Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:U.S. physicians may treat a patient with an investigational drug outside of a clinical trial by using the expanded access (EA) pathway or the recently created federal right to try (RTT) pathway. The EA pathway requires physicians to get prior permission from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and, except in emergency cases, institutional review board (IRB) approval. The perspectives of IRB professionals on the review of single-patient EA requests have not been empirically studied. METHODS:We used a cross-sectional online survey to ascertain IRB professionals' perspectives on IRB experiences with and preparedness for review of single-patient EA requests, as well as their attitudes about the importance of IRB review of such requests. Email invitations were sent to 234 IRB professionals connected to the SMART IRB platform. Approximately half of the survey questions used a Likert scale to assess respondents' agreement with specific statements. RESULTS:Eighty-three respondents completed the survey (36.4% response rate, with 228 deliverable e-mail invitations). Of the respondents, 73.5% were affiliated with an academic medical institution; 78.3% of respondents agreed that it is important for a designated member of an IRB to review single-patient EA requests before investigational drugs are used by patients. The majority indicated that local review of the EA request was important and that a single designated reviewer was sufficient (rather than full board). Further, 86.6% felt that their IRBs were prepared to review these requests, and 9.2% indicated that not all the single-patient EA requests reviewed by their IRBs in 2017 were approved. CONCLUSIONS:A large majority of IRB professionals affiliated with the SMART IRB platform who responded to this survey felt IRB review of single-patient EA requests is important and that their IRBs were prepared to handle such requests.

BACKGROUND:The safety and efficacy of neuroablation (ABL) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) for treatment refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) has not been examined. This study sought to generate a definitive comparative effectiveness model of these therapies. METHODS:A EMBASE/PubMed search of English-language, peer-reviewed articles reporting ABL and DBS for OCD was performed in January 2018. Change in quality of life (QOL) was quantified based on the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) and the impact of complications on QOL was assessed. Mean response of Y-BOCS was determined using random-effects, inverse-variance weighted meta-analysis of observational data. FINDINGS/RESULTS:Across 56 studies, totalling 681 cases (367 ABL; 314 DBS), ABL exhibited greater overall utility than DBS. Pooled ability to reduce Y-BOCS scores was 50.4% (±22.7%) for ABL and was 40.9% (±13.7%) for DBS. Meta-regression revealed no significant change in per cent improvement in Y-BOCS scores over the length of follow-up for either ABL or DBS. Adverse events occurred in 43.6% (±4.2%) of ABL cases and 64.6% (±4.1%) of DBS cases (p<0.001). Complications reduced ABL utility by 72.6% (±4.0%) and DBS utility by 71.7% (±4.3%). ABL utility (0.189±0.03) was superior to DBS (0.167±0.04) (p<0.001). INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:Overall, ABL utility was greater than DBS, with ABL showing a greater per cent improvement in Y-BOCS than DBS. These findings help guide success thresholds in future clinical trials for treatment refractory OCD.

The announcement of He Jiankui's germline editing of human embryos has been followed by a torrent of almost universal criticism of the claim on scientific and ethical grounds. That criticism is warranted. There is little room for anything other than vociferous condemnation of He's announcement. Presenting the results of groundbreaking work by press conference and YouTube is not science. The issue now is not whether the work supporting the claims reported from China was done in an ethical manner. It was not. What is required to move forward is a justification for doing germline editing in humans. Many think there is none, and prohibitions abound. If such work is justifiable, a serious, rigorous framework must be imposed that insures that such research is done following the highest ethical standards that both protect human subjects and insure public trust and support.