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.

Innovative surgery is defined as a novel procedure, a significant modification of a standard technique, or a new application of an established technique. Although innovation is a crucial part of improving patient care in plastic surgery, there are various ethical considerations and dilemmas in performing unvalidated techniques and procedures, especially for non-life-threatening indications. The aim of this study was to gain a better understanding regarding the motivations and ethical considerations of plastic surgeons in their decision to perform innovative operations. An anonymous, institutional review board-approved, online survey was sent to members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and other international plastic surgeons worldwide. The survey asked respondents to rank various factors that influence their decisions to perform innovative plastic surgery, both reconstructive and aesthetic, on a five-point Likert scale. Seven hundred thirty-three of 26,028 plastic surgeons (response rate, 2.9 percent) responded to the survey. Although similar factors were considered to be important for both reconstructive and aesthetic operations, only approximately 50 percent of respondents considered institutional review board approval to be an important factor when considering innovation in both reconstructive (50 percent) and aesthetic surgery (51 percent), suggesting that respondents do not consider innovation a form of research that ought be subject to standard research protections. Overall, the authors' survey suggests that more effort must be extended to ethical training in plastic surgery to create a stronger professional atmosphere regarding innovation and, possibly, to the creation of a more formal group charged with oversight of innovation.