In Open heart
AIM : To discuss ethical issues related to a complex study (PROFID) involving the development of a new, partly artificial intelligence-based, prediction model to enable personalised decision-making about the implantation of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in postmyocardial infarction patients, and a parallel non-inferiority and superiority trial to test decision-making informed by that model.
METHOD : The position expressed in this paper is based on an analysis of the PROFID trials using concepts from high-profile publications in the ethical literature.
RESULTS : We identify ethical issues related to the testing of the model in the treatment setting, and to both the superiority and the non-inferiority trial. We underline the need for ethical-empirical studies about these issues, also among patients, as a parallel to the actual trials. The number of ethics committees involved is an organisational, but also an ethical challenge.
CONCLUSION : The PROFID trials, and probably other studies of similar scale and complexity, raise questions that deserve dedicated parallel ethics and social science research, but do not constitute a generic obstacle. A harmonisation procedure, comparable to the Voluntary Harmonization Procedure (VHP) for medication trials, could be needed for this type of trials.
Willems Dick, Bak Marieke, Tan Hanno, Lindinger Georg, Kocar Ayca, Seperhi Shamloo Alireza, Schmidt Georg, Hindricks Gerhard, Dagres Nikolaos
ethics, health care, heart arrest, medical, myocardial infarction, outcome assessment, research design