Faculty Bibliography

Background/UNASSIGNED:The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has or threatens to overwhelm health care systems. Many institutions are developing ventilator triage policies. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To characterize the development of ventilator triage policies and compare policy content. Design/UNASSIGNED:Survey and mixed-methods content analysis. Setting/UNASSIGNED:North American hospitals associated with members of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors. Participants/UNASSIGNED:Program directors. Measurements/UNASSIGNED:Characteristics of institutions and policies, including triage criteria and triage committee membership. Results/UNASSIGNED:Sixty-seven program directors responded (response rate, 91.8%); 36 (53.7%) hospitals did not yet have a policy, and 7 (10.4%) hospitals' policies could not be shared. The 29 institutions providing policies were relatively evenly distributed among the 4 U.S. geographic regions (range, 5 to 9 policies per region). Among the 26 unique policies analyzed, 3 (11.3%) were produced by state health departments. The most frequently cited triage criteria were benefit (25 policies [96.2%]), need (14 [53.8%]), age (13 [50.0%]), conservation of resources (10 [38.5%]), and lottery (9 [34.6%]). Twenty-one (80.8%) policies use scoring systems, and 20 of these (95.2%) use a version of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. Among the policies that specify the triage team's composition (23 [88.5%]), all require or recommend a physician member, 20 (87.0%) a nurse, 16 (69.6%) an ethicist, 8 (34.8%) a chaplain, and 8 (34.8%) a respiratory therapist. Thirteen (50.0% of all policies) require or recommend those making triage decisions not be involved in direct patient care, but only 2 (7.7%) require that their decisions be blinded to ethically irrelevant considerations. Limitation/UNASSIGNED:The results may not be generalizable to institutions without academic bioethics programs. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:Over one half of respondents did not have ventilator triage policies. Policies have substantial heterogeneity, and many omit guidance on fair implementation.

Controlled heart donation after circulatory determination of death (cDCD) is well-established internationally with good outcomes and could be adopted in the United States to increase heart supply if ethical and logistical challenges are comprehensively addressed. The most effective and resource-efficient method for mitigating warm ischemia after circulatory arrest is normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) in situ. This strategy requires restarting circulation after declaration of death according to circulatory criteria, which appears to challenge the legal circulatory death definition requiring irreversible cessation. Permanent cessation for life-saving efforts must be achieved to assuage this concern and ligating principal vessels maintains no blood flow to the brain, which ensures natural progression to cessation of brain function. This practice - standard in some countries - raises unique concerns about prioritizing life-saving efforts, informed authorization from decision-makers, and the clinician's role in the patient's death. To preserve public trust, medical integrity, and respect for the donor, the donation conversation must not take place until after an un-coerced decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment made in accordance with the patient's treatment goals. The decision maker(s) must understand cDCD procedure well enough to provide genuine authorization and the preservation/procurement teams must be kept separate from the clinical care team.

The only curative therapy for diseases such as organ failure is orthotopic organ transplantation. Organ transplantation has been limited due to the shortage of donor organs. The huge disparity between those who need and those who receive transplantation therapy drives the pursuit of alternative treatments. Therefore, novel therapies are warranted. Recent studies support the feasibility of generating human-porcine chimeras that one day would provide humanized vasculature and blood for transplantation and serve as important research models. The ethical issues they raise require open discussion and dialog lest promising lines of inquiry flounder due to unfounded fears or compromised public trust.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE:While many countries have central agencies responsible for formulary development, within the United States, each hospital, health care system, or insurance provider has their own pharmacy and therapeutic committee, leading to both inefficiencies and inequalities across formularies. The number and variety of processes within pharmacy and therapeutic committees also increases the likelihood that conflicts of interest will influence the development of formularies. We sought to determine how such influences could be reduced by reviewing international evidence related to the presence and harms of conflicts of interest in formulary development. METHODS:Several approaches have been taken to reduce the influence of conflicts of interest in pharmacy and therapeutics committee processes, including include disclosure, recusal, exclusion, universal consideration and dual committees. The feasibility of each of these approaches is considered in the context of the United States. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:A proposal is drawn from the discussion of various approaches to conflicts of interest in pharmacy and therapeutics committees: multicenter formulary development. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Multicentre formulary development, where resources are pooled across institutions, may lead to a reduction in the influence of conflicts of interest in pharmacy and therapeutics committee processes in the United States, increasing the chances of including the most safe, efficacious and cost-effective drugs on formularies.