Search

Recent advances in developing polygenic scores have made it possible to screen embryos for common, complex conditions and traits. Polygenic embryo screening (PES) is currently offered commercially, and though there has been much recent media and academic coverage, reproductive specialists' points of view have not yet been prominent in these discussions. We convened a roundtable of multidisciplinary experts, including reproductive specialists to discuss PES and its implications. In this Opinion, we describe four clinically relevant issues associated with the use of PES that have not yet been discussed in the literature and warrant consideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neurosurgery is a field with complex ethical issues. In this article, we aim to provide an overview of key and emerging ethical issues in neurosurgery with a focus on issues relevant to practicing neurosurgeons. These issues include those of informed consent, capacity, clinical trials, emerging neurotechnology, innovation, equity and justice, and emerging bioethics areas including community engagement and organizational ethics. We argue that bioethics can help neurosurgeons think about and address these issues, and, in turn, the field of bioethics can benefit from engagement by neurosurgeons. Several ideas for increasing engagement in bioethics are proposed., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is approved under a humanitarian device exemption to manage treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder (TR-OCD) in adults. It is possible that DBS may be trialed or used clinically off-label in children and adolescents with TR-OCD in the future. DBS is already used to manage treatment-resistant childhood dystonia. Evidence suggests it is a safe and effective intervention for certain types of dystonia. Important questions remain unanswered about the use of DBS in children and adolescents with TR-OCD, including whether mental health clinicians would refer pediatric patients for DBS, and who would be a good candidate for DBS., Objectives: To explore mental health clinicians' views on what clinical and psychosocial factors they would consider when determining which children with OCD would be good DBS candidates., Materials and Methods: In depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with n  = 25 mental health clinicians who treat pediatric patients with OCD. The interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using thematic content analysis. Three questions focused on key, clinical, and psychosocial factors for assessing candidacy were analyzed to explore respondent views on candidacy factors. Our analysis details nine overarching themes expressed by clinicians, namely the patient's previous OCD treatment, OCD severity, motivation to commit to treatment, presence of comorbid conditions, family environment, education on DBS, quality of life, accessibility to treatment, and patient age and maturity., Conclusions: Clinicians generally saw considering DBS treatment in youth as a last resort and only for very specific cases. DBS referral was predominantly viewed as acceptable for children with severe TR-OCD who have undertaken intensive, appropriate treatment without success, whose OCD has significantly reduced their quality of life, and who exhibit strong motivation to continue treatment given the right environment. Appropriate safeguards, eligibility criteria, and procedures should be discussed and identified before DBS for childhood TR-OCD becomes practice.

Recent advances in psychiatric genetics have enabled the use of polygenic risk scores (PRS) to estimate genetic risk for psychiatric disorders. However, the potential use of PRS in child and adolescent psychiatry has raised concerns. This study provides an in-depth examination of attitudes among child and adolescent psychiatrists (CAP) regarding the use of PRS in psychiatry. We conducted semi-structured interviews with U.S.-based CAP (n = 29) who possess expertise in genetics. The majority of CAP indicated that PRS have limited clinical utility in their current form and are not ready for clinical implementation. Most clinicians stated that nothing would motivate them to generate PRS at present; however, some exceptions were noted (e.g., parent/family request). Clinicians spoke to challenges related to ordering, interpreting, and explaining PRS to patients and families. CAP raised concerns regarding the potential for this information to be misinterpreted or misused by patients, families, clinicians, and outside entities such as insurance companies. Finally, some CAP noted that PRS may lead to increased stigmatization of psychiatric disorders, and at the extreme, could be used to support eugenics. As PRS testing increases, it will be critical to examine CAP and other stakeholders' views to ensure responsible implementation of this technology., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Merner reports no financial relationships with commercial interests. Ms. Trotter reports no financial relationships with commercial interests. Ms. Ginn reports no financial relationships with commercial interests. Mr. Bach reports no financial relationships with commercial interests. Dr. Freedenberg reports no relationships with commercial interests. Dr. Soda receives grant support from NIH. Dr. Merner reports no financial relationships with commercial interests. Dr. Storch was a consultant for Biohaven and Brainsway in the past 12 months. He receives grant support from NIH, International OCD Foundation, and Ream Foundation. He owns stock valued under $5000 in Nview. He receives book royalties from Elsevier, Springer, Oxford, Guilford, American Psychological Association, Lawrence Erlbaum, and Jessica Kingsley. Dr. Pereira receives grant support from NIH. Dr. Lázaro-Muñoz receives grant support from NIH., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Advances in the development of neurotechnologies have the potential to revolutionize treatment of brain-based conditions. However, a critical concern revolves around the willingness of the public to embrace these technologies, especially considering the tumultuous histories of certain neurosurgical interventions. Therefore, examining public attitudes is paramount to uncovering potential barriers to adoption ensuring ethically sound innovation., Methods: In the present study, we investigate public attitudes towards the use of four neurotechnologies (within-subjects conditions): deep brain stimulation (DBS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), pills, and MRI-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) as potential treatments to a person experiencing either mood, memory, or motor symptoms (between-subjects conditions). US-based participants (N=1052; stratified to be nationally representative based on sex, race, age) were asked about their perceptions of risk, benefit, invasiveness, acceptability, perceived change to the person, and personal interest in using these neurotechnologies for symptom alleviation., Results: Descriptive results indicate variability between technologies that the U.S. public is willing to consider if experiencing severe mood, memory, or motor symptoms. The main effect of neurotechnology revealed DBS was viewed as the most invasive and risky treatment and was perceived to lead to the greatest change to who someone is as a person. DBS was also viewed as least likely to be personally used and least acceptable for use by others. When examining the main effects of symptomatology, we found that all forms of neuromodulation were perceived as significantly more beneficial, acceptable, and likely to be used by participants for motor symptoms, followed by memory symptoms, and lastly mood symptoms. Neuromodulation (averaging across neurotechnologies) was perceived as significantly riskier, more invasive, and leading to a greater change to person for mood versus motor symptoms; however, memory and motor symptoms were perceived similarly with respect to risk, invasiveness, and change to person., Conclusion: These results suggest that the public views neuromodulatory approaches that require surgery (i.e., DBS and MRgFUS) as riskier, more invasive, and less acceptable than those that do not. Further, findings suggest individuals may be more reluctant to alter or treat psychological symptoms with neuromodulation compared to physical symptoms.

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a debilitating psychiatric disorder. Worldwide, its prevalence is ~2% and its etiology is mostly unknown. Identifying biological factors contributing to OCD will elucidate underlying mechanisms and might contribute to improved treatment outcomes. Genomic studies of OCD are beginning to reveal long-sought risk loci, but >95% of the cases currently in analysis are of homogenous European ancestry. If not addressed, this Eurocentric bias will result in OCD genomic findings being more accurate for individuals of European ancestry than other ancestries, thereby contributing to health disparities in potential future applications of genomics. In this study protocol paper, we describe the Latin American Trans-ancestry INitiative for OCD genomics (LATINO, https://www.latinostudy.org). LATINO is a new network of investigators from across Latin America, the United States, and Canada who have begun to collect DNA and clinical data from 5000 richly phenotyped OCD cases of Latin American ancestry in a culturally sensitive and ethical manner. In this project, we will utilize trans-ancestry genomic analyses to accelerate the identification of OCD risk loci, fine-map putative causal variants, and improve the performance of polygenic risk scores in diverse populations. We will also capitalize on rich clinical data to examine the genetics of treatment response, biologically plausible OCD subtypes, and symptom dimensions. Additionally, LATINO will help elucidate the diversity of the clinical presentations of OCD across cultures through various trainings developed and offered in collaboration with Latin American investigators. We believe this study will advance the important goal of global mental health discovery and equity., (© 2023 The Authors. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genetics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Importance: Polygenic embryo screening (PES) is a novel technology that estimates the likelihood of developing future conditions (eg, diabetes or depression) and traits (eg, height or cognitive ability) in human embryos, with the goal of selecting which embryos to use. Given its commercial availability and concerns raised by researchers, clinicians, bioethicists, and professional organizations, it is essential to inform key stakeholders and relevant policymakers about the public's perspectives on this technology., Objective: To survey US adults to examine general attitudes, interests, and concerns regarding PES use., Design, Setting, and Participants: For this survey study, data were collected from 1 stratified sample and 1 nonprobability sample (samples 1 and 2, respectively) between March and July 2023. The surveys measured approval, interest, and concerns regarding various applications of PES. In the second sample, presentation of a list of potential concerns was randomized (presented at survey onset vs survey end). The survey was designed using Qualtrics and distributed to participants through Prolific, an online sampling firm. Sample 1 was nationally representative with respect to gender, age, and race and ethnicity; sample 2 was recruited without specific demographic criteria. Analyses were conducted between March 2023 and February 2024., Main Outcomes and Measures: Participants reported their approval, interest, and concerns regarding various applications of PES and outcomes screened (eg, traits and conditions). Statistical analysis was conducted using independent samples t tests and repeated-measures analyses of variance., Results: Of the 1435 respondents in sample 1, demographic data were available for 1427 (mean [SD] age, 45.8 [16.0] years; 724 women [50.7%]). Among these 1427 sample 1 respondents, 1027 (72.0%) expressed approval for PES and 1169 (81.9%) expressed some interest in using PES if already undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). Approval among these respondents for using PES for embryo selection was notably high for physical health conditions (1109 [77.7%]) and psychiatric health conditions (1028 [72.0%]). In contrast, there was minority approval for embryo selection based on PES for behavioral traits (514 [36.0%]) and physical traits (432 [30.3%]). Nevertheless, concerns about PES leading to false expectations and promoting eugenic practices were pronounced, with 787 of 1422 (55.3%) and 780 of 1423 (54.8%) respondents finding them very to extremely concerning, respectively. Sample 2 included 192 respondents (mean [SD] age 37.7 [12.2] years; 110 men [57.3%]). These respondents were presented concerns at survey onset (n = 95) vs survey end (n = 97), which was associated with less approval (28-percentage point decrease) and more uncertainty (24 percentage-point increase) but with only slightly higher disapproval (4 percentage-point increase)., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that it is critical for health care professionals and medical societies to consider and understand the perspectives of diverse stakeholders (eg, patients undergoing IVF, clinicians, and the general public), given the absence of regulation and the recent commercial availability of PES.

The ongoing debate within neuroethics concerning the degree to which neuromodulation such as deep brain stimulation (DBS) changes the personality, identity, and agency (PIA) of patients has paid relatively little attention to the perspectives of prospective patients. Even less attention has been given to pediatric populations. To understand patients' views about identity changes due to DBS in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), the authors conducted and analyzed semistructured interviews with adolescent patients with OCD and their parents/caregivers. Patients were asked about projected impacts to PIA generally due to DBS. All patient respondents and half of caregivers reported that DBS would impact patient self-identity in significant ways. For example, many patients expressed how DBS could positively impact identity by allowing them to explore their identities free from OCD. Others voiced concerns that DBS-related resolution of OCD might negatively impact patient agency and authenticity. Half of patients expressed that DBS may positively facilitate social access through relieving symptoms, while half indicated that DBS could increase social stigma. These views give insights into how to approach decision-making and informed consent if DBS for OCD becomes available for adolescents. They also offer insights into adolescent experiences of disability identity and "normalcy" in the context of OCD.

Importance: Establishing a formal definition for neurological device abandonment has the potential to reduce or to prevent the occurrence of this abandonment., Objective: To perform a systematic review of the literature and develop an expert consensus definition for neurological device abandonment., Evidence Review: After a Royal Society Summit on Neural Interfaces (September 13-14, 2023), a systematic English language review using PubMed was undertaken to investigate extant definitions of neurological device abandonment. Articles were reviewed for relevance to neurological device abandonment in the setting of deep brain, vagal nerve, and spinal cord stimulation. This review was followed by the convening of an expert consensus group of physicians, scientists, ethicists, and stakeholders. The group summarized findings, added subject matter experience, and applied relevant ethics concepts to propose a current operational definition of neurological device abandonment. Data collection, study, and consensus development were done between September 13, 2023, and February 1, 2024., Findings: The PubMed search revealed 734 total articles, and after review, 7 articles were found to address neurological device abandonment. The expert consensus group addressed findings as germane to neurological device abandonment and added personal experience and additional relevant peer-reviewed articles, addressed stakeholders' respective responsibilities, and operationally defined abandonment in the context of implantable neurotechnological devices. The group further addressed whether clinical trial failure or shelving of devices would constitute or be associated with abandonment as defined. Referential to these domains and dimensions, the group proposed a standardized definition for abandonment of active implantable neurotechnological devices., Conclusions and Relevance: This study's consensus statement suggests that the definition for neurological device abandonment should entail failure to provide fundamental aspects of patient consent; fulfill reasonable responsibility for medical, technical, or financial support prior to the end of the device's labeled lifetime; and address any or all immediate needs that may result in safety concerns or device ineffectiveness and that the definition of abandonment associated with the failure of a research trial should be contingent on specific circumstances.

The Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) Think Tank XI was held on August 9-11, 2023 in Gainesville, Florida with the theme of "Pushing the Forefront of Neuromodulation". The keynote speaker was Dr. Nico Dosenbach from Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. He presented his research recently published in Nature inn a collaboration with Dr. Evan Gordon to identify and characterize the somato-cognitive action network (SCAN), which has redefined the motor homunculus and has led to new hypotheses about the integrative networks underpinning therapeutic DBS. The DBS Think Tank was founded in 2012 and provides an open platform where clinicians, engineers, and researchers (from industry and academia) can freely discuss current and emerging DBS technologies, as well as logistical and ethical issues facing the field. The group estimated that globally more than 263,000 DBS devices have been implanted for neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders. This year's meeting was focused on advances in the following areas: cutting-edge translational neuromodulation, cutting-edge physiology, advances in neuromodulation from Europe and Asia, neuroethical dilemmas, artificial intelligence and computational modeling, time scales in DBS for mood disorders, and advances in future neuromodulation devices., Competing Interests: ND has a financial interest in Turing Medical Inc. and may financially benefit if the company is successful in marketing FIRMM motion monitoring software products, may receive royalty income based on FIRMM technology developed at Washington University School of Medicine and Oregon Health and Sciences University and licensed to Turing Medical Inc, and is a co-founder of Turing Medical Inc. These potential conflicts of interest have been reviewed and are managed by Washington University School of Medicine. AH reports lecture fees for Boston Scientific and is a consultant for FxNeuromodulation and Abbott. RG is an employee of Rune Labs. JO'K is CEO and Founder of Machine Medicine Technologies. W-JN received honoraria for consulting from InBrain – Neuroelectronics that is a neurotechnology company and honoraria for talks from Medtronic that is a manufacturer of deep brain stimulation devices unrelated to this manuscript. SL has received speaking honoraria from Medtronic and is a consultant for Iota Biosciences. SS is a consultant for Zimmer Biomet, Neuropace, Koh Young, Boston Scientfic, Sensoria Therapeutics, Varian Medical; co-founder for Motif Neurotech. LM is an employee of Boston Scientific. AF has stock ownership in Inbrain Pharma and has received payments as consultant and/or speaker from Abbvie, Abbott, Boston Scientific, Ceregate, Dompé Farmaceutici, Inbrain Neuroelectronics, Ipsen, Medtronic, Iota, Syneos Health, Merz, Sunovion, Paladin Labs, UCB, Sunovion, and he has received research support from Abbvie, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Praxis, ES and receives royalties from Springer. AH-B and RR are employees of Medtronic Inc. LM is an employee of Boston Scientific. YP is an employee of Abbott. DG is an employee of NeuroPace, owns NeuroPace stock, and has NeuroPace stock options. SM is a founder and shareholder of Newronika SpA. LK is the CEO of Newronika. MP-N has received speaker honoraria/travel costs from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Bial, and Abbvie and study reimbursements from Zambon, Licher, Boston Scientific, and Abbott. LC has received research support from National Institutes of Health and the National Network of Depression Centers and serves on the Board of Directors for the International Neuroethics Society (unpaid) as well as on the Advisory Council for the Institute of Neuroethics think and do thank (unpaid). CM is a paid consultant for Boston Scientific Neuromodulation, receives royalties from Hologram Consultants, Neuros Medical, Qr8 Health, and is a shareholder in the following companies: Hologram Consultants, Surgical Information Sciences, BrainDynamics, CereGate, Cardionomic, Enspire DBS. NH is a co-founder of Surgical Information Sciences (SIS), Inc. HM received consulting and IP licensing fees from Abbott Laboratories. AK has stock options in Neurawell and Big Health and is a consultant for Axsome Therapeutics, Big Health, Eisai, Evecxia, Harmony Biosciences, Idorsia, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Millenium Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Neurocrine Biosciences, Neurawell, Pernix, Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, Sage, and Takeda. NP is a consultant for Abbott and Sensoria Therapeutics. PS receives free research devices from Medtronic and fellowship support funding from Medtronic and BSCI and no personal income from anyone. KF reports receiving research support and fellowship support from Medtronic and Boston Scientific and research support from Functional Neuromodulation. MO serves as Medical Advisor the Parkinson's Foundation, and has received research grants from NIH, Parkinson's Foundation, the Michael J. Fox Foundation, the Parkinson Alliance, Smallwood Foundation, the Bachmann-Strauss Foundation, the Tourette Syndrome Association, and the UF Foundation. MO has received royalties for publications with Demos, Manson, Amazon, Smashwords, Books4Patients, Perseus, Robert Rose, Oxford and Cambridge (movement disorders books). MO is an associate editor for New England Journal of Medicine Journal, Watch Neurology, and JAMA Neurology. MO has participated in CME and educational activities (past 12-24 months) on movement disorders sponsored by WebMD/Medscape, RMEI Medical Education, American Academy of Neurology, Movement Disorders Society, Mediflix and by Vanderbilt University. The institution and not MO receives grants from industry. MO has participated as a site PI and/or co-I for several NIH, foundation, and industry sponsored trials over the years but has not received honoraria. Research projects at the University of Florida receive device and drug donations. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision., (Copyright © 2024 Johnson, Dosenbach, Gordon, Welle, Wilkins, Bronte-Stewart, Voon, Morishita, Sakai, Merner, Lázaro-Muñoz, Williamson, Horn, Gilron, O'Keeffe, Gittis, Neumann, Little, Provenza, Sheth, Fasano, Holt-Becker, Raike, Moore, Pathak, Greene, Marceglia, Krinke, Tan, Bergman, Pötter-Nerger, Sun, Cabrera, McIntyre, Harel, Mayberg, Krystal, Pouratian, Starr, Foote, Okun and Wong.)

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based computer perception technologies (e.g., digital phenotyping and affective computing) promise to transform clinical approaches to personalized care in psychiatry and beyond by offering more objective measures of emotional states and behavior, enabling precision treatment, diagnosis, and symptom monitoring. At the same time, passive and continuous nature by which they often collect data from patients in non-clinical settings raises ethical issues related to privacy and self-determination. Little is known about how such concerns may be exacerbated by the integration of neural data, as parallel advances in computer perception, AI, and neurotechnology enable new insights into subjective states. Here, we present findings from a multi-site NCATS-funded study of ethical considerations for translating computer perception into clinical care and contextualize them within the neuroethics and neurorights literatures., Methods: We conducted qualitative interviews with patients ( n = 20), caregivers ( n = 20), clinicians ( n = 12), developers ( n = 12), and clinician developers ( n = 2) regarding their perspective toward using PC in clinical care. Transcripts were analyzed in MAXQDA using Thematic Content Analysis., Results: Stakeholder groups voiced concerns related to (1) perceived invasiveness of passive and continuous data collection in private settings; (2) data protection and security and the potential for negative downstream/future impacts on patients of unintended disclosure; and (3) ethical issues related to patients' limited versus hyper awareness of passive and continuous data collection and monitoring. Clinicians and developers highlighted that these concerns may be exacerbated by the integration of neural data with other computer perception data., Discussion: Our findings suggest that the integration of neurotechnologies with existing computer perception technologies raises novel concerns around dignity-related and other harms (e.g., stigma, discrimination) that stem from data security threats and the growing potential for reidentification of sensitive data. Further, our findings suggest that patients' awareness and preoccupation with feeling monitored via computer sensors ranges from hypo- to hyper-awareness, with either extreme accompanied by ethical concerns (consent vs. anxiety and preoccupation). These results highlight the need for systematic research into how best to implement these technologies into clinical care in ways that reduce disruption, maximize patient benefits, and mitigate long-term risks associated with the passive collection of sensitive emotional, behavioral and neural data., Competing Interests: ES reports receiving research funding to his institution from the Ream Foundation, International OCD Foundation, and NIH. He was formerly a consultant for Brainsway and Biohaven Pharmaceuticals in the past 12°months. He owns stock less than $5000 in NView. He receives book royalties from Elsevier, Wiley, Oxford, American Psychological Association, Guildford, Springer, Routledge, and Jessica Kingsley. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The reviewer JW declared a past co-authorship with the author GL-M to the handling editor., (Copyright © 2024 Hurley, Sonig, Herrington, Storch, Lázaro-Muñoz, Blumenthal-Barby and Kostick-Quenet.)

Psychiatry is rapidly adopting digital phenotyping and artificial intelligence/machine learning tools to study mental illness based on tracking participants' locations, online activity, phone and text message usage, heart rate, sleep, physical activity, and more. Existing ethical frameworks for return of individual research results (IRRs) are inadequate to guide researchers for when, if, and how to return this unprecedented number of potentially sensitive results about each participant's real-world behavior. To address this gap, we convened an interdisciplinary expert working group, supported by a National Institute of Mental Health grant. Building on established guidelines and the emerging norm of returning results in participant-centered research, we present a novel framework specific to the ethical, legal, and social implications of returning IRRs in digital phenotyping research. Our framework offers researchers, clinicians, and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) urgently needed guidance, and the principles developed here in the context of psychiatry will be readily adaptable to other therapeutic areas.

Patient narratives from two investigational deep brain stimulation trials for traumatic brain injury and obsessive-compulsive disorder reveal that injury and illness rob individuals of personal identity and that neuromodulation can restore it. The early success of these interventions makes a compelling case for continued post-trial access to these technologies. Given the centrality of personal identity to respect for persons, a failure to provide continued access can be understood to represent a metaphorical identity theft. Such a loss recapitulates the pain of an individual's initial injury or illness and becomes especially tragic because it could be prevented by robust policy. A failure to fulfill this normative obligation constitutes a breach of disability law, which would view post-trial access as a means to achieve social reintegration through this neurotechnological accommodation., (© 2024 The Hastings Center.)

Introduction: Childhood dystonia is often nonresponsive to medications, and refractory cases are increasingly being treated with deep brain stimulation (DBS). However, many have noted that there is little consensus about when DBS should be offered, and there has been little examination of clinicians' decision-making process when determining whether to offer DBS for childhood dystonia., Objectives: This study aimed to identify and examine the factors considered by pediatric movement disorder specialists before offering DBS., Materials and Methods: Semistructured interviews (N = 29) with pediatric dystonia clinicians were conducted, transcribed, and coded. Using thematic content analysis, nine central themes were identified when clinicians were asked about key factors, clinical factors, and psychosocial factors considered before offering pediatric DBS., Results: Clinicians identified nine main factors. Five of these were classified primarily as clinical factors: early intervention and younger age (raised by 86% of respondents), disease progression and symptom severity (83%), etiology and genetic status (79%), clinicians' perceived risks and benefits of DBS for the patient (79%), and exhaustion of other treatment options (55%). The remaining four were classified primarily as psychosocial factors: social and family support (raised by 97% of respondents), patient and caregiver expectations about outcomes and understanding of DBS treatment (90%), impact of dystonia on quality of life (69%), and financial resources and access to care (31%)., Conclusions: Candidacy determinations, in this context, are complicated by an interrelation of clinical and psychosocial factors that contribute to the decision. There is potential for bias when considering family support and quality of life. Uncertainty of outcomes related to the etiology of dystonia makes candidacy judgments challenging. More systematic examination of the characteristics and criteria used to identify pediatric patients with dystonia who can significantly benefit from DBS is necessary to develop clear guidelines and promote the well-being of these children., (Copyright © 2021 International Neuromodulation Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Approximately 10-20% of children with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) have treatment-resistant presentations, and there is likely interest in developing interventions for this patient group, which may include deep brain stimulation (DBS). The World Society for Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery has argued that at least two successful randomized controlled trials should be available before DBS treatment for a psychiatric disorder is considered "established." The FDA approved DBS for adults with treatment-resistant OCD under a humanitarian device exemption (HDE) in 2009, which requires that a device be used to manage or treat a condition impacting 8,000 or fewer patients annually in the United States. DBS is currently offered to children ages 7 and older with treatment-resistant dystonia under an HDE. Ethical and empirical work are needed to evaluate whether and under what conditions it might be appropriate to offer DBS for treatment-resistant childhood OCD. To address this gap, we report qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with 25 clinicians with expertise in this area. First, we report clinician perspectives on acceptable levels of evidence to offer DBS in this patient population. Second, we describe their perspectives on institutional policies or protocols that might be needed to effectively provide care for this patient population.

Background: It remains unknown why ~30% of patients with psychotic disorders fail to respond to treatment. Previous genomic investigations of treatment-resistant psychosis have been inconclusive, but some evidence suggests a possible link between rare disease-associated copy number variants (CNVs) and worse clinical outcomes in schizophrenia. Here, we identified schizophrenia-associated CNVs in patients with treatment-resistant psychotic symptoms and then compared the prevalence of these CNVs to previously published schizophrenia cases not selected for treatment resistance., Methods: CNVs were identified using chromosomal microarray (CMA) and whole exome sequencing (WES) in 509 patients with treatment-resistant psychosis (a lack of clinical response to ≥3 adequate antipsychotic medication trials over at least 5 years of psychiatric hospitalization). Prevalence of schizophrenia-associated CNVs in this sample was compared to that in a previously published large schizophrenia cohort study., Results: Integrating CMA and WES data, we identified 47 cases (9.2%) with at least one CNV of known or possible neuropsychiatric risk. 4.7% (n = 24) carried a known neurodevelopmental risk CNV. The prevalence of well-replicated schizophrenia-associated CNVs was 4.1%, with duplications of the 16p11.2 and 15q11.2-q13.1 regions, and deletions of the 22q11.2 chromosomal region as the most frequent CNVs. Pairwise loci-based analysis identified duplications of 15q11.2-q13.1 to be independently associated with treatment resistance., Conclusions: These findings suggest that CNVs may uniquely impact clinical phenotypes beyond increasing risk for schizophrenia and may potentially serve as biological entry points for studying treatment resistance. Further investigation will be necessary to elucidate the spectrum of phenotypic characteristics observed in adult psychiatric patients with disease-associated CNVs., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The literature on deep brain stimulation (DBS) and adaptive DBS (aDBS) raises concerns that these technologies may affect personality, mood, and behavior. We conducted semi-structured interviews with researchers ( n  = 23) involved in developing next-generation DBS systems, exploring their perspectives on ethics and policy topics including whether DBS/aDBS can cause such changes. The majority of researchers reported being aware of personality, mood, or behavioral (PMB) changes in recipients of DBS/aDBS. Researchers offered varying estimates of the frequency of PMB changes. A smaller majority reported changes in personality specifically. Some expressed reservations about the scientific status of the term 'personality,' while others used it freely. Most researchers discussed negative PMB changes, but a majority said that DBS/aDBS can also result in positive changes. Several researchers viewed positive PMB changes as part of the therapeutic goal in psychiatric applications of DBS/aDBS. Finally, several discussed potential causes of PMB changes other than the device itself.

The purpose of this study was to report current practices and attitudes of child and adolescent psychiatrists (CAP) regarding diagnostic genetic and pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing. We surveyed 958 US-based practicing CAP. 54.9% of respondents indicated that they had ordered/referred for a genetic test in the past 12 months. 87% of respondents agreed that it is their role to discuss genetic information regarding psychiatric conditions with their patients; however, 45% rated their knowledge of genetic testing practice guidelines as poor/very poor. The most ordered test was PGx (32.2%), followed by chromosomal microarray (23.0%). 73.4% reported that PGx is at least slightly useful in child and adolescent psychiatry. Most (62.8%) were asked by a patient/family to order PGx in the past 12 months and 41.7% reported they would order PGx in response to a family request. Those who ordered a PGx test were more likely to have been asked by a patient/family and to work in private practice. 13.8% of respondents agreed/strongly agreed that a PGx test can predict the effectiveness of specific antidepressants. Some respondents also indicated they would make clinical changes based on PGx information even if a medication was currently effective and there were no side effects. Genetic testing has become routine clinical care in child and adolescent psychiatry. Despite this, many providers rate their associated knowledge as poor/very poor. Patient requests were associated with ordering practices and providers misinterpretation of PGx may be leading to unnecessary changes in clinical management. There is need for further education and support for clinicians., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Soda receives grant support from NIH. Dr. Merner reports no financial relationships with commercial interests. Dr. Small receives grant support from NIH. Ms. Torgerson reports no financial relationships with commercial interests. Ms. Muñoz reports no financial relationships with commercial interests. Dr Austin receives support from BC Mental Health and Substance Use Services, and grant funding from Genome BC/Genome Canada, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. They have consulted for 23andme. Dr. Storch is a consultant for Biohaven and Brainsway. He receives grant support from NIH, International OCD Foundation, and Ream Foundation. He owns stock valued under $5000 in Nview. He receives book royalties from Elsevier, Springer, Oxford, Guilford, American Psychological Association, Lawrence Erlbaum, and Jessica Kingsley. Dr. Pereira receives grant support from NIH. Dr. Lázaro-Muñoz receives grant support from NIH., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: There has been substantial controversy in the neuroethics literature regarding the extent to which deep brain stimulation (DBS) impacts dimensions of personality, mood, and behavior., Objective/hypothesis: Despite extensive debate in the theoretical literature, there remains a paucity of empirical data available to support or refute claims related to the psychosocial changes following DBS., Methods: A mixed-methods approach was used to examine the perspectives of patients who underwent DBS regarding changes to their personality, authenticity, autonomy, risk-taking, and overall quality of life., Results: Patients (n = 21) who were enrolled in adaptive DBS trials for Parkinson's disease, essential tremor, obsessive-compulsive disorder, Tourette's syndrome, or dystonia participated. Qualitative data revealed that participants, in general, reported positive experiences with alterations in what was described as 'personality, mood, and behavior changes.' The majority of participants reported increases in quality of life. No participants reported 'regretting the decision to undergo DBS.', Conclusion(s): The findings from this patient sample do not support the narrative that DBS results in substantial adverse changes to dimensions of personality, mood, and behavior. Changes reported as "negative" or "undesired" were few in number, and transient in nature., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Psychiatric polygenic risk scores (PRS) have potential utility in psychiatric care and prevention, but there are concerns about their implementation. We surveyed 960 US-based practicing child and adolescent psychiatrists' (CAP) about their experiences, perspectives, and potential uses of psychiatric PRS. While 23% of CAP reported that they had never heard of PRS, 10 % of respondents have had a patient/family bring PRS to them and 4% have generated PRS for patients. Though 25% stated they would request PRS if a patient/caregiver asked, 35% indicated that nothing would prompt them to request PRS. Most respondents (54%) believed psychiatric PRS are currently at least slightly useful and 87% believed they will be so in 5 years. More than 70% indicated they would take action in response to a child with a top fifth percentile psychiatric PRS but no diagnosis: 48% would increase monitoring of symptoms, 42% would evaluate for current symptoms, and 4% would prescribe medications. Yet, most respondents were concerned that high-PRS results could lead to overtreatment and negatively impact patients' emotional well-being. Findings indicate emerging use of psychiatric PRS within child and adolescent psychiatry in the US. It is critical to examine the ethical and clinical challenges that PRS may generate and begin efforts to promote their informed and responsible use., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Clinical trial participants who benefit from experimental neural devices for the treatment of debilitating and otherwise treatment-resistant conditions are generally not ensured continued access to effective therapy or maintenance of devices at the conclusion of trials., Objective/hypothesis: Post-trial obligations have been extensively examined in the context of drug trials, but there has been little empirical examination of stakeholder perspectives regarding these obligations in the rapidly growing field of neural device research., Methods: This study examined the perspectives of 44 stakeholders (i.e., 23 researchers and 21 patient-participants) involved in implantable neural device trials., Results: Researchers were concerned about current post-trial management, identified barriers like cost, and suggested ways to improve the system. Many patient-participants were unaware of whether they would have post-trial access, but most thought they should keep devices if beneficial, and agreed with researchers that more should be done to help them keep and maintain these neural devices., Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first in-depth examination of researcher perspectives regarding continued access to experimental neural devices and only the second such examination of patient-participant perspectives. These data can help inform future ethical and policy decisions about post-trial access to implantable neurotechnology., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) among adults is the first psychiatric indication of deep brain stimulation (DBS) to receive an FDA Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE). Given the HDE approval and encouraging evidence that has since emerged, exploration of DBS for OCD may expand to adolescents in the future. More than 100,000 adolescents in the U.S. suffer from refractory OCD, and there is already a precedent for the transition of DBS in adults to children in the case of dystonia. However, the risk-benefit analysis of pediatric DBS for OCD may be more complex and raise different ethical questions compared to pediatric DBS for dystonia., Objective: This study aimed to gain insight into pressing ethical issues related to using DBS in adolescents with OCD., Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians (n = 25) caring for pediatric patients with refractory OCD. Interview transcripts were coded with MAXQDA 2018 software and analyzed using thematic content analysis to identify emergent themes., Results: Five central themes were identified in clinician responses, three of which were exacerbated in the pediatric DBS setting. Clinicians expressed concerns related to conditions of decision-making including adolescents' capacity to assent (80%), the lack of evidence about the outcomes and potential unknown effects of using DBS in adolescents with OCD (68%), and the importance of exhausting other treatment options before considering DBS (20%)., Conclusions: Strategies to address clinician concerns include implementation of validated decision support tools and further research into the outcomes of pediatric DBS for OCD to establish clear guidelines for patient selection., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: Dr. Storch receives book royalties from Elsevier, Wiley, Oxford, American Psychological Association, Jessica Kingsley, Springer, and Lawrence Erlbaum. He is a consultant for Biohaven. He co-founded Rethinking Behavioral Health which is a healthcare consulting group. He owns stock in NView. He receives research support from NIH, Ream Foundation, IOCDF, and Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.

This research study provides patient and caregiver perspectives as to whether or not to undergo adaptive deep brain stimulation (aDBS) research. A total of 51 interviews were conducted in a multi-site study including patients undergoing aDBS and their respective caregivers along with persons declining aDBS. Reasons highlighted for undergoing aDBS included hopes for symptom alleviation, declining quality of life, desirability of being in research, and altruism. The primary reasons for not undergoing aDBS issues were practical rather than specific to aDBS technology, although some persons highlighted a desire to not be the first to trial the new technology. These themes are discussed in the context of "push" factors wherein any form of surgical intervention is preferable to none and "pull" factors wherein opportunities to contribute to science combine with hopes and/or expectations for the alleviation of symptoms. We highlight the significance of study design in decision making. aDBS is an innovative technology and not a completely new technology. Many participants expressed value in being part of research as an important consideration. We suggest that there are important implications when comparing patient perspectives vs. theoretical perspectives on the choice for or against aDBS. Additionally, it will be important how we communicate with patients especially in reference to the complexity of study design. Ultimately, this study reveals that there are benefits and potential risks when choosing a research study that involves implantation of a medical device., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The handling editor declared a shared affiliation with three of the authors, SO, BK, and PS, at the time of review., (Copyright © 2021 Outram, Muñoz, Kostick-Quenet, Sanchez, Kalwani, Lavingia, Torgerson, Sierra-Mercado, Robinson, Pereira, Koenig, Starr, Gunduz, Foote, Okun, Goodman, McGuire, Zuk and Lázaro-Muñoz.)

Gilbert, Viaña, and Ineichen call for further empirical work on the effects of deep brain stimulation (DBS) on personality, identity, agency, authenticity, autonomy and self (PIAAAS) (Gilbert et al. 2018a). In particular, they emphasize the need for more sophisticated instruments measuring potential changes in PIAAAS. The development of such instruments, they argue, will provide a stronger empirical foundation for theoretical neuroethics work on DBS. We agree with this proposal. However, we believe that theoretical neuroethics has an important role to play in advancing empirical neuroethics that is not emphasized in Gilbert et al.'s remarks on the relationship between empirical and theoretical neuroethics. The development of instruments for more fully assessing changes in PIAAAS will require significant clarification of its component concepts. This task of clarification is the purview of theoretical neuroethics. In this article, we sketch how theoretical neuroethics can clarify the concept of autonomy. We hope that this can both serve as a model for the conceptual clarification of other components of PIAAAS and contribute to the development of the empirical measures that Gilbert and colleagues propose., Competing Interests: CONFLICT OF INTEREST The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Objective: The present study aims to understand perceptions of deep brain stimulation (DBS) for severe obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in adolescents among two groups: parents of children with a history of OCD and adults with a history of OCD. Methods: Two hundred sixty participants completed a questionnaire exploring their treatment history, relevant symptom severity, DBS knowledge, and DBS attitudes using an acceptability scale and a series of statements indicating levels of willingness or reluctance to consider DBS for adolescents with severe OCD or severe epilepsy. Results: Overall, participants found DBS to be fairly acceptable for adolescents with severe OCD, with 63% reporting at least 7/10 on a 0-10 acceptability Likert scale. Respondents were more willing to consider DBS for epilepsy than for OCD. Several factors were associated with greater willingness to consider DBS for OCD, including familiarity with DBS, the presence of suicidal thoughts, assurances of daily functioning improvements, and assurances of substantial symptom reduction. Concerns about safety, personality changes, and long-term effects on the body were associated with greatest reluctance to consider DBS for OCD. Conclusions: Our findings support the importance of increasing parents' familiarity with DBS, monitoring factors participants identified as most important to their DBS perceptions in future DBS research, and communicating benefits and risks clearly. We also highlight the need for further research on perceptions of DBS for severe and refractory OCD in adolescents.

Purpose: Patient-participants in psychiatric genetics research may be at an increased risk for negative psychosocial impacts related to the return of genetic research results. Examining psychiatric genetics researchers' return of results practices and perspectives can aid the development of empirically informed and ethically sound guidelines., Methods: A survey of 407 psychiatric genetics researchers from 39 countries was conducted to examine current return of results practices, attitudes, and knowledge., Results: Most respondents (61%) reported that their studies generated medically relevant genomic findings. Although 24% have returned results to individual participants, 52% of those involved in decisions about return of results plan to return or continue to return results. Respondents supported offering "medically actionable" results related to psychiatric disorders (82%), and the majority agreed non-medically actionable risks for Huntington (71%) and Alzheimer disease (64%) should be offered. About half (49%) of respondents supported offering reliable polygenic risk scores for psychiatric conditions. Despite plans to return, only 14% of researchers agreed there are adequate guidelines for returning results, and 59% rated their knowledge about how to manage the process for returning results as poor., Conclusion: Psychiatric genetics researchers support returning a wide range of results to patient-participants, but they lack adequate knowledge and guidelines.

Many research sponsors and genetic researchers agree that some medically relevant genetic findings should be offered to participants. The scarcity of research specific to returning genetic results related to psychiatric disorders hinders the ability to develop ethically justified and empirically informed guidelines for responsible return of results for these conditions. We surveyed 407 psychiatric genetics researchers from 39 countries to examine their perceptions of challenges to returning individual results and views about best practices for the process of offering and returning results. Most researchers believed that disclosure of results should be delayed if a patient-participant is experiencing significant psychiatric symptoms. Respondents felt that there is little research on the impact of returning results to participants with psychiatric disorders and agreed that return of psychiatric genetics results to patient-participants may lead to discrimination by insurance companies or other third parties. Almost half of researchers believed results should be returned through a participant's treating psychiatrist, but many felt that clinicians lack knowledge about how to manage genetic research results. Most researchers thought results should be disclosed by genetic counselors or medical geneticists and in person; however, almost half also supported disclosure via telemedicine. This is the first global survey to examine the perspectives of researchers with experience working with this patient population and with these conditions. Their perspectives can help inform the development of much-needed guidelines to promote responsible return of results related to psychiatric conditions to patients with psychiatric disorders.

A consensus has yet to emerge whether deep brain stimulation (DBS) for treatment-refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) can be considered an established therapy. In 2014, the World Society for Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery (WSSFN) published consensus guidelines stating that a therapy becomes established when "at least two blinded randomized controlled clinical trials from two different groups of researchers are published, both reporting an acceptable risk-benefit ratio, at least comparable with other existing therapies. The clinical trials should be on the same brain area for the same psychiatric indication." The authors have now compiled the available evidence to make a clear statement on whether DBS for OCD is established therapy. Two blinded randomized controlled trials have been published, one with level I evidence (Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) score improved 37% during stimulation on), the other with level II evidence (25% improvement). A clinical cohort study (N = 70) showed 40% Y-BOCS score improvement during DBS, and a prospective international multi-center study 42% improvement (N = 30). The WSSFN states that electrical stimulation for otherwise treatment refractory OCD using a multipolar electrode implanted in the ventral anterior capsule region (including bed nucleus of stria terminalis and nucleus accumbens) remains investigational. It represents an emerging, but not yet established therapy. A multidisciplinary team involving psychiatrists and neurosurgeons is a prerequisite for such therapy, and the future of surgical treatment of psychiatric patients remains in the realm of the psychiatrist.

The expansion of research on deep brain stimulation (DBS) and adaptive DBS (aDBS) raises important neuroethics and policy questions related to data sharing. However, there has been little empirical research on the perspectives of experts developing these technologies. We conducted semi-structured, open-ended interviews with aDBS researchers regarding their data sharing practices and their perspectives on ethical and policy issues related to sharing. Researchers expressed support for and a commitment to sharing, with most saying that they were either sharing their data or would share in the future and that doing so was important for advancing the field. However, those who are sharing reported a variety of sharing partners, suggesting heterogeneity in sharing practices and lack of the broad sharing that would reflect principles of open science. Researchers described several concerns and barriers related to sharing, including privacy and confidentiality, the usability of shared data by others, ownership and control of data (including potential commercialization), and limited resources for sharing. They also suggested potential solutions to these challenges, including additional safeguards to address privacy issues, standardization and transparency in analysis to address issues of data usability, professional norms and heightened cooperation to address issues of ownership and control, and streamlining of data transmission to address resource limitations. Researchers also offered a range of views on the sensitivity of neural activity data (NAD) and data related to mental health in the context of sharing. These findings are an important input to deliberations by researchers, policymakers, neuroethicists, and other stakeholders as they navigate ethics and policy questions related to aDBS research., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Zuk, Sanchez, Kostick, Torgerson, Muñoz, Hsu, Kalwani, Sierra-Mercado, Robinson, Outram, Koenig, Pereira, McGuire and Lázaro-Muñoz.)

Interest and investment in closed-loop or adaptive deep brain stimulation (aDBS) systems have quickly expanded due to this neurotechnology's potential to more safely and effectively treat refractory movement and psychiatric disorders compared to conventional DBS. A large neuroethics literature outlines potential ethical concerns about conventional DBS and aDBS systems. Few studies, however, have examined stakeholder perspectives about ethical issues in aDBS research and other next-generation DBS devices. To help fill this gap, we conducted semi-structured interviews with researchers involved in aDBS trials ( n = 23) to gain insight into the most pressing ethical questions in aDBS research and any concerns about specific features of aDBS devices, including devices' ability to measure brain activity, automatically adjust stimulation, and store neural data. Using thematic content analysis, we identified 8 central themes in researcher responses. The need to measure and store neural data for aDBS raised concerns among researchers about data privacy and security issues (noted by 91% of researchers), including the avoidance of unintended or unwanted third-party access to data. Researchers reflected on the risks and safety (83%) of aDBS due to the experimental nature of automatically modulating then observing stimulation effects outside a controlled clinical setting and in relation to need for surgical battery changes. Researchers also stressed the importance of ensuring informed consent and adequate patient understanding (74%). Concerns related to automaticity and device programming (65%) were discussed, including current uncertainties about biomarker validity. Additionally, researchers discussed the potential impacts of automatic stimulation on patients' autonomy and control over stimulation (57%). Lastly, researchers discussed concerns related to patient selection (defining criteria for candidacy) (39%), challenges of ensuring post-trial access to care and device maintenance (39%), and potential effects on personality and identity (30%). To help address researcher concerns, we discuss the need to minimize cybersecurity vulnerabilities, advance biomarker validity, promote the balance of device control between patients and clinicians, and enhance ongoing informed consent. The findings from this study will help inform policies that will maximize the benefits and minimize potential harms of aDBS and other next-generation DBS devices., (Copyright © 2020 Muñoz, Kostick, Sanchez, Kalwani, Torgerson, Hsu, Sierra-Mercado, Robinson, Outram, Koenig, Pereira, McGuire, Zuk and Lázaro-Muñoz.)