EANM guidance document: dosimetry for first-in-human studies and early phase clinical trials

The numbers of diagnostic and therapeutic nuclear medicine agents under investigation are rapidly increasing. Both novel emitters and novel carrier molecules require careful selection of measurement procedures. This document provides guidance relevant to dosimetry for first-in human and early phase clinical trials of such novel agents. The guideline includes a short introduction to different emitters and carrier molecules, followed by recommendations on the methods for activity measurement, pharmacokinetic analyses, as well as absorbed dose calculations and uncertainty analyses. The optimal use of preclinical information and studies involving diagnostic analogues is discussed. Good practice reporting is emphasised, and relevant dosimetry parameters and method descriptions to be included are listed. Three examples of first-in-human dosimetry studies, both for diagnostic tracers and radionuclide therapies, are given.

Bioethics Without Theory?

The question that this paper tries to answer is Q: "Can good academic bioethics be done without commitment to moral theory?" It is argued that the answer to Q is an unequivocal "Yes" for most of what we could call "critical bioethics," that is, the kind of bioethics work that primarily criticizes positions or arguments already in the literature or put forward by policymakers. The answer is also "Yes" for much of empirical bioethics. The second part of the paper then provides an analysis of Q in relation to "constructive bioethics," that is, bioethics work aimed at providing an argument for a particular position. In this part, it is argued that a number of the approaches or methods used that initially look like they involve no commitment to moral theory, nevertheless, involve such a commitment. This is shown to be the case for reflective equilibrium, mid-level theory, the use of theory fragments, and argument by analogy.

Radiographers use of social media - SoMe in a Nordic perspective

INTRODUCTION

Social media (SoMe) is widely used as a communication platform in everyday life. Also, healthcare professionals have embraced SoMe as a communication tool for both peers and patients. It is becoming an interactive tool for discussing professionals' issues and a place where learning and education occur. This study explores the specific patterns of SoMe use for radiographers' in the Nordic countries. The aim of this survey was to investigate radiographers use of social platforms in a professional setting.

METHODS

A 29-item survey was prepared, and pilot-tested. The survey was produced in Danish a language that all Nordic countries master. In general, most Nordic languages are very similar. The survey was distributed by online platforms such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter/X, and also distributed by newsletters by the Norwegian and Danish national radiographers societies. All data was collected anonymously. An Ethical Research approval was obtained from the University of Southern Denmark.

RESULTS

A total of 242 respondents completed the survey (Denmark n = 183, Norway n = 48, Sweden n = 8, and n = 3 from other Scandinavian countries). The respondents included 186 females, 52 males and four were undisclosed. On average, the respondents spent approximately 2 h and 23 min daily on SoMe, with 27 min specifically dedicated to content relevant to radiographers. Facebook was the preferred platform with 93 % (n = 226). A total of 5.4 % (n = 13) respondents had experienced contact from patients and/or next of kin, while 92 % (n = 222) reported no such interactions and 2.9 % (n = 7) were undisclosed. A total of 52.8 % (n = 128) used SoMe in relation to courses, conferences, or online meetings. This shows that time spent on content relevant to radiographers imply that SoMe can be a relevant tool for reaching radiographers.

CONCLUSION

The survey demonstrates radiographers' use of SoMe for personal and professional interest, with Facebook as the preferred social media platform. SoMe were mostly used during courses, conferences, or online meetings with half of the respondent reported using SoMe platforms during working hours. These results underscore the untapped potential of SoMe in professional healthcare settings. Additionally, the study offers insight into current practices, facilitating comparisons to identify trends in SoMe usage within the radiographer community.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The findings advocate for the strategic use of SoMe by radiographers', emphasizing professional networking and knowledge sharing. However, clear guidelines are necessary to ensure patient confidentiality and data security in these digital interactions.

Public Reason Requirements in Bioethical Discourse

This paper analyzes the use of public reason requirements in bioethical discourse and discusses when such requirements are warranted. By a "public reason requirement," I mean a requirement that those involved in a particular discourse or debate only use reasons that can properly be described as public reasons. The first part of the paper outlines the concept of public reasons as developed by John Rawls and others and discusses some of the general criticisms of the concept and its importance. The second part then distinguishes between two types of public reason requirements in bioethics. One type is what I will call the orthodox public reason requirement since it hews closely to the original Rawlsian conception. The second is what I will call the expansive public reason requirement, which departs quite radically from the Rawlsian conception and applies the requirement not to policy discourse or policymaking, but to the actions of individuals. Both types of requirements will be analyzed, and some problems in applying public reason requirements in bioethics will be identified. It will be argued that the expansive public reason requirement is misguided. The concluding part argues that requirements of civic civility and what Rawls terms an "inclusive view" of public reason should be important in bioethical discourse.

Population preferences for AI system features across eight different decision-making contexts

Artificial intelligence systems based on deep learning architectures are being investigated as decision-support systems for human decision-makers across a wide range of decision-making contexts. It is known from the literature on AI in medicine that patients and the public hold relatively strong preferences in relation to desirable features of AI systems and their implementation, e.g. in relation to explainability and accuracy, and in relation to the role of the human decision-maker in the decision chain. The features that are preferred can be seen as 'protective' of the patient's interests. These types of preferences may plausibly vary across decision-making contexts, but the research on this question has so far been almost exclusively performed in relation to medical AI. In this cross-sectional survey study we investigate the preferences of the adult Danish population for five specific protective features of AI systems and implementation across a range of eight different use cases in the public and commercial sectors ranging from medical diagnostics to the issuance of parking tickets. We find that all five features are seen as important across all eight contexts, but that they are deemed to be slightly less important when the implications of the decision made are less significant to the respondents.

Plant size, latitude, and phylogeny explain within-population variability in herbivory

Interactions between plants and herbivores are central in most ecosystems, but their strength is highly variable. The amount of variability within a system is thought to influence most aspects of plant-herbivore biology, from ecological stability to plant defense evolution. Our understanding of what influences variability, however, is limited by sparse data. We collected standardized surveys of herbivory for 503 plant species at 790 sites across 116° of latitude. With these data, we show that within-population variability in herbivory increases with latitude, decreases with plant size, and is phylogenetically structured. Differences in the magnitude of variability are thus central to how plant-herbivore biology varies across macroscale gradients. We argue that increased focus on interaction variability will advance understanding of patterns of life on Earth.

Towards a concept of embodied autonomy: In what ways can a patient's body contribute to the autonomy of medical decisions?

"Bodily autonomy" has received significant attention in bioethics, medical ethics, and medical law in terms of the general inviolability of a patient's bodily sovereignty and the rights of patients to make choices (e.g., reproductive choices) that concern their own body. However, the role of the body in terms of how it can or does contribute to a patient's capacity for, or exercises of their autonomy in clinical decision-making situations has not been explicitly addressed. The approach to autonomy in this paper is aligned with traditional theories that conceive autonomy in terms of an individual's capacities for, and exercises of rational reflection. However, at the same time, this paper extends these accounts by arguing that autonomy is, in part, embodied. Specifically, by drawing on phenomenological conceptions of the experience of autonomy, we argue that, in principle, the body is a necessary component of the capacity for autonomy. Secondly, through the presentation of two different cases, we highlight ways in which a patient's body can contribute to the autonomy of treatment choices. Ultimately, we hope to encourage others to explore additional conditions under which a concept of embodied autonomy should be employed in medical decision making, how its underlying principles might be operationalised in clinical situations, and its consequences for approaches to patient autonomy in healthcare practice, policy, and law.

Patient involvement and expectations during CT scans. Tinkering to involve patients and offer care in radiographic practice

INTRODUCTION

This study investigated how patients expected and experienced to be put first and cared for in diagnostic imaging settings and how putting the patient first was operationalized in practice.

METHODS

A qualitative field study was conducted in two Danish hospitals to investigate patients' expectations and experiences of care and involvement during CT examinations. Data collection methods included semi-structured interviews and participant observations of five examination cases. Three Computed Tomography (CT) guided lung biopsy intervention studies and two conventional CT studies of the chest of patients being investigated for lung cancer in Fast Track Cancer Referral Programs (FTCRP) were included.

RESULTS

Patients reported low expectations of receiving care and being involved during examinations. Perceptions of receiving care predominantly consisted of being received in a kind, personalized manner. Expectations of involvement in the procedure were reported in terms of readiness to do as they were told, complying with requests put to each patient. Concepts of care and involvement were challenged in their formal meanings and found to be entangled in complex interactions within sociotechnical boundaries.

CONCLUSION

Patient's expectations of receiving care and being involved in the diagnostic imaging procedures, were expressed in noncommittal terms, and were overshadowed by patients' focus on getting through the examination, in order to get an answer to their tentative diagnose. The concepts of care and patient involvement were negotiated and reconceptualized within the sociotechnical framework of the diagnostic imaging situation of the individual patient. The concept of "tinkering" is suggested as a means of understanding how patientcare is performed during diagnostic imaging procedures.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Issues were identified that may help professionals to put "the patient first", thus, improving patient centered care.

Adaptive, platform trials assessing therapies for hospitalized COVID-19 patients: Informed consent forms omitted a few important elements of information

Background

The information provided to participants of adaptive platform trials assessing therapies for COVID-19 inpatients is unknown. We aim to evaluate it by reviewing participant information sheets/informed consent forms (PIS/ICFs).

Methods

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and ClinicalTrials.gov (28 March 2022) to identify non-industry-sponsored adaptive platform phase 2+ trials with publicly available protocols and PIS/ICFs, selecting versions closest to the initial one. We assessed the elements of information included in the Good Clinical Practice guidelines and the Declaration of Helsinki as present, absent, or deficient (incompletely described).

Results

We included PIS/ICFs of 11 trials (ACCORD-2, ACTIV-1IM, Bari-SolidAct, CATALYST, Discovery, HEAL-COVID, ITAC, RECOVERY, REMAP-COVID, Solidarity and TACTIC-R), which were 4-32 pages long (median (md) = 11). Between two and 11 (md = 6) of the 25 different elements of information assessed were omitted or deficiently described in the PIS/ICFs of the 11 trials. Information about providing trial results, investigators' conflicts of interest, post-study provisions, payment to and anticipated expenses for participants, number of participants, and on whether participants will receive new information that could impact their decision on staying in the trial, were omitted or deficiently described in at least five PIS/ICFs.

Conclusions

Investigators failed to include a few important elements of information in the trial's PIS/ICF deemed relevant by international standards. In protocols of future trials, investigators should explain why elements of information specified in the Good Clinical Practice guidelines and/or by the Declaration of Helsinki were omitted from the PIS/ICFs.

Examining public views on decentralised health data sharing

In recent years, researchers have begun to explore the use of Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLT), also known as blockchain, in health data sharing contexts. However, there is a significant lack of research that examines public attitudes towards the use of this technology. In this paper, we begin to address this issue and present results from a series of focus groups which explored public views and concerns about engaging with new models of personal health data sharing in the UK. We found that participants were broadly in favour of a shift towards new decentralised models of data sharing. Retaining 'proof' of health information stored about patients and the capacity to provide permanent audit trails, enabled by immutable and transparent properties of DLT, were regarded as particularly valuable for our participants and prospective data custodians. Participants also identified other potential benefits such as supporting people to become more health data literate and enabling patients to make informed decisions about how their data was shared and with whom. However, participants also voiced concerns about the potential to further exacerbate existing health and digital inequalities. Participants were also apprehensive about the removal of intermediaries in the design of personal health informatics systems.

The right to a second opinion on Artificial Intelligence diagnosis-Remedying the inadequacy of a risk-based regulation

In this paper, we argue that patients who are subjects of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-supported diagnosis and treatment planning should have a right to a second opinion, but also that this right should not necessarily be construed as a right to a physician opinion. The right to a second opinion could potentially be satisfied by another independent AI system. Our considerations on the right to second opinion are embedded in the wider debate on different approaches to the regulation of AI, and we conclude the article by providing a number of reasons for preferring a rights-based approach over a risk-based approach.

Research Integrity Attitudes and Behaviors are Difficult to alter: Results from a ten Year Follow-up Study in Norway

Background: Research integrity has obtained much attention in research communities, but also in the general public. To improve research integrity is difficult as it involves complex systems of knowledge, attitudes, and practices. The objective of this study is to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of cohorts of PhD candidates at one faculty (of medicine) over time and compare this to finished PhDs of the same cohorts. Material and method: Researchers (n  =  186) awarded the degree PhD at the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Oslo in 2019 were invited to answer a questionnaire about knowledge, attitudes and actions related to scientific dishonesty. 94 responded (50.5%). The results were compared with results among first-year PhD candidates who responded to the same questionnaire during 2010-20 (n  =  536) and to those who finished PhDs in 2016 (n  =  86). Results: For the years 2010-2020 1.1% of the PhD candidates report to have engaged in severe scientific misconduct (FFP) while 0.9% report to have presented results in a misleading way. 2.3% report that they know of persons at their department who have engaged in FFP the last 12 months. In total 1.5% report to have experienced pressure to engage in severe scientific misconduct (FFP) while 2.1% report to have experienced pressure to present results in a misleading way. On average 12.8% report to have been exposed to unethical pressure concerning inclusion or ordering of authors during the last 12 months, and 28.8% report to have knowledge about their department's written policies about research integrity. While some attitudes improve over the years, attitudes in general are not much changed from 2010-2020. None of the PhDs that received a PhD from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Oslo in 2019 reported to have engaged in FFT or having experienced pressure to do so.1.1% experienced pressure to present results in other misleading ways, while 26.6% of respondents had experienced unethical pressure in relation to authorship during the course of the PhD fellowship. 4.3% knew about someone at their department who had presented results in a misleading manner. Some attitudes were not in line with traditional conceptions of research integrity, but most agreed that their research environment displayed research integrity. Conclusion: This long-term follow up study shows that few PhD-candidates report to engage in severe scientific misconduct, that they experience little pressure to do so, and with some exceptions, attitudes in in line with good research integrity. However, pressure in relation to authorship is relatively common. There is some improvement in research integrity from PhD candidates to recently finished PhDs, but in general research integrity is stable over time.

How WHO Solidarity Plus trial participants in countries on four continents are informed in writing

Background

It is unknown if changes have been made to the original participant's information sheet/informed consent form (PIS/ICF) provided by the WHO Solidarity Plus team when it was transferred to participating countries.

Methods

National principal investigators from 30 countries were asked if the original PIS/ICF was edited in their countries and, if so, to share with us the one used to recruit participants. We assessed whether the 25 different elements of information from the good clinical practice guidelines and the Declaration of Helsinki were present in, deficiently described, or absent from the PIS/ICFs.

Results

Nineteen national principal investigators responded: eight (Argentina, Brazil, Ethiopia, Georgia, Iran, Lebanon, Lithuania, and Malaysia) stated that no edits were introduced to the original PIS/ICF; eight (Canada, Colombia, Philippines, India, Ireland, Pakistan, Portugal, and Switzerland) added some elements of information in the national PIS/ICF; and three (Italy, Peru, and Spain) reported not participating in the trial. None of the elements included in the original PIS/ICF were omitted from the edited PIS/IFC. Six elements of information were omitted and five deficiently described in the original PIS/ICF. The number of elements omitted from the edited PIS/ICFs varied (range = 2-5). Nine PIS/ICFs incompletely described or omitted the informing of study participants about the study results, while five deficiently described or omitted the anticipated expenses for trial participation. Information concerning whom to contact for more information or in case of injury was deficient in six PIS/ICFs. Unlike the original PIS/ICF, all edited PIS/ICFs informed participants about the existence of compensation or treatment for any injury related to the trial.

Conclusions

WHO should consider adding three of the omitted elements in PIS/ICFs of future multinational similar trials.

Misuse of co-authorship in Medical PhD Theses in Scandinavia: A Questionnaire Survey

Background

Several studies suggest that deviations from proper authorship practices are commonplace in medicine. The aim of this study was to explore experiences of and attitudes towards the handling of authorship in PhD theses at medical faculties in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.

Methods

Those who defended their PhD thesis at a medical faculty in Scandinavia during the second half of 2020 were offered, by e-mail, to participate in an online survey. Survey questions dealt with experiences of violations of the first three of the ICMJE authorship criteria and misuse of authorship order in the thesis articles, as well as respondents’ attitudes to these matters. Both questions with fixed response alternatives and questions with free-text responses were used. Quantitative data were analysed statistically using the Table functions in SPSS 25 and Chi-2 tests. Free-text responses were analysed qualitatively using manifest content analysis.

Results

287 valid questionnaires were returned (response rate: 34.1%). Almost half (46.0%) of the respondents reported that the ICMJE authorship criteria were not fully respected in at least one of the papers in their thesis, while a vast majority (96.7%) found it important that authorship is handled according to the ICMJE authorship criteria. 24.4% reported inadequate handling of authorship order in at least one paper. The qualitative results provide a wide spectrum of examples of how the ICMJE authorship criteria are circumvented.

Conclusion

Despite increasing educational efforts to reduce deviations from good research practice at Scandinavian universities, the handling of authorship in medical papers remains problematic.

First-in-Humans PET Imaging of Tissue Factor in Patients with Primary and Metastatic Cancers Using 18F-labeled Active-Site Inhibited Factor VII (18F-ASIS): Potential as Companion Diagnostic

Tissue factor (TF) expression in cancers correlates with poor prognosis. Recently, the first TF-targeted therapy was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for cervical cancer. To unfold the potential of TF-targeted therapies, correct stratification and selection of patients eligible for treatments may become important for optimization of patient outcomes. TF-targeted PET imaging based on ¹⁸F-radiolabeled active-site inhibited versions of the TF natural ligand coagulation factor VII (¹⁸F-ASIS) has in preclinical models convincingly demonstrated its use for noninvasive quantitative measurements of TF expression in tumor tissue. ¹⁸F-ASIS PET imaging thus has the potential to act as a diagnostic companion for TF-targeted therapies in the clinical setting. Methods: In this first-in-humans trial, we included 10 cancer patients (4 pancreatic, 3 breast, 2 lung, and 1 cervical cancer) for ¹⁸F-ASIS PET imaging. The mean and SD of administered ¹⁸F-ASIS activity was 157 ± 35 MBq (range, 93-198 MBq). PET/CT was performed after 1, 2, and 4 h. The primary objectives were to establish the safety, biodistribution, pharmacokinetics, and dosimetry of ¹⁸F-ASIS. Secondary objectives included quantitative measurements of SUVs in tumor tissue with PET and evaluation of the correlation (Pearson correlation) between tumor SUV_max and ex vivo TF expression in tumor tissue. Results: Administration of ¹⁸F-ASIS was safe, and no adverse events were observed. No clinically significant changes in vital signs, electrocardiograms, or blood parameters were observed after injection of ¹⁸F-ASIS. Mean ¹⁸F-ASIS plasma half-life was 3.2 ± 0.6 h, and the radiotracer was predominantly excreted in the urine. For injection activity of 200 MBq of ¹⁸F-ASIS, effective whole-body dose was 4 mSv and no prohibitive organ-specific absorbed doses were found. Heterogeneous radiotracer uptake was observed across patients and within tumors. We found a trend of a positive correlation between tumor SUV_max and ex vivo TF expression (r = 0.84, P = 0.08, n = 5). Conclusion: ¹⁸F-ASIS can be safely administered to cancer patients for PET imaging of TF expression in tumors. The trial marks the first test of a TF-targeted PET radiotracer in humans (first-in-class). The findings represent important first steps toward clinical implementation of ¹⁸F-ASIS PET imaging of TF expression.

Organoids in the Clinic: A Systematic Review of Outcomes

Research on organoids has undergone significant advances during the last decade. However, outcomes from the use of organoids in clinical trials have not yet been documented. Therefore, there is an urgent need to assess the reporting of clinically relevant outcomes from organoid research in the scientific literature. This article presents a systematic review and appraisal of the published literature in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, together with a synopsis of recent relevant reviews. Surprisingly, no randomized controlled trials have reported clinical outcomes with any types of organoids. We found very few ongoing and registered studies that may provide clinically relevant results within this decade. Our screening and interpretation of the literature, including review articles, indicate a focus on technical and preclinical aspects of organoid research. This is the first systematic review of clinical trials involving organoids. Few clinical studies are planned or already underway, and, so far, no high-quality evidence relating to the clinical outcomes of organoid research has been published. The many promises of organoid research still need to be translated from bench to bed.

Organoid biobanking, autonomy and the limits of consent

In the debates regarding the ethics of human organoid biobanking, the locus of donor autonomy has been identified in processes of consent. The problem is that, by focusing on consent, biobanking processes preclude adequate engagement with donor autonomy because they are unable to adequately recognize or respond to factors that determine authentic choice. This is particularly problematic in biobanking contexts associated with organoid research or the clinical application of organoids because, given the probability of unforeseen and varying purposes for which a donor's organoids could be employed and given the different ways in which a donor can relate to her biospecimens, a donor can value her organoids differently in different contexts, and her reasons for autonomously permitting use of her cells and tissues in one case may not support an autonomous decision in another. In response, this paper has three aims: first, to make the case for why organoid biobanks ought to respect donor autonomy conceived as authentic choice; second, to explore the autonomy-respecting limits of established and widely prevalent models of biobank consent; and third, to propose certain conditions that organoid biobanks ought to support or facilitate in order to respect donor autonomy.

Non-Fungible Tokens as a Mechanism for Representing Patient Consent

In recent years we have seen the adoption of distributed ledger technology (DLT), originally the mechanism underpinning the operation of the Bitcoin crypto currency, across a wider range of technology sectors including healthcare. DLT allows for the design of informatics systems with the properties of immutability, security, and decentralization. One recent innovation in the space has been the specification and development of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs). NFTs are decentralized DLT-based records that represent ownership of a unique digital asset. The predominant current use case for NFTs has been in the representation and sale of digital artwork, however the features offered by NFTs, unique-ness, immutability, transferability, and verifiability, are directly applicable to the design of health informatics systems. In this paper we explore these properties and describe a reference architecture for using NFTs as a means of representing and transferring records of patient's consent for medical data use.

First-in-Human Study of [68Ga]Ga-NODAGA-E[c(RGDyK)]2 PET for Integrin αvβ3 Imaging in Patients with Breast Cancer and Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Safety, Dosimetry and Tumor Imaging Ability

Arginine-Glycine-Aspartate (RGD)-recognizing cell surface integrins are involved in tumor growth, invasiveness/metastases, and angiogenesis, and are therefore an attractive treatment target in cancers. The subtype integrin α_vβ₃ is upregulated on endothelial cells during angiogenesis and on tumor cells. In vivo assessment of integrin α_vβ₃ is possible with positron emission tomography (PET). Preclinical data on radiochemical properties, tumor uptake and radiation exposure identified [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-NODAGA-E[c(RGDyK)]₂ as a promising candidate for clinical translation. In this first-in-human phase I study, we evaluate [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-NODAGA-E[c(RGDyK)]₂ PET in patients with neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN) and breast cancer (BC). The aim was to investigate safety, biodistribution and dosimetry as well as tracer uptake in tumor lesions. A total of 10 patients (5 breast cancer, 5 neuroendocrine neoplasm) received a single intravenous dose of approximately 200 MBq [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-NODAGA-E[c(RGDyK)]₂. Biodistribution profile and dosimetry were assessed by whole-body PET/CT performed at 10 min, 1 h and 2 h after injection. Safety assessment with vital parameters, electrocardiograms and blood tests were performed before and after injection. In vivo stability of [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-NODAGA-E[c(RGDyK)]₂ was determined by analysis of blood and urine. PET images were analyzed for tracer uptake in tumors and background organs. No adverse events or pharmacologic effects were observed in the 10 patients. [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-NODAGA-E[c(RGDyK)]₂ exhibited good in vivo stability and fast clearance, primarily by renal excretion. The effective dose was 0.022 mSv/MBq, equaling a radiation exposure of 4.4 mSv at an injected activity of 200 MBq. The tracer demonstrated stable tumor retention and good image contrast. In conclusion, this first-in-human phase I trial demonstrated safe use of [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-NODAGA-E[c(RGDyK)]₂ for integrin α_vβ₃ imaging in cancer patients, low radiation exposure and favorable uptake in tumors. Further studies are warranted to establish whether [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-NODAGA-E[c(RGDyK)]₂ may become a tool for early identification of patients eligible for treatments targeting integrin α_vβ₃ and for risk stratification of patients.

Assessment of Liver Fat: Dual-Energy CT versus Conventional CT with and without Contrast

We assessed the correlation between liver fat percentage using dual-energy CT (DECT) and Hounsfield unit (HU) measurements in contrast and non-contrast CT. This study included 177 patients in two patient groups: Group A (n = 125) underwent whole body non-contrast DECT and group B (n = 52) had a multiphasic DECT including a conventional non-contrast CT. Three regions of interest were placed on each image series, one in the left liver lobe and two in the right to measure Hounsfield Units (HU) as well as liver fat percentage. Linear regression analysis was performed for each group as well as combined. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was generated to establish the optimal fat percentage threshold value in DECT for predicting a non-contrast threshold of 40 HU correlating to moderate-severe liver steatosis. We found a strong correlation between fat percentage found with DECT and HU measured in non-contrast CT in group A and B individually (R² = 0.81 and 0.86, respectively) as well as combined (R² = 0.85). No significant difference was found when comparing venous and arterial phase DECT fat percentage measurements in group B (p = 0.67). A threshold of 10% liver fat found with DECT had 95% sensitivity and 95% specificity for the prediction of a 40 HU threshold using non-contrast CT. In conclusion, liver fat quantification using DECT shows high correlation with HU measurements independent of scan phase.

Availability of oral antivirals against SARS-CoV-2 infection and the requirement for an ethical prescribing approach

The first two oral antivirals, molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir–ritonavir, are now becoming available in many countries. These medicines will be indicated to treat mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in non-hospitalised patients who are at high risk of progressing to severe COVID-19. These antivirals should be prescribed within 5 days of symptom onset, and after SARS-CoV-2 infection has been confirmed. However, the availability of these antivirals will be scarce for some time due to manufacturing constraints. Each country should establish a policy on the conditions under which these antivirals can be prescribed. Such a policy should be based on the fulfilment of five ethical elements: transparency, relevance, appeals, enforcement, and fairness. Following the principles of distributive justice, molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir–ritonavir should be prescribed according to a hierarchy of predicted efficacy, ideally on the basis of an evidence-based scoring system. The placebo-controlled randomised trials that supported the temporary authorisation of these two antivirals were conducted in unvaccinated patients with COVID-19, so an evidence-based prescription practice would only use these drugs for unvaccinated patients until further data become available. However, in the countries that authorised these antivirals in 2021 (the UK and the USA), both vaccinated and unvaccinated patients meeting particular requirements have access to these antivirals. Due to the complexity of prioritisation, national health authorities should start issuing their draft policies as soon as possible and these policies should be regularly updated. The effectiveness of these antivirals against the omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 must be urgently assessed. Once implemented, molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir–ritonavir must show their effectiveness and safety in the real world, and health systems must be adequately adapted for the correct use of these antivirals.

Population Preferences for Performance and Explainability of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: Choice-Based Conjoint Survey

BACKGROUND

Certain types of artificial intelligence (AI), that is, deep learning models, can outperform health care professionals in particular domains. Such models hold considerable promise for improved diagnostics, treatment, and prevention, as well as more cost-efficient health care. They are, however, opaque in the sense that their exact reasoning cannot be fully explicated. Different stakeholders have emphasized the importance of the transparency/explainability of AI decision making. Transparency/explainability may come at the cost of performance. There is need for a public policy regulating the use of AI in health care that balances the societal interests in high performance as well as in transparency/explainability. A public policy should consider the wider public's interests in such features of AI.

OBJECTIVE

This study elicited the public's preferences for the performance and explainability of AI decision making in health care and determined whether these preferences depend on respondent characteristics, including trust in health and technology and fears and hopes regarding AI.

METHODS

We conducted a choice-based conjoint survey of public preferences for attributes of AI decision making in health care in a representative sample of the adult Danish population. Initial focus group interviews yielded 6 attributes playing a role in the respondents' views on the use of AI decision support in health care: (1) type of AI decision, (2) level of explanation, (3) performance/accuracy, (4) responsibility for the final decision, (5) possibility of discrimination, and (6) severity of the disease to which the AI is applied. In total, 100 unique choice sets were developed using fractional factorial design. In a 12-task survey, respondents were asked about their preference for AI system use in hospitals in relation to 3 different scenarios.

RESULTS

Of the 1678 potential respondents, 1027 (61.2%) participated. The respondents consider the physician having the final responsibility for treatment decisions the most important attribute, with 46.8% of the total weight of attributes, followed by explainability of the decision (27.3%) and whether the system has been tested for discrimination (14.8%). Other factors, such as gender, age, level of education, whether respondents live rurally or in towns, respondents' trust in health and technology, and respondents' fears and hopes regarding AI, do not play a significant role in the majority of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The 3 factors that are most important to the public are, in descending order of importance, (1) that physicians are ultimately responsible for diagnostics and treatment planning, (2) that the AI decision support is explainable, and (3) that the AI system has been tested for discrimination. Public policy on AI system use in health care should give priority to such AI system use and ensure that patients are provided with information.

Resource allocation in the Covid-19 health crisis: are Covid-19 preventive measures consistent with the Rule of Rescue?

The Covid-19 pandemic has led to a health crisis of a scale unprecedented in post-war Europe. In response, a large amount of healthcare resources have been redirected to Covid-19 preventive measures, for instance population-wide vaccination campaigns, large-scale SARS-CoV-2 testing, and the large-scale distribution of protective equipment (e.g., N95 respirators) to high-risk groups and hospitals and nursing homes. Despite the importance of these measures in epidemiological and economic terms, health economists and medical ethicists have been relatively silent about the ethical rationales underlying the large-scale allocation of healthcare resources to these measures. The present paper seeks to encourage this debate by demonstrating how the resource allocation to Covid-19 preventive measures can be understood through the paradigm of the Rule of Rescue, without claiming that the Rule of Rescue is the sole rationale of resource allocation in the Covid-19 pandemic.

Blockchain Native Data Linkage

Data providers holding sensitive medical data often need to exchange data pertaining to patients for whom they hold particular data. This involves requesting information from other providers to augment the data they hold. However, revealing the superset of identifiers for which a provider requires information can, in itself, leak sensitive private data. Data linkage services exist to facilitate the exchange of anonymized identifiers between data providers. Reliance on third parties to provide these services still raises issues around the trust, privacy and security of such implementations. The rise and use of blockchain and distributed ledger technologies over the last decade has, alongside innovation and disruption in the financial sphere, also brought to the fore and refined the use of associated privacy-preserving cryptographic protocols and techniques. These techniques are now being adopted and used in fields removed from the original financial use cases. In this paper we present a combination of a blockchain-native auditing and trust-enabling environment alongside a query exchange protocol. This allows the exchange of sets of patient identifiers between data providers in such a way that only identifiers lying in the intersection of sets of identifiers are revealed and shared, allowing further secure and privacy-preserving exchange of medical information to be carried out between the two parties. We present the design and implementation of a system demonstrating the effectiveness of these exchange protocols giving a reference architecture for the implementation of such a system.

Biobanks and Individual Health Related Findings: from an Obstacle to an Incentive

Despite the benefits biobanks are expected to bring, there have recently been concerns raised that the public and private non-profit biobanks still prevailing in Europe often fail to reach their initial objectives due to a variety of reasons, including a shortage of funding and insufficient utilization of collections. The necessity to find new ways to manage biobanks has been clearly recognized and one way to do this is to follow the success of some commercial direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT) companies in the biobanking field. This paper is focused on a double role the return of individual health related findings (IHRF) detected through the biobanking activities can play in the management of biobanks. These findings can be seen as an untapped opportunity to offer health related information to biobank participants. At the same time, the IHRF policy can also serve as an additional tool that can improve biobanking governance. This paper aims to consider diverse IHRF approaches as well as to explore some key ethical concerns related to them. In particular, it reveals how different accounts of personal autonomy shape consent policies related to IHRF and emphasizes ethical controversies related to the commercial DTC GT initiatives as well as some non-profit biobanks.

Survey on the Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices of Medical Students, PhD Students, and Supervisors at the Zagreb School of Medicine in Croatia

This cross-sectional study evaluates the knowledge, attitudes, experiences, and behavior of final year medical students, PhD students, and supervisors at the School of Medicine of the University of Zagreb in relation to research misconduct, questionable research practices, and the research environment. The overall response rate was 36.4% (68%-100% for the paper survey and 8%-15% for the online surveys). The analysis reveals statistically significant differences in attitude scores between PhD students and supervisors, the latter having attitudes more in concordance with accepted norms. The results overall show a nonnegligible incidence of self-reported misconduct and questionable research practices, as well as some problematic attitudes towards misconduct and questionable research practices. The incidence of problematic authorship practices was particularly high. The research environment was evaluated as being mostly supportive of research integrity.

Ethics in extracorporeal life support: a narrative review

During 50 years of extracorporeal life support (ECLS), this highly invasive technology has left a considerable imprint on modern medicine, and it still confronts researchers, clinicians and policymakers with multifarious ethical challenges. After half a century of academic discussion about the ethics of ECLS, it seems appropriate to review the state of the argument and the trends in it. Through a comprehensive literature search on PubMed, we identified three ethical discourses: (1) trials and evidence accompanying the use of ECLS, (2) ECLS allocation, decision-making and limiting care, and (3) death on ECLS and ECLS in organ donation. All included articles were carefully reviewed, arguments extracted and grouped into the three discourses. This article provides a narrative synthesis of these arguments, evaluates the opportunities for mediation and substantiates the necessity of a shared decision-making approach at the limits of medical care.

Ongoing and future COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials: challenges and opportunities

Large-scale deployment of COVID-19 vaccines will seriously affect the ongoing phases 2 and 3 randomised placebo-controlled trials assessing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates. The effect will be particularly acute in high-income countries where the entire adult or older population could be vaccinated by late 2021. Regrettably, only a small proportion of the population in many low-income and middle-income countries will have access to available vaccines. Sponsors of COVID-19 vaccine candidates currently in phase 2 or initiating phase 3 trials in 2021 should consider continuing the research in countries with limited affordability and availability of COVID-19 vaccines. Several ethical principles must be implemented to ensure the equitable, non-exploitative, and respectful conduct of trials in resource-poor settings. Once sufficient knowledge on the immunogenicity response to COVID-19 vaccines is acquired, non-inferiority immunogenicity trials—comparing the immune response of a vaccine candidate to that of an authorised vaccine—would probably be the most common trial design. Until then, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover trials will continue to play a role in the development of new vaccine candidates. WHO or the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences should define an ethical framework for the requirements and benefits for trial participants and host communities in resource-poor settings that should require commitment from all vaccine candidate sponsors from high-income countries.

Back to WHAT? The role of research ethics in pandemic times

The Covid-19 pandemic creates an unprecedented threatening situation worldwide with an urgent need for critical reflection and new knowledge production, but also a need for imminent action despite prevailing knowledge gaps and multilevel uncertainty. With regard to the role of research ethics in these pandemic times some argue in favor of exceptionalism, others, including the authors of this paper, emphasize the urgent need to remain committed to core ethical principles and fundamental human rights obligations all reflected in research regulations and guidelines carefully crafted over time. In this paper we disentangle some of the arguments put forward in the ongoing debate about Covid-19 human challenge studies (CHIs) and the concomitant role of health-related research ethics in pandemic times. We suggest it might be helpful to think through a lens differentiating between risk, strict uncertainty and ignorance. We provide some examples of lessons learned by harm done in the name of research in the past and discuss the relevance of this legacy in the current situation.

A general approach to compensation for losses incurred due to public health interventions in the infectious disease context

This paper develops a general approach to how society should compensate for losses that individuals incur due to public health interventions aimed at controlling the spread of infectious diseases. The paper falls in three parts. The first part provides an initial introduction to the issues and briefly outlines five different kinds of public health interventions that will be used as test cases. They are all directed at individuals and aimed at controlling the spread of infectious diseases (1) isolation, (2) quarantine, (3) recommended voluntary social distancing, (4) changes in health care provision for asymptomatic carriers of multi-resistant microorganisms, and (5) vaccination. The interventions will be briefly described including the various risks, burdens and harms individuals who are subject to these interventions may incur. The second part briefly surveys current compensation mechanisms as far as any exist and argue that even where they exist they are clearly insufficient and do not provide adequate compensation. The third part will then develop a general framework for compensation for losses incurred due to public health interventions in the infectious disease context. This is the major analytical and constructive part of the paper. It first analyses pragmatic and ethical arguments supporting the existence of an obligation on the part of the state to compensate for such losses, and then considers whether this obligation can be defeated by (1) resource considerations, or (2) issues relating to personal responsibility.

Transcatheter interventions of coarctation of the aorta (CoA): a multinational population-based registry – procedural complications

Background

Patients with a native or re CoA with an invasively meassured peak to peak gardient >20 mmHg have a guideline indication for intervention. The decision regarding transcatheter versus surgical intervention depends on a variety of factors including location and complexity of CoA, patient/parent preference and availability of a team capable to perform the intevention with a low rate of complications. The aim of the present analysis was to describe factors associated with risk for procedural complications during transcatheter interventions in CoA. Separate anlysis was done for complications at intervention site and at access site.

Methods

All consecutive patients undergoing catheter interventions for CoA from 1st of January 2000 to 31st of December 2016 were identified by each of the particpating nine centers. The nine centers perform all catheter interventions for CoA for a complete population coverage of 25 millions inhabitants. A common protocol was filled out from medical records. Exclusion criteria were weight less than 20 kg at the time of intervention or Norwood surgery for hypoplastic left heart surgery. Complications at the intervention site included aneurysm formation, dissection of the aorta, extravasation of the aorta or neurological impairment. Complications at the access site was defined as any complication that prolonged the hospital stay.

Results

590 interventions were performed on 520 patients: two interventions n=76, three: n=11, four n=2 and one patient underwent five interventions. There was no mortality in relation to the procedure or during the hospitalisation. The age span of the patients was wide; 4–79 years old (median= 23). 51% had a native CoA, 42% post surgery re-CoA, 22% had had a previous catheter intervention. In 160 (27%) of the interventions balloon dilatation only was performed. Overall, procedural succes was 87%, n=513, 44 procedures (8%) were partially successful and 9 procedures (2%) were not successful. 512 (87%) had one day in hospital stay and 17 patients (6%) had a hospital stay longer than 3 days. In 11 procedures (1.9%) at least one complication occurred at the intervention site; (6 aneurysm formation, 3 neurological impairment, 3 dissection of aorta, 2 extra vasation of aorta), nine of them without prolonged hospital stay. In 25 procedures (4.2%) at least one complications at the access site was observed. Access site complications were associated with older age (mean 38 years (10–79))

Conclusions

In a large, multicenter registry with complete follow-up, complications at the intervention site occurred in 1.9% and at the access site in 4.2% of interventions. Transcatheter intervention of CoA can be performed with low risk of complications.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding source: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): ALF-LUA, Gothenburg Heart and Lung Foundation

Controlled human infection with SARS-CoV-2 to study COVID-19 vaccines and treatments: bioethics in Utopia

A number of papers have appeared recently arguing for the conclusion that it is ethically acceptable to infect healthy volunteers with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 as part of research projects aimed at developing COVID-19 vaccines or treatments. This position has also been endorsed in a statement by a working group for the WHO. The papers generally argue that controlled human infection (CHI) is ethically acceptable if (1) the risks to participants are low and therefore acceptable, (2) the scientific quality of the research is high, (3) the research has high social value, (4) participants give full informed consent, and (5) there is fair selection of participants. All five conditions are necessary premises in the overall argument that such research is ethically acceptable. The arguments concerning risk and informed consent have already been critically discussed in the literature. This paper therefore looks specifically at the arguments relating to condition 3 'high social value' and condition 5 'fair selection of participants' and shows that whereas they may be valid, they are not sound. It is highly unlikely that the conditions that are necessary for ethical CHI trials to take place will be fulfilled. Most, if not all, CHI trials will thus be well intentioned but unethical.

Strengthening core competences of medical and public health students for public health emergencies

Background

The importance of public health capacity development with a focus on public health emergencies and humanitarian assistance is continuously increasing at the global scale. In the time of Public Health Emergencies of International Concern is crucial to provide basic training in core public health competences to all health professionals, including students. Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, Palacký University Olomouc, Czech Republic (full ASPHER member), implemented in medical as well as public health curricula new topics focused on core competences of health professionals in the area of public health emergencies and humanitarian assistance.

Objectives

To strengthen competences and skills of medical as well as public health students to prepare them better for public health emergencies and humanitarian assistance in the time of increasing risk of global public health emergencies. New modules were proposed and tested in all education programmes at our Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, Palacký University Olomouc (CZ): General Medicine (Czech and English programmes), Dentistry (Czech and English programmes) and Public Health (Czech programme).

Results

New modules on Public Health Emergencies, including preparedness, responses, risk management and risk communication were successfully tested in all education programmes during the academic year 2018/19 and fully implemented for the academic year 2019/20. New module has blended learning structure based on combination of face-to-face seminars and exercises with e-learning parts, including self-assessment. New module is presented in details.

Conclusions

This new education module fully supports international recommendations to strengthen public health competences and skills of medical as well as public health students to be ready for any unexpected public health emergencies at all levels, in particular at the local community level. COVID-19 pandemic confirmed.

Supported by university project CZ.02.69/0.0/16_015/0002337

Key messages

Medical and public health students with competences and skills on public health emergencies and humanitarian assistance will be an asset for any public health emergency of international concern.

New education module on public health emergencies will support both medical and public health students to be prepared for risk communication, advocacy and action if needed and called to action.