4.7 Article

Sham neurosurgical procedures in clinical trials for neurodegenerative diseases: scientific and ethical considerations

期刊

LANCET NEUROLOGY
卷 11, 期 7, 页码 643-650

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(12)70064-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  2. Dystonia Medical Research Foundation
  3. Michael J Fox Foundation
  4. National Parkinson Foundation
  5. Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre
  6. National Institutes of Health (NIH)
  7. Parkinson's Disease Foundation
  8. Movement Disorder Society
  9. Medivation
  10. National Eye Institute
  11. NINDS
  12. National Institute on Aging (NIA)
  13. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  14. Neurosearch
  15. Pfizer
  16. NIA
  17. Department of Defense
  18. Medical Research Council [G0800784, G0800784B] Funding Source: researchfish
  19. The Cure Parkinsons Trust [CPT4] Funding Source: researchfish
  20. MRC [G0800784] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There have been several recent scientific advances in gene-based and cell-based therapies that might translate into novel therapeutic approaches for neurodegenerative disorders. Such therapies might need to be directly delivered into the CNS, and complex scientific and ethical assessment will be needed to determine whether a sham neurosurgical arm should be included in clinical trials assessing these agents. We have developed a framework of points for investigators to consider when designing trials that involve direct delivery of a therapeutic agent to the CNS. The inclusion of a sham neurosurgical arm will be guided in part by the objectives of the clinical study (preliminary safety, optimisation, and feasibility vs preliminary efficacy vs confirmatory efficacy) and the need to minimise bias and confounds. Throughout the clinical development process, the perspectives of researchers, ethicists, and patients must be considered, and risks should be minimised whenever possible in a manner that is consistent with good trial design.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据