Using biomarkers in acute medicine to prevent hearing loss: should this require specific consent?

Beyond regulatory approaches to ethics: making space for ethical preparedness in healthcare research

Centralised, compliance-focused approaches to research ethics have been normalised in practice. In this paper, we argue that the dominance of such systems has been driven by neoliberal approaches to governance, where the focus on controlling and individualising risk has led to an overemphasis of decontextualised ethical principles and the conflation of ethical requirements with the documentation of 'informed consent'. Using a UK-based case study, involving a point-of-care-genetic test as an illustration, we argue that rather than ensuring ethical practice such compliance-focused approaches may obstruct valuable research. We call for an approach that encourages researchers and research communities-including regulators, ethics committees, funders and publishers of academic research-to acquire skills to make morally appropriate decisions, and not base decision-making solely on compliance with prescriptive regulations. We call this 'ethical preparedness' and outline how a research ethics system might make space for this approach.

Pharmacogenetics to Avoid Loss of Hearing (PALOH) trial: a protocol for a prospective observational implementation trial

INTRODUCTION

In conjunction with a beta-lactam, aminoglycosides are the first-choice antibiotic for empirical treatment of sepsis in the neonatal period. The m.1555A>G variant predisposes to ototoxicity after aminoglycoside administration and has a prevalence of 1 in 500. Current genetic testing can take over 24 hours, an unacceptable delay in the acute setting. This prospective-observational trial will implement a rapid point of care test (POCT), facilitating tailored antibiotic prescribing to avoid hearing loss.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The genedrive POCT can detect the m.1555A>G variant in 26 min from buccal swab. This system will be integrated into the clinical pathways at two large UK neonatal centres over a minimum 6-month period. The primary outcome is the number of neonates successfully tested for the variant out of all babies prescribed antibiotics. As a secondary outcome, clinical timings will be compared with data collected prior to implementation, measuring the impact on routine practice.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Approval for the trial was granted by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) and Human Research Authority in August 2019. Results will be published in full on completion of the study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN13704894.

PROTOCOL VERSION

V 1.3.

Using a biomarker acutely to identify babies at risk of serious adverse effects from antibiotics: where is the 'Terrible Moral and Medical Dilemma'?

We thank Parker and Wright for engaging in this roundtable debate in such a spirited way. The 'Pharmacogenetic [test] to Avoid Loss of Hearing' (PALOH) Trial is the first time a genetic point of care test has been applied in the acute neonatal setting; therefore, it is not surprising that questions have been raised which require debate, discussion and clarification. Parker and Wright misattribute several assumptions to the roundtable authors, which we would like to clarify here. Since they raise wider questions about the PALOH trial itself, several of the roundtable discussants have made a joint response.

Terrible choices in the septic child: a response to the PALOH trial round table authors

In this response article, we challenge a core assumption that lies at the centre of a round table discussion regarding the Pharmacogenetics to Avoid Loss of Hearing trial. The round table regards a genetic test for a variant (mt.1555A>G) that increases the risk of deafness if a carrier is given the antibiotic gentamicin. The idea is that rapid testing can identify neonates at risk, providing an opportunity to prevent giving an antibiotic that might cause deafness. We challenge the assumption that a positive test unequivocally guides antibiotic choice because, aside from the risk of deafness, all antibiotics for neonatal sepsis are equivalent. We argue that this assumption is faulty and has particularly troubling moral consequences. We claim that giving an alternative to gentamicin is potentially providing inferior treatment and thereby may increase the risk of death. Parents and doctors are faced with a terrible choice as a result of positive point-of-care testing (POCT): give gold-standard treatment and risk deafness or give second line care and risk death. While we do not indicate an answer to this choice, what we do argue is that such a deep and difficult choice is one that may make parents wish genetic testing was never undertaken, and therefore, contra some authors in the round table, provides a reason to gain specific consent for POCT.