Challenges to deep brain stimulation: A pragmatic response to ethical, fiscal, and regulatory concerns

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Volumn 1265, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 80-90

  Fins, Joseph J ^a   Dorfman, Gary S ^a   Pancrazio, Joseph J ^b  

^a WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

^b George Mason University   (United States)

Author keywords

501(k); Deep brain stimulation; Ethics; FDA; Intellectual property

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BRAIN DEPTH STIMULATION; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; DEPRESSION; DEVICES; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; GENE MAPPING; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMAN; LAW; LICENSING; MARKETING; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICARE; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; NEUROMODULATION; OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE DISORDER; PARKINSON DISEASE; PATENT; REIMBURSEMENT; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; STENT;

EID: 84865066431     PISSN: 00778923     EISSN: 17496632     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2012.06598.x     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Dewey, J. 2008. Common sense and science. In John Dewey, The Later Works 1925-1953. J.A. Boydston, Ed. Southern Illinois University Press. Carbondale, IL
2. Bayh-Dole Act (P.L. 96-517, Patent and Trademark Act Amendments of 1980). 37 C.F.R. 401 and 35 U.S.C. 200-212.
3. AAMC Task Force on Financial Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Research. 2003. Protecting subjects, preserving trust, promoting progress. I: policy and guidelines for the oversight of individual financial interests in human subjects research. Acad. Med. 78: 225-236.
4. Fins, J.J. 2010. Deep brain stimulation, free markets and the scientific commons: is it time to revisit the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980? Neuromodulation 13: 153-159.
5. Fins, J.J., H.S. Mayberg, B. Nuttin, et al 2011. Neuropsychiatric Deep Brain Stimulation Research and the Misuse of the Humanitarian Device Exemption. Health Affair 30: 302-311.
6. Committee on the Public Health Effectiveness of the FDA 510(k) Clearance Process; Institute of Medicine. 2011. Medical Devices and the Public's Health: The FDA 510(k) Clearance Process at 35 Years. The National Academies Press. Washington, D.C
7. Fins, J.J. 2003. From psychosurgery to neuromodulation and palliation: history's lessons for the ethical conduct and regulation of neuropsychiatric research. Neurosurg. Clin. N. Am. 14: 303-319.
8. Fins, J.J. & M. Schachter 2001. Investigators, industry and the heuristic device: ethics, patent law and clinical innovation. Account. Res. 8: 219-233.
9. Fins, J.J. 2007. Disclose and justify: intellectual property, conflicts of interest, and neurosurgery. Congress Quarterly 8: 34-36.
10. Fins, J.J., M.D. Bacchetta & F.G. Miller 1997. Clinical pragmatism: a method of moral problem solving. Kennedy Inst. Ethic. J. 7: 129-145.
11. Fins, J.J. & N.D. Schiff 2010. Conflicts of interest in deep brain stimulation research and the ethics of transparency. J. Clin. Ethic. 21: 125-132.
12. Fins, J.J. 2008. Surgical innovation and ethical dilemmas: precautions and proximity. Clev. Clin. J. Med. 75(Suppl 6): S7-S12.
13. Fins, J.J., A.R. Rezai & B.D. Greenberg Psychosurgery: avoiding an ethical redux while advancing a therapeutic future. Neurosurgery 59: 713-716.
14. Wichmann, T. & M.R. Delong 2011. Deep-brain stimulation for basal ganglia disorders. Basal Ganglia 1: 65-77.
15. Editorial. 1972. Psychosurgery. Lancet 7767: 69-70.
16. Insel, T. NIMH Director's Blog. URL http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/index.shtml.
17. Fins, J.J. 2012. Deep Brain Stimulation as a probative biology: scientific inquiry and the mosaic device. AJOB-NeuroSci. 3: 4-8.
18. FDA. 2011. What we do. URL http://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/whatwedo/default.htm [accessed on 25 November 2011].
19. Food and Drug Administration. 2010. Office of Orphan Product Development. [URL http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OC/OfficeofScienceandHealthCoordination/OfficeofOrphanProductDevelopment/default.htm [accessed on 10 December 2010].
20. Peña, C., K. Bowsher, A. Costello, et al 2007. An overview of FDA medical device regulation as it relates to deep brain stimulation devices. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 15: 421-424.
21. Food and Drug Administration. 2010. Guidance for HDE Holders, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), Clinical Investigators, and FDA staff-Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE) Regulation: Questions and Answers. URL http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm110194.htm [accessed on 10 December 2010].
22. Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 US 470 (1996).
23. Food and Drug Administration. 2009. Reclaim DBS Therapy for OCD-H050003. URL http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/Recently-ApprovedDevices/UCM125520.htm [accessed on 26 November 2011].
24. Medtronic. 2009. Medtronic Receives FDA HDE Approval to Commercialize the First Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) Therapy for a Psychiatric Indication in the United States. URL http://wwwp.medtronic.com/Newsroom/NewsReleaseDetails.do?itemId=1235065362795&lang=en_US [accessed on 26 November 2011].
25. Dooren, J.C. FDA approves Medtronic brain device to treat severe cases of OCD. Wall Street J, 19 February 2009.
26. Fins, J.J. 2004. Deep brain stimulation. In Encyclopedia of Bioethics, 3rd ed. Vol. 2. S.G. Post, Ed.: 629-634. MacMillan Reference. New York
27. Fins, J.J. 2009. Deep brain stimulation: ethical issues in clinical practice and neurosurgical research. In Neuromodulation. E. Krames, P.H. Peckham & A. Rezai, Eds.: 81-91. Elsevier. London
28. Appelbaum, P.S., L.H. Roth & C. Lidz 1982. The therapeutic misconception: informed consent in psychiatric research. Int. J. Law Psychiat. 5: 319-329.
29. Lidz, C.W., P.S. Appelbaum, T. Grisso & M. Renaud 2004. Therapeutic misconception and the appreciation of risks in clinical trials. Soc. Sci. Med. 58: 1689-1697.
30. Hurely, D. 2011. Should the FDA rescind the humanitarian exemption for DBS? Neurol. Today 11: 1, 10.
31. Fins, J.J., H. Mayberg & T. Schlaepfer 2011. FDA exemptions: the authors' reply. Health Affair 30: 1212.
32. Barnhart, B. & G. Schlickman 2010. John Paul Stevens: An Independent Life. Northern Illinois University Press. Carbondale, Illinois
33. Bernad, D.M. 2009. Humanitarian use device and humanitarian device exemption regulatory programs: pros and cons. Expert Rev. Med. Devic. 6: 137-45.
34. Medical Device Amendments of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-295, 90 Stat. 539 (1976).
35. Curfman, G.D. & R.F. Redberg 2011. Medical devices-balancing regulation and innovation. N. Engl. J. Med. 365: 975-977.
36. McCarty, M. IOM's proposal to scrap the 510(k) is kaput: what's next? Medical Device Daily, August 1, 2011.
37. Tereskerz, P.M., A.B. Hamric, T.M. Guterbock & J.D. Moreno 2009. Prevalence of industry support and its relationship to research integrity. Account. Res. 16: 78-105.
38. National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act (NCVIA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34)
39. SAFETY Act 2002: The Support Anti-terrorism by fostering Effective Technologies Act. (Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, Title VIII, Subtitle G.)
40. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. (42 U.S.C. Chapter 6A-The Public Health and Welfare, Subchapter XIX-Vaccines. Part 2.)
41. Zerhouni, E.A. 2005. US biomedical research-basic, translational, and clinical sciences. JAMA 294: 1352-1358.
42. Finkelstein, R., T. Miller & R. Baughman 2002. The challenge of translational research-a perspective from the NINDS. Nat. Neurosci. 5: 1029-1030.
43. Pancrazio, J.J. 2009. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke support for brain-machine interface technology. Neurosurg. Focus 27, Article Number E14.
44. Sporns, O., G. Tononi & R. Kotter 2005. The human connectome: a structural description of the human brain. PLoS Comput. Biol. 1: 245-251.
45. Teeters, J.L., K.D. Harris, K.J. Millman, et al 2008. Data sharing for computational neuroscience. Neuroinformatics 6: 47-55.
46. Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011. Pub. L. No. 112-29.
47. Office of the Press Secretary. 2011. Presidential Memorandum-Accelerating technology transfer and commercialization of Federal research in support of high-growth businesses. The White House. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/10/28/presidential-memorandum-accelerating-technology-transfer-and-commerciali. Accessed November 27, 2011.
48. Villasensor, J. November 11, 2011. To protect your next bright idea, mind what you say and when you say it. The Chronicle of Higher Education Page A-28.
49. Nelson, R.R. 2003. The advance of technology and the scientific commons. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A. 361: 1691-1708.
50. Schlaepfer, T.E. & J.J. Fins 2010. Deep brain stimulation and the neuroethics of responsible publishing: when one is not enough. JAMA 303: 775-776.
51. Chimowitz, M.Q., M.J. Lunn, C.P. Detdeyn, et al. for the SAMMPRIS Trial Investigators. 2011. Stenting versus Aggressive Medical Therapy for Intracranial Arterial Stenosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 365: 993-1003.
52. Kolata, G. 2011. Study is ended as a stent fails to stop stroke. The New York Times. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/health/research/08stent.html?_r/1&scp/1&sq/gina/kolata/stents&st/nyt. Accessed on September 7, 2011
53. Broderick, J.P. 2011. The challenges of intracranial revascularization for stroke prevention. N. Engl. J. Med. 365: 1054-1055.