BACKGROUND: Informed decisions to enrol in the clinical investigations of Alzheimer\'s disease and related dementias (ADRD) require careful consideration of complex risks and uncertain benefits. Decisions regarding whether to receive information about biomarker status are complicated by lack of scientific consensus regarding biomarkers as surrogate endpoints for Alzheimer\'s disease and how information about individual risk should be evaluated and shared with research participants. This study aims to establish stakeholder consensus regarding ethically optimal approaches to sharing individual results with ADRD research participants.
METHODS: This Delphi consensus-building study consists of multiple online surveys conducted with Alzheimer\'s disease research experts, including neurologists, neuropsychologists, ethicists, research oversight specialists and clinical trialists. Panellists will be administered questionnaires developed from a synthesis of researcher- and participant-endorsed considerations and decisional needs identified in published literature and a decisional needs assessment conducted with support from an Alzheimer\'s Association Research Grant. Panellists will also be asked their views on the content and implementation of processes for sharing individual research results. ≥75% agreement will be required to achieve consensus. Response rates, level of agreement, medians, interquartile ranges and group rankings will be analysed. Following each round of data collection, our research team will undertake qualitative content analysis of open-ended responses.
BACKGROUND: Ethical approval will be obtained from the Cleveland Clinic Institutional Review Board (Study Number 22-766). Delphi panellists will receive participant information sheets describing the study before agreeing to participate in the Delphi process. Results from the data we anticipate will be generated through this research and will be submitted for peer-reviewed journal publication and presentation at international conferences.

In 1992, the American Society of Anesthesiologists Committee on Ethics was formed primarily to address the rights of patients with existing Do-Not-Resuscitate orders presenting for anesthesia. Guidelines written for the ethical management of these patients stated that such orders should be reconsidered-not rescinded-thus respecting patient self-determination. The Committee also rewrote the reigning Guidelines for the Ethical Practice of Anesthesiology by expanding its ethical foundations to reflect the evolving climate of ethical opinions. These Guidelines described ethically appropriate conduct and behavior, including anesthesiologists\' ethical responsibilities to patients, themselves, colleagues, health-care institutions, and community and society.

The history of xenotransplantation started in the 19th century. After a few decades of investigation, significant breakthroughs and preclinical milestones have been achieved worldwide. With the recent transplantation of genetically modified porcine kidneys and heart into humans, these ground-breaking achievements have attracted great attention worldwide, in the hope that xenotransplantation might alleviate or even solve the problem of organ shortage. On January 20, 2022, the China Organ Transplantation Development Foundation convened a symposium on \"The History, Current Situation and Future of Human Xenotransplantation Clinical Trials,\" where ways to promote the ethical and sustainable development of xenotransplantation in China were discussed among the participating experts. A formal consensus was reached as the product of the symposium, outlining the expert opinions on scientific, regulatory, and ethical issues of clinical trials of xenotransplantation in China.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are essential for standardising patient care based on evidence-based medicine. However, the presence of financial conflicts of interest (COIs) among CPG authors can undermine their credibility. This study aimed to examine the extent and size of COIs among authors of psychiatry CPGs in Japan.
METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis of disclosed payments from pharmaceutical companies assesses the prevalence and magnitude of personal payments for lecturing, consulting and writing to CPGs for bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder in Japan between 2016 and 2020.
RESULTS: This study found that 93.3% of authors received payments over a 5-year period, with total payments exceeding US$4 million. The median payment per author was US$51 403 (IQR: US$9982-US$111 567), with a notable concentration of payments among a small number of authors, including the CPG chairperson. Despite these extensive financial relationships, only a fraction of authors disclosed their COIs in the CPGs. These large amounts of personal payments were made by pharmaceutical companies manufacturing new antidepressants and sleeping aids listed in the CPGs.
CONCLUSIONS: This study found that more than 93% of authors of CPGs for major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder in Japan received considerable amounts of personal payments from the pharmaceutical industry. The findings highlight deviations from international COI management standards and suggest a need for more stringent COI policies for psychiatry CPGs in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) offer disease management recommendations based on scientific evidence. However, financial conflicts of interest between CPG developers and the pharmaceutical industry could bias these recommendations, potentially affecting patient care. Proper management of these conflicts of interest is particularly crucial for maintaining the integrity of CPGs. The study aimed to evaluate the extent of financial relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and authors of CPGs for cardiovascular diseases in Japan.
RESULTS: The study analyzed personal payments from the pharmaceutical industry to authors of cardiovascular disease CPGs published by the Japanese Circulation Society from January 2015 to December 2022. Payment data, including speaking, consultancy, and writing fees from 2016 to 2020, were extracted from a publicly available database containing personal payments disclosed by all major pharmaceutical companies. A total of 929 unique authors from 37 eligible Japanese Circulation Society CPGs were identified. Notably, 94.4% of these authors received personal payments from pharmaceutical companies, totaling >US $70.8 million. The mean±SD payment per author was US $76 314±138 663) and the median payment per author was US $20 792 (interquartile range: US $4262-US $76 998) over the 5-year period. Chairs of CPGs received significantly higher payments than other authors. More than 80% of authors in each CPG received personal payments.
CONCLUSIONS: The study elucidated that there were considerable financial relationships between pharmaceutical companies and cardiology CPG authors in Japan. This finding deviates from international conflict of interest management policies, suggesting the need for more stringent conflict of interest management strategies by the Japanese Circulation Society to ensure the development of trustworthy and evidence-based CPGs.

暂无摘要。

Objective To assess the financial relationships between pharmaceutical companies and authors of the 2020 Japan College of Rheumatology Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) for the Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis and to evaluate the quality of evidence supporting the guideline recommendations. Methods This retrospective study evaluated financial relationships between all 27 authors of the CPG and pharmaceutical companies in Japan. Personal payments from pharmaceutical companies to these authors between 2016 and 2020 were extracted from publicly disclosed databases for each pharmaceutical company. The quality of the evidence supporting the CPG recommendations was also assessed. Results All 27 authors received personal payments from pharmaceutical companies, totaling $3,683,048 over five years. The median and mean payments per author were $101,624 and $136,409, respectively. Speaking compensations accounted for more than 80% of all personal payments. More than 77.8% (21 authors), 66.7% (18 authors), and 51.9% (14 authors) received more than $10,000, $50,000, and $100,000 in total payments over the five years, respectively. Nevertheless, these financial relationships between the CPG authors and pharmaceutical companies were not disclosed. More than 81.8% of the CPG recommendations were supported by low- or very-low-quality evidence. Of the strong recommendations, 66.7% were supported by low- or very-low-quality evidence. Conclusion Even though all CPG authors received substantial amounts of personal payments from pharmaceutical companies, these conflicts of interest (COIs) were not disclosed in the CPG. These findings underscore the urgent need for policy interventions to enhance transparency, integrity, and reliability in the development of CPGs in Japan.

BACKGROUND: In the context of a major health crisis, health professionals must first compare patients\' recovery prospects, thus giving priority to the goal of saving the greatest number of lives.
OBJECTIVE: Critically evaluate a protocol for allocation of scarce intensive care units (ICU), which the authors proposed at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and originally published in two Brazilian newspapers; and compare that protocol with similar proposals, particularly with 2 successive protocols issued by the Brazilian Critical Care Association. The main objective is to highlight the advantages of the authors\' approach and discuss some criticisms that has been levelled against the proposed protocol after its original publication in 2020.
METHODS: Comparative analysis of 3 different protocols (the authors\' proposed protocol and 2 successive protocols issued by the Brazilian Critical Care Association) with regard to ethical principles.
RESULTS: The main objective of a healthcare system is to ensure a fair patient triage process when it is impossible to grant admission to all patients in need of treatment. Decision-making regarding the impartial prioritization of ICU admissions must be based primarily on clinical criteria. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) is, for ethical and technical reasons, a useful tool for clinical assessments of patients. Based on three ranges of SOFA scores, patients can be classified into a \"high\", a \"medium\", and a \"low\" priority group. In the case of ties, the life cycle principle must be the tiebreaker. If the tie persists, a draw must be used.
CONCLUSIONS: The authors\' proposed protocol has advantages over the other two protocols due to its greater practicality and capacity to account for egalitarian and consequentialist principles simultaneously. It aims at saving as many lives as possible within the constraints of fairness. Furthermore, the proposed protocol avoids discrimination against people with disabilities without, at the same time, promoting discrimination against the elderly.

Published guidelines and clinical practices vary when defining indications for irradiation of blood components for the prevention of transfusion-associated graft-versus-host disease (TA-GVHD). This study assessed irradiation indication lists generated by multiple artificial intelligence (AI) programs, or chatbots, and compared them to 2020 British Society for Haematology (BSH) practice guidelines. Four chatbots (ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, Bard, and Bing Chat) were prompted to list the indications for irradiation to prevent TA-GVHD. Responses were graded for concordance with BSH guidelines. Chatbot response length, discrepancies, and omissions were noted. Chatbot responses differed, but all were relevant, short in length, generally more concordant than discordant with BSH guidelines, and roughly complete. They lacked several indications listed in BSH guidelines and notably differed in their irradiation eligibility criteria for fetuses and neonates. The chatbots variably listed erroneous indications for TA-GVHD prevention, such as patients receiving blood from a donor who is of a different race or ethnicity. This study demonstrates the potential use of generative AI for transfusion medicine and hematology topics but underscores the risk of chatbot medical misinformation. Further study of risk factors for TA-GVHD, as well as the applications of chatbots in transfusion medicine and hematology, is warranted.

The present study aimed to compile and develop a professional guideline for health-care providers in Iran regarding cyberspace usage. This was a mixed-methods study, conducted in three phases. In the first phase, the principles of ethics in cyberspace were collected through a review of the literature and available documents, and were then subjected to content analysis. In the second phase, the views of experts on medical ethics, virtual education, information technology and medical education, as well as clinical sciences experts and representatives of medical students and graduates were evaluated using the focus group method. In the third phase, the draft was evaluated by various stakeholders. Finally, after receiving the comments, the necessary modifications were applied to the guideline. The professional guideline for the use of cyberspace by health-care professionals comprised 30 codes in 5 domains, including the general regulations domain, care and treatment, research, education, and personal development. This guideline presents the various ways professionalism can be maintained in cyberspace interactions. Adherence to the principles of professionalism in cyberspace is required to protect and preserve the public trust in health-care professionals.