<p>The clinical development of implantable neural devices raises complex ethical questions about post-trial responsibilities to participants. Continued support for participants who continue to use investigational implantable neural devices requires ongoing specialist care, technical expertise, access to tertiary clinical infrastructure, and substantial financial resources to pay for the device and related procedures. However, continued access may not be possible if the trial shows no benefit, if financial barriers limit commercial viability, or if safety concerns lead to suspension or early termination. Specific ethical guidance on post-trial responsibility is urgently needed. To address this challenge within the Australian innovation context, we conducted a modified Delphi study with a multidisciplinary panel of 24 experts, including representatives from industry, bioethics, law, neurosurgery, clinical psychology/neuropsychology, clinical research, neural engineering, regulation and governance, and lived experience advocacy. The process involved two workshops and a survey, guided by established RAND/UCLA methods with context-specific modifications. Drawing on prior empirical research and regulatory review, the panel developed 11 consensus recommendations for responsible post-trial practices. All recommendations achieved high levels of agreement and were rated as highly important for addressing ethical risks in the Australian environment. These are the first jurisdiction-specific recommendations of their kind, and we anticipate they will substantially enhance ethical and practical standards for post-trial responsibility in implantable neural device research in Australia and internationally.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Recommendations on post-trial responsibility in implantable neural device research: a multidisciplinary consensus study

  • Nathan Higgins,
  • Brette Blakely,
  • Roland Everingham,
  • Frederic Gilbert,
  • Sarah Griffin,
  • Alexander R. Harris,
  • Sally Herring,
  • Calvin Wai Loon Ho,
  • Kate Hoy,
  • Scott Kiel-Chisholm,
  • Julian Koplin,
  • Sharon Lawn,
  • Allan McCay,
  • Nitya Phillipson,
  • Bernadette Richards,
  • Jeffrey V. Rosenfeld,
  • Ehsan Shamsi Gooshki,
  • John Noel Viana,
  • John Gardner,
  • Adrian Carter

摘要

The clinical development of implantable neural devices raises complex ethical questions about post-trial responsibilities to participants. Continued support for participants who continue to use investigational implantable neural devices requires ongoing specialist care, technical expertise, access to tertiary clinical infrastructure, and substantial financial resources to pay for the device and related procedures. However, continued access may not be possible if the trial shows no benefit, if financial barriers limit commercial viability, or if safety concerns lead to suspension or early termination. Specific ethical guidance on post-trial responsibility is urgently needed. To address this challenge within the Australian innovation context, we conducted a modified Delphi study with a multidisciplinary panel of 24 experts, including representatives from industry, bioethics, law, neurosurgery, clinical psychology/neuropsychology, clinical research, neural engineering, regulation and governance, and lived experience advocacy. The process involved two workshops and a survey, guided by established RAND/UCLA methods with context-specific modifications. Drawing on prior empirical research and regulatory review, the panel developed 11 consensus recommendations for responsible post-trial practices. All recommendations achieved high levels of agreement and were rated as highly important for addressing ethical risks in the Australian environment. These are the first jurisdiction-specific recommendations of their kind, and we anticipate they will substantially enhance ethical and practical standards for post-trial responsibility in implantable neural device research in Australia and internationally.