Barriers to gene therapy, understanding the concerns people with haemophilia have: an exigency sub-study.
Gene therapy
Haemophilia
Outcomes
Quality of life
Shared decision-making
Journal
Orphanet journal of rare diseases
ISSN: 1750-1172
Titre abrégé: Orphanet J Rare Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101266602
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Feb 2024
10 Feb 2024
Historique:
received:
03
10
2023
accepted:
03
02
2024
medline:
11
2
2024
pubmed:
11
2
2024
entrez:
10
2
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Gene therapy has the potential to offer people with haemophilia (PwH) a life free from bleeding and the burden posed by current treatment regimens. To date, gene therapy has only been available in clinical trial settings, to PwH without pre-existing or historical factor inhibitors, significant concomitant liver damage or pre-existing neutralising antibodies to the adeno-associated viruses used to deliver the therapy. Thus, most PwH treated at centres not currently involved in gene therapy trials, either as a referral/follow-up centre or as a dosing centre, have been unable to access the therapy. This Exigency sub-study aims to gain a greater understanding of the opinions of PwH in the United Kingdom who have not had access to gene therapy: asking what they understand, what concerns they have, and whether they perceive any barriers preventing their access to gene therapy. Twenty-three PwH were approached; 14 consented, and one withdrew prior to interview. The mean age of the participants was 35.7 years (range 25-74 years). Eleven had haemophilia A and two haemophilia B. Two were treated with standard half-life factor products, five with extended half-life products, five with a FVIII mimetic and one with a clinical trial product. One family member (a participant's partner) was also interviewed. The participants identified four barriers to gene therapy: concerns about the process of gene therapy (Expectations), uncertainty about the results (outcomes), (Access) to treatment, and a lack of understanding about gene therapy (education). This Exigency study subgroup sees gene therapy as a positive treatment development that promises an improved quality of life. For this participant group, four issues impact their decision to undergo gene therapy. If the promise of gene therapy is to be realised, these barriers need to be acknowledged and addressed by healthcare professionals, patient organisations, and gene therapy providers.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Gene therapy has the potential to offer people with haemophilia (PwH) a life free from bleeding and the burden posed by current treatment regimens. To date, gene therapy has only been available in clinical trial settings, to PwH without pre-existing or historical factor inhibitors, significant concomitant liver damage or pre-existing neutralising antibodies to the adeno-associated viruses used to deliver the therapy. Thus, most PwH treated at centres not currently involved in gene therapy trials, either as a referral/follow-up centre or as a dosing centre, have been unable to access the therapy. This Exigency sub-study aims to gain a greater understanding of the opinions of PwH in the United Kingdom who have not had access to gene therapy: asking what they understand, what concerns they have, and whether they perceive any barriers preventing their access to gene therapy.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twenty-three PwH were approached; 14 consented, and one withdrew prior to interview. The mean age of the participants was 35.7 years (range 25-74 years). Eleven had haemophilia A and two haemophilia B. Two were treated with standard half-life factor products, five with extended half-life products, five with a FVIII mimetic and one with a clinical trial product. One family member (a participant's partner) was also interviewed. The participants identified four barriers to gene therapy: concerns about the process of gene therapy (Expectations), uncertainty about the results (outcomes), (Access) to treatment, and a lack of understanding about gene therapy (education).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This Exigency study subgroup sees gene therapy as a positive treatment development that promises an improved quality of life. For this participant group, four issues impact their decision to undergo gene therapy. If the promise of gene therapy is to be realised, these barriers need to be acknowledged and addressed by healthcare professionals, patient organisations, and gene therapy providers.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38341591
doi: 10.1186/s13023-024-03068-2
pii: 10.1186/s13023-024-03068-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
59Subventions
Organisme : uniQure
ID : 2-061-003 - Haemophilia B - Late development
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Nathwani AC, Tuddenham EGD, Rangarajan S, Rosales C, McIntosh J, Linch DC, Chowdary P, Riddell A, Pie AJ, Harrington C, O’Beirne J, Smith K, Pasi J, Glader B, Rustagi P, Ng CYC, Kay MA, Zhou J, Spence Y, Morton CL, Allay J, Coleman J, Sleep S, Cunningham JM, Srivastava D, Basner-Tschakarjan E, Mingozzi F, High KA, Gray JT, Reiss UM, Nienhuis AW, Davidoff AM. Adenovirus-associated virus vector-mediated gene transfer in haemophilia B. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:2357–65. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1108046 .
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1108046
pubmed: 22149959
pmcid: 3265081
George LA, Sullivan SK, Giermasz A, Rasko JEJ, Samelson-Jones BJ, Ducore J, Cuker A, Sullivan LM, Majumdar S, Teitel J, McGuinn CEM, Ragni V, Luk AY, Hui D, Wright JF, Chen Y, Liu Y, Wachtel K, Winters A, Tiefenbacher S, Arruda VR, van der Loo JCM, Zelenaia O, Takefman D, Carr ME, Couto LB, Anguela XM, High KA. Haemophilia gene therapy with a high specific-activity factor XI variant. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(23):2215–27. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1708538 .
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1708538
pubmed: 29211678
pmcid: 6029626
George LA, Monahan PE, Eyster ME, Sullivan SK, Ragni MV, Croteau SE, Rasko JEJ, Recht M, Samelson-Jones BJ, MacDougall A, Jaworski K, Noble R, Curran M, Kuranda K, Mingozzi F, Chang T, Reape KZ, Anguela XM, High KA. Multiyear factor VIII expression after AAV gene transfer for hemophilia A. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:1961–73. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2104205 .
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2104205
pubmed: 34788507
pmcid: 8672712
Rangarajan S, Walsh L, Lester W, Perry D, Madan B, Laffan M, Yu H, Vettermann C, Pierce GF, Wong WY, Pasi KJ. AAV5–factor VIII gene transfer in severe haemophilia A. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:2519–30. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1708483 .
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1708483
pubmed: 29224506
Perin GQ, Herzog RW, Markusic DM. Update of clinical gene therapy for haemophilia. Blood. 2018;33:407–14. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2018-07-820720 .
doi: 10.1182/blood-2018-07-820720
European Medicines Agency. First gene therapy to treat severe haemophilia A. 24 June 2022. Accessed 9th Mar 2023. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/first-gene-therapy-treat-severe-haemophilia#:~:text=Roctavian%20is%20the%20first%20gene,not%20cause%20disease%20in%20humans .
Naddaf M. Researchers welcome $3.5-million haemophilia gene therapy—but questions remain. Nature. 2022;612:388–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-04327-7 .
doi: 10.1038/d41586-022-04327-7
pubmed: 36474054
McName A. Pfizer takes on haemophilia B gene therapy market with new FDA application Fidanacogene elaparvovec could be a strong contender against CSL’s Hemgenix gene therapy. Pharmaceutical Technology [internet] June 27, 2023Accessed 4th September 2023. Available from www.Pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/pfizer-haemophilia-b-gene-therapy-fda-application/#:~:text=Pfizer%20has%20announced%20that%20the,(MAA)%20currently%20under%20review
Miesbach W, Chowdary P, Coppens M, Hart DP, Jimenez-Yuste V, Klamroth R, Makris M, Noone D, Peyvandi F. Delivery of AAV-based gene therapy through haemophilia centres—a need for re-evaluation of infrastructure and comprehensive care: a Joint publication of EAHAD and EHC. Haemophilia. 2021;27:967–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/hae.14420 .
doi: 10.1111/hae.14420
pubmed: 34553460
Srivastava S. Cell and gene therapy is transforming healthcare. Part 2. Cell & Gene; 2020. Accessed 15th April 2023. Available from: https://www.cellandgene.com/doc/part-cell-and-gene-therapy-istransforming-healthcare-0001 .
Meisbach W, Klamroth R. The patient experience of gene therapy for haemophilia: qualitative interviews with trial patients. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2020;14:767–70. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S239810 .
doi: 10.2147/PPA.S239810
Aradom E, Gomez K. The patient gene therapy journey: Findings from qualitative interviews with trial participants at one UK Haemophilia centre. Journal of Haemophilia Practice. 2021;8:32–44. https://doi.org/10.17225/jhp00174 .
doi: 10.17225/jhp00174
Fletcher S, Jenner K, Pembroke L, Holland M, Khair K. The experiences of people with haemophilia, and their families, of gene therapy in a clinical trial setting: regaining control, the Exigency study. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2022;17:155. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-022-02256-2 .
doi: 10.1186/s13023-022-02256-2
pubmed: 35379267
pmcid: 8981747
Fletcher S, Jenner K, Holland M, Khair K. Expectation and loss when gene therapy for haemophilia is not an option: an exigency sub-study. Haemophilia. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1111/hae.14774 .
doi: 10.1111/hae.14774
pubmed: 36882329
van Overbeeke E, Hauber B, Michelsen S, Peerlinck K, Lambert C, Hermans C, Le PQ, Goldman M, Simoens S, Huys I. Patient perspectives regarding gene therapy in haemophilia: interviews from the PAVING study. Haemophilia. 2020;27:129–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/hae.14190 .
doi: 10.1111/hae.14190
pubmed: 33161616
pmcid: 7894464
Fletcher S, Jenner K, Holland M, Chaplin S, Khair K. An exploration of why men with severe haemophilia might not want gene therapy: The exigency study. Haemophilia. 2021;1:9. https://doi.org/10.1111/hae.14378 .
doi: 10.1111/hae.14378
Fletcher S, Pembroke L, Holland M, Khair K. Exploration of the impact of gene therapy on the lives of people with haemophilia and their families: a protocol for the mixed-methods exigency study. BMJ Open. 2022;12:e060351. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060351 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060351
pmcid: 9362796
Guest G, Namey E, Chen M. A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(5):e0232076. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232076 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232076
pubmed: 32369511
pmcid: 7200005
George LA, Sullivan SK, Giermasz A, Rasko JEJ, Samelson-Jones BJ, Ducore J, Cuker A, Sullivan LM, Majumdar S, Teitel J, McGuinn CE, Ragni MV, Luk AY, Hui D, Wright JF, Chen Y, Liu Y, Wachtel K, Winters A, Tiefenbacher S, Arruda VR, van der Loo JCM, Zelenaia O, Takefman D, Carr ME, Couto LB, Anguela XM, High KA. Hemophilia B gene therapy with a high-specific-activity factor IX variant. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(23):2215–27. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1708538 .
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1708538
pubmed: 29211678
pmcid: 6029626
Pipe SW, Leebeek FWG, Recht M, Key NS, Castaman G, Miesbach W, Lattimore S, Peerlinck K, Van der Valk P, Coppens M, Kampmann P, Meijer K, O’Connell N, Pasi KJ, Hart DP, Kazmi R, Astermark J, Hermans CRJC, Klamroth R, Lemons R, Visweshwar N, von Drygalski A, Young G, Crary SE, Escobar M, Gomez E, Kruse-Jarres R, Quon DV, Symington E, Wang M, Wheeler AP, Gut R, Liu YP, Dolmetsch RE, Cooper DL, Li Y, Goldstein B, Monahan PE. Gene therapy with etranacogene dezaparvovec for hemophilia B. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:706–18. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2211644 .
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2211644
pubmed: 36812434
Akhter S, Akhtar S. Emerging corona virus diseases and future perspectives. VirusDis. 2020;31:113–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13337-020-00590-2 .
doi: 10.1007/s13337-020-00590-2
Basnet BB, Basnet R, Panday R. Prospects for controlling future pandemics of SARS in highlights of SARS-CoV2. VirusDis. 2021;32:770–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13337-021-00715-1 .
doi: 10.1007/s13337-021-00715-1
Nathwani AC, Tuddenham E, Chowdary P, McIntosh J, Lee D, Rosales C, Phillips M, Pie J, Junfang Z, Meagher MM, Reiss U, Davidoff AM, Morton CL, Riddell A. GO-8: preliminary results of a phase I/II dose escalation trial of gene therapy for haemophilia a using a novel human factor VIII variant. Blood. 2018;132:489. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2018-99-118256 .
doi: 10.1182/blood-2018-99-118256
Chowdary P, Shapiro S, Davidoff AM, Reiss U, Alade R, Brooks G, Dane A, McIntosh J, Short G, Tuddenham E. A single intravenous infusion of FLT180a results in factor IX activity levels of more than 40% and has the potential to provide a functional cure for patients with haemophilia B. Blood. 2018;132:631. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2018-99-118050 .
doi: 10.1182/blood-2018-99-118050
Mahlangu J, Dolan G, Dougall A, Goddard NJ, Hernandez EDP, Ragni MV, Rayner B, Windyga J, Pierce GF, Srivastava A. Chapter 7: Treatment of specific hemorrhages. In: A Srivastava, E Santagostino, A Dougall, S Kitchen, M Sutherland, SW Pipe, M Carcao, et al on behalf of the WFH Guidelines for the Management of Hemophilia panellists and co-authors. WFH Guidelines for the Management of Hemophilia. Haemophilia. 2020:26(Suppl 6): 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/hae.14046
Noone D, Astermark J, O’Mahony B, Peyvandi F, Khair K, Pembroke L, Jenner K. The journey of gene therapy in haemophlia. Putting the patient at the centre of the hub and spoke model. J Haem Pract. 2022;9(1):156–66. https://doi.org/10.2478/jhp-2022-0021 .
doi: 10.2478/jhp-2022-0021
Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (Or it takes at least two to Tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997;44(5):681–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00221-3 .
doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00221-3
pubmed: 9032835
Waldron T, Carr T, McMullen L, et al. Development of a program theory for shared decision-making: a realist synthesis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20:59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4649-1 .
doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4649-1
pubmed: 31973754
pmcid: 6979294
Athale A, Giguere A, Barbara A, Krassova S, Iorio A. Developing a two-sided intervention to facilitate shared decision-making in haemophilia: decision boxes for clinicians and patient decision aids for patients. Haemophilia. 2014;20(6):800–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/hae.12495 .
doi: 10.1111/hae.12495
pubmed: 25273544
Sandman L, Munthe C. Shared decision making, paternalism and patient choice. Health Care Anal. 2010;18(1):60–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-008-0108-6 .
doi: 10.1007/s10728-008-0108-6
pubmed: 19184444
Bomhof-Roordink H, Gärtner FR, Stiggelbout AM, Pieterse AR. Key components of shared decision making models: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e031763. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.open-2019-031763 .
doi: 10.1136/bmj.open-2019-031763
pubmed: 31852700
pmcid: 6937101
Valentino LA, Blanchette V, Negrier C, O’Mahoney B, Vias V, Sannie T, Skinner M. Personalising haemophilia management with shared decision making. J Haem Pract. 2021;8(1):69–79. https://doi.org/10.17225/jhp/00178 .
doi: 10.17225/jhp/00178
Woollard L, Gorman R, Rosenfelt DJ. Addressing patient education priorities in the era of gene therapy for haemophilia: towards evidence-informed shared decision-making. Haemophilia. 2021;27(2):e302–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/hae.14214 .
doi: 10.1111/hae.14214
pubmed: 33245825
Wang M, Negrier C, Driessler F, Goodman C, Skinner MW. The hemophilia gene therapy patient journey: questions and answers for shared decision-making. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2022;16:1439–47. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S355627 .
doi: 10.2147/PPA.S355627
pubmed: 35707346
pmcid: 9191577
Hermans C, Noone D, Benson G, et al. Hemophilia treatment in 2021: Choosing the “optimal” treatment using an integrative, patient-oriented approach to shared decision-making between patients and clinicians. Blood Rev. 2022;52:100890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.blre.2021.100890 .
doi: 10.1016/j.blre.2021.100890
pubmed: 34736780
Hamann J, Heres S. Adapting shared decision making for individuals with severe mental illness. Psychiatr Serv. 2014;65:1483–6. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201400307 .
doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201400307
pubmed: 25756970
Drolet BC, White CL. Selective paternalism. AMA J Ethics. 2012;4:582–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/virtualmentor.2012.14.7.oped2-1207 .
doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2012.14.7.oped2-1207
Bailo L, Vergani L, Pravettoni G. Patient preferences as guidance for information framing in a medical shared decision-making approach: the bridge between nudging and patient preferences. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2019;13:2225–31. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S205819 .
doi: 10.2147/PPA.S205819
pubmed: 31920292
pmcid: 6935300
Fletcher S, Jenner K, Khair K. Shared decision-making forgene therapy in haemophilia care. J Haem Pract. 2023;10(1):62–7. https://doi.org/10.2478/jhp-2023-0009 .
doi: 10.2478/jhp-2023-0009
Pagliarulo N. Bluebird, winding down in Europe, withdraws another rare disease gene therapy. BioPharm Dive. 21 Oct 2021. Accessed 26 Aug 2022. https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/bluebird-withdraw-gene-therapy-europe-skysona/608666/ .
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Draft guidance consultation: Etranacogene dezaparvovec for treating moderately severe or severe haemophilia B. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 02 Aug 2023. Accessed 06 Aug 2023. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-ta10699/documents/draft-guidance .
Khair K, Redfren N. Beyond approval: considerations and challenges in access to gene therapy. London: Haemnet; 28 Nov 2022. Accessed 19 Jan 2023. https://anchor.fm/haemnet .
Leung L. Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. J Family Med Prim Care. 2015;4(3):324–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/2249-4863.161306 .
doi: 10.4103/2249-4863.161306
pubmed: 26288766
pmcid: 4535087
Carminati L. Generalizability in qualitative research: a tale of two traditions. Qual Health Res. 2018;28(13):2094–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318788379 .
doi: 10.1177/1049732318788379
pubmed: 30043686
Zimmer L. Qualitative meta-synthesis: a question of dialoguing with texts. J Adv Nurs. 2006;53:311–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03721.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03721.x
pubmed: 16441536
Finfgeld-Connett D. Generalizability and transferability of meta-synthesis research findings. J Adv Nurs. 2010;66:246–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05250.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05250.x
pubmed: 20423407
Baas L, van der Graaf R, van Hoorn ES, Bredenoord AL, Meijer K. for the SYMPHONY consortium. The ethics of gene therapy for hemophilia: a narrative review. J Thromb Haemost. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtha.2022.12.027 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jtha.2022.12.027
pubmed: 36696181
Archibald MM, Ambagtsheer RC, Casey MG, Lawless M. Using Zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. Int J Qual Methods. 2019;18:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919874596 .
doi: 10.1177/1609406919874596
Lobe B, Morgan D, Hoffman KA. Qualitative data collection in an era of social distancing. Int J Qual Methods. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920937875 .
doi: 10.1177/1609406920937875
Fletcher S. Seeing the bigger picture: qualitative research in the Zoom® age. J Haem Pract. 2021;8(1):141–4. https://doi.org/10.2478/jhp-2021-0019 .
doi: 10.2478/jhp-2021-0019