Search

Background: Deep brain stimulation is approved for treating refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder in adults under the US Food and Drug Administration Humanitarian Device Exemption, and studies have shown its efficacy in reducing symptom severity and improving quality of life. While similar deep brain stimulation treatment is available for pediatric patients with dystonia, it is not yet available for pediatric patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder, although soon could be. The prospect of growing indications for pediatric deep brain stimulation raises several ethical concerns relating to bodily integrity, the ability to offer informed assent, and the role pediatric patients play in the decision-making process. Objective: The aim of this study is to solicit and assess the views of stakeholders (children, parents, clinicians) on pediatric assent, autonomy, and bodily integrity in the context of potential pediatric deep brain stimulation for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder patients (n = 21), caregivers of pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder patients aged 14–18 (n = 19), and clinicians with experience treating refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder (n = 25). Interviews were transcribed and coded in MAXQDA 2018 and 2020 software and processed for thematic content analysis to isolate and compare specific themes. Results: A majority of respondents (74%, 48/65) across all three stakeholder groups voiced that the decision-making process should be collaborative and involve everyone (clinicians: 84% or 21/25, caregivers 71% or 15/21, and patients 63% or 12/19). We identified a split between respondents' views on who should have the final say in the event of disagreement (38% or 25/65 favored the patient versus 35% or 23/65 favoring caregivers). A split between respondents also emerged concerning the maturity relevant for deep brain stimulation decision-making, with 45% (29/65) favoring developmental maturity (age/physiological development) and 45% (29/65) favoring decisional maturity (capacity to understand and weigh information). A majority of clinicians indicated that they would not move forward with deep brain stimulation without securing patient assent (80% or 20/25), with some stating the only exception is if patient quality of life was very poor and/or they lacked insight. Both caregivers and patients expressed a significant respect for the patient's right to bodily integrity, with 67% of caregivers (14/21) and 68% of patients (13/19) justifying patient involvement in decision-making specifically with reference to infringements of bodily integrity. Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that despite broad agreement across stakeholders that the decision-making process for pediatric deep brain stimulation for obsessive-compulsive disorder should be collaborative and somehow involve pediatric patients, there is disagreement about what this process entails and what factors determine patient involvement in the process. However, there is agreement that children have a right to bodily and brain integrity, which should only be infringed upon in rare circumstances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ongoing debate within neuroethics concerning the degree to which neuromodulation such as deep brain stimulation (DBS) changes the personality, identity, and agency (PIA) of patients has paid relatively little attention to the perspectives of prospective patients. Even less attention has been given to pediatric populations. To understand patients' views about identity changes due to DBS in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), the authors conducted and analyzed semistructured interviews with adolescent patients with OCD and their parents/caregivers. Patients were asked about projected impacts to PIA generally due to DBS. All patient respondents and half of caregivers reported that DBS would impact patient self-identity in significant ways. For example, many patients expressed how DBS could positively impact identity by allowing them to explore their identities free from OCD. Others voiced concerns that DBS-related resolution of OCD might negatively impact patient agency and authenticity. Half of patients expressed that DBS may positively facilitate social access through relieving symptoms, while half indicated that DBS could increase social stigma. These views give insights into how to approach decision-making and informed consent if DBS for OCD becomes available for adolescents. They also offer insights into adolescent experiences of disability identity and "normalcy" in the context of OCD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To develop reliable, valid, and efficient measures of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) severity, comorbid depression severity, and total electrical energy delivered (TEED) by deep brain stimulation (DBS), we trained and compared random forests regression models in a clinical trial of participants receiving DBS for refractory OCD. Six participants were recorded during open-ended interviews at pre- and post-surgery baselines and then at 3-month intervals following DBS activation. Ground-truth severity was assessed by clinical interview and self-report. Visual and auditory modalities included facial action units, head and facial landmarks, speech behavior and content, and voice acoustics. Mixed-effects random forest regression with Shapley feature reduction strongly predicted severity of OCD, comorbid depression, and total electrical energy delivered by the DBS electrodes (intraclass correlation, ICC, = 0.83, 0.87, and 0.81, respectively. When random effects were omitted from the regression, predictive power decreased to moderate for severity of OCD and comorbid depression and remained comparable for total electrical energy delivered (ICC = 0.60, 0.68, and 0.83, respectively). Multimodal measures of behavior outperformed ones from single modalities. Feature selection achieved large decreases in features and corresponding increases in prediction. The approach could contribute to closed-loop DBS that would automatically titrate DBS based on affect measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]