest location with access to the intervention, influenced preferences significantly. The chance of clinically significant improvement in seizures was the most positive influence on clinician preferences, but low-quality evidence and a higher risk of major complications could offset these preferences. Of the existing neurotechnological interventions, vagus nerve stimulation was predicted to have the highest likelihood of adoption; deep brain stimulation had the lowest likelihood of adoption.

Significance

The preferences of clinicians are drive primarily by the likelihood of achieving seizure freedom for their patients, but preferences for an intervention are largely eradicated if only low quality of evidence supporting the intervention is available. Until better evidence supporting the use of potentially effective, novel neurotechnologies becomes available, clinicians are likely to prefer more established treatments.

Artificial intelligence and brain-computer interfaces must respect and preserve people’s privacy, identity, agency and equality, say Rafael Yuste, Sara Goering and colleagues.

This article describes the ongoing collaborative effort of six research teams to operationalize and execute an integrative approach to the study of gene x environment interactions in the development of tobacco dependence. At the core of the project is a longitudinal investigation of social and behavioral risk factors for tobacco use in individuals who were, on average, 13 years of age at intake and for whom smoking outcomes extending from early adolescence to young adulthood have been characterized previously (current average age of the cohort is 29 years). The conceptual framework for the integrative approach and the longitudinal investigation on which the study is based is presented. A description is also provided of the methods used to: (a) recruit participants and families to provide DNA samples and information on tobacco use; (b) assess participants for relevant tobacco-related phenotypes including smoking history, current use of tobacco, and nicotine metabolism; (c) assess the quality of the DNA samples collected from participants for genome-wide scanning and candidate gene analysis; (d) examine several research questions concerning the role of genetic and environmental factors in the onset and maintenance of tobacco use; and (e) ensure adherence to local and federal guidelines for ethical and legal investigations of genotypic associations with tobacco-related phenotypes in families. This investigation is unique among ongoing studies of the genetics of tobacco dependence in the extent to which equal importance has been assigned to both phenotypic and genotypic measurements.

Artificial intelligence and brain-computer interfaces must respect and preserve people’s privacy, identity, agency and equality, say Rafael Yuste, Sara Goering and colleagues.

Disorders of consciousness are neurological conditions characterized by impaired arousal and awareness of self and environment. Behavioural responses are absent or are present but fluctuate. Disorders of consciousness are commonly encountered as a consequence of both acute and chronic brain injuries, yet reliable epidemiological estimates would require inclusive, operational definitions of the concept, as well as wider knowledge dissemination among involved professionals. Whereas several manifestations have been described, including coma, vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome and minimally conscious state, a comprehensive neurobiological definition for disorders of consciousness is still lacking. The scientific literature is primarily observational, and studies-specific aetiologies lead to disorders of consciousness. Despite advances in these disease-related forms, there remains uncertainty about whether disorders of consciousness are a disease-agnostic unitary entity with a common mechanism, prognosis or treatment response paradigm. Our knowledge of disorders of consciousness has also been hampered by heterogeneity of study designs, variables, and outcomes, leading to results that are not comparable for evidence synthesis. The different backgrounds of professionals caring for patients with disorders of consciousness and the different goals at different stages of care could partly explain this variability. The Prospective Studies working group of the Neurocritical Care Society Curing Coma Campaign was established to create a platform for observational studies and future clinical trials on disorders of consciousness and coma across the continuum of care. In this narrative review, the author panel presents limitations of prior observational clinical research and outlines practical considerations for future investigations. A narrative review format was selected to ensure that the full breadth of study design considerations could be addressed and to facilitate a future consensus-based statement (e.g. via a modified Delphi) and series of recommendations. The panel convened weekly online meetings from October 2021 to December 2022. Research considerations addressed the nosographic status of disorders of consciousness, case ascertainment and verification, selection of dependent variables, choice of covariates and measurement and analysis of outcomes and covariates, aiming to promote more homogeneous designs and practices in future observational studies. The goal of this review is to inform a broad community of professionals with different backgrounds and clinical interests to address the methodological challenges imposed by the transition of care from acute to chronic stages and to streamline data gathering for patients with disorders of consciousness. A coordinated effort will be a key to allow reliable observational data synthesis and epidemiological estimates and ultimately inform condition-modifying clinical trials.