Treatment decision-making in sickle cell disease patients.
CRISPR
Curative treatments
Decision-making
Gene editing
Gene therapy
Sickle cell disease
Journal
Journal of community genetics
ISSN: 1868-310X
Titre abrégé: J Community Genet
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101551501
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2022
Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
03
05
2021
accepted:
27
10
2021
pubmed:
5
11
2021
medline:
5
11
2021
entrez:
4
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a blood disorder with few treatment options currently available. However, in recent years, there has been much progress toward developing new therapies and curative treatments to help patients with SCD. Stem cell transplant remains the only approved curative treatment for SCD, but new clinical trials are being initiated using gene therapy and gene editing. We surveyed patients with sickle cell disease (N=9) about attitudes toward stem cell transplant, gene therapy to add a new healthy gene, gene editing to up-regulate fetal hemoglobin, or gene editing to correct the point mutation. The participants read a fact sheet that included objective information on each curative treatment. When asked which curative treatment each participant would choose, all four options were selected at least once. The most highly selected treatment was gene correction gene editing (N=4). Participants generally agreed that the four treatment options are beneficial but were more mixed in their thoughts on whether the options are dangerous. Reasons for selecting a particular curative treatment were variable, but the most selected reasons were perception of a cure (N=4) or decreased severity (N=4), and not needing a donor (N=4). We are at the beginning stages of understanding how patients with SCD make decisions about curative treatments. Currently, patients may be interested in any of the four possibilities for curative treatments, with gene correction gene editing as the most popular choice. Reasons for choosing one treatment over another are mixed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34735685
doi: 10.1007/s12687-021-00562-z
pii: 10.1007/s12687-021-00562-z
pmc: PMC8799810
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
143-151Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2014 Dec;28(6):1171-85
pubmed: 25459186
Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2007 Jun 15;48(7):705-10
pubmed: 16732581
JAMA. 2019 Jan 29;321(4):334
pubmed: 30694304
Ther Adv Hematol. 2013 Oct;4(5):335-44
pubmed: 24082994
Cytotherapy. 2018 Jul;20(7):899-910
pubmed: 29859773
Curr Opin Oncol. 2009 Mar;21(2):158-61
pubmed: 19532018
Blood. 2018 Apr 26;131(17):1960-1973
pubmed: 29519807
Blood. 2011 Jul 7;118(1):19-27
pubmed: 21490337
Adv Ther. 2017 Aug;34(8):2007-2021
pubmed: 28717861
Ann Intern Med. 2008 Jun 17;148(12):939-55
pubmed: 18458272
Front Public Health. 2016 Jun 13;4:118
pubmed: 27379224
Sci Adv. 2020 Feb 12;6(7):
pubmed: 32917636
Hum Genet. 2016 Sep;135(9):1011-28
pubmed: 27250347
Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2013 Oct 01;3(10):a011783
pubmed: 23813607
Genet Med. 2019 Aug;21(8):1726-1734
pubmed: 30581191
Int J Neonatal Screen. 2019 May 07;5(2):20
pubmed: 33072979
N Engl J Med. 2017 Mar 2;376(9):848-855
pubmed: 28249145