Page is loading.
nutch_noindex
CANCEL
/nutch_noindex

Alyssa Burgart, MD

  • No Image

Specialties

Anesthesia, General

Anesthesia

Work and Education

Professional Education

Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL, 6/5/2010

Internship

Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL, 8/31/2011

Residency

Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL, 8/31/2014

Fellowship

Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Stanford, CA, 12/31/2015

Board Certifications

Anesthesia, American Board of Anesthesiology

Pediatric Anesthesia, American Board of Anesthesiology

All Publications

Managing Expectations: Delivering the Worst News in the Best Way? The American journal of bioethics : AJOB Burgart, A. M., Magnus, D. 2018; 18 (1): 12

View details for DOI 10.1080/15265161.2017.1414494

View details for PubMedID 29313792

Ethical Challenges Confronted When Providing Nusinersen Treatment for Spinal Muscular Atrophy. JAMA pediatrics Burgart, A. M., Magnus, D., Tabor, H. K., Paquette, E. D., Frader, J., Glover, J. J., Jackson, B. M., Harrison, C. H., Urion, D. K., Graham, R. J., Brandsema, J. F., Feudtner, C. 2018; 172 (2): 18892

Abstract

The US Food and Drug Administration's December 2016 approval of nusinersen for the treatment of patients with all subtypes of spinal muscular atrophy ushered in a new era for patients with spinal muscular atrophy, their families, and all those involved in their care. The extreme cost of the medication and the complicated logistical requirements for administering nusinersen via lumbar puncture have created practical challenges that raise important ethical considerations. We discuss 6 challenges faced at the institutional level in the United States: cost, limited evidence, informed consent, treatment allocation, fair distribution of responsibilities, and transparency with stakeholders. These challenges must be understood to ensure that patients with spinal muscular atrophy benefit from treatment, are protected from harm, and are treated fairly.

View details for DOI 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.4409

View details for PubMedID 29228163

Ethical Controversy About Hysterectomy for a Minor. Pediatrics Burgart, A. M., Strickland, J., Davis, D., Baratz, A. B., Karkazis, K., Lantos, J. D. 2017

Abstract

One of the most complicated ethical issues that arises in children's hospitals today is the issue of whether it is ever permissible to perform a procedure for a minor that will result in permanent sterilization. In most cases, the answer is no. The availability of good, safe, long-acting contraception allows surgical options to be postponed when the primary goal of such surgical options is to prevent pregnancy. But what if a minor has congenital urogenital anomalies or other medical conditions for which the best treatment is a hysterectomy? In those cases, the primary goal of therapy is not to prevent pregnancy. Instead, sterility is an unfortunate side effect of a medically indicated treatment. Should that side effect preclude the provision of a therapy that is otherwise medically appropriate? We present a case that raises these issues, and asked experts in law, bioethics, community advocacy, and gynecology to respond. They discuss whether the best option is to proceed with the surgery or to cautiously delay making a decision to give the teenager more time to carefully consider all of the options.

View details for DOI 10.1542/peds.2016-3992

View details for PubMedID 28562274

Fairness and Transparency in an Expanded Access Program: Allocation of the Only Treatment for SMA1. The American journal of bioethics : AJOB Burgart, A. M., Collier, J., Cho, M. K. 2017; 17 (10): 7173

View details for DOI 10.1080/15265161.2017.1365198

View details for PubMedID 29020542

Moral Distress in Clinical Ethics: Expanding the Concept AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS Burgart, A. M., Kruse, K. E. 2016; 16 (12): 1-1
Randomized n-of-1 Trials: Quality Improvement, Research, or Both? Pediatrics Samuel, J. P., Burgart, A., Wootton, S. H., Magnus, D., Lantos, J. D., Tyson, J. E. 2016; 138 (2)

Abstract

The regulatory demarcations between clinical research and quality improvement (QI) are ambiguous and controversial. Some projects that were undertaken as a form of QI were deemed by regulatory agencies to be research and thus to require institutional review board approval. In the era of personalized medicine, some physicians may ask some patients to participate in n-of-1 trials in an effort to personalize and optimize each patient's medical treatment. Should such activities be considered research, QI, or just excellent personalized medicine? Experts in research, research regulation, and bioethics analyze these issues.

View details for DOI 10.1542/peds.2016-1103

View details for PubMedID 27385811