Patient preferences for gene therapy in haemophilia: Results from the PAVING threshold technique survey.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
The aim of the Patient preferences to Assess Value IN Gene therapies (PAVING) study was to investigate trade-offs that adult Belgian people with haemophilia (PWH) A and B are willing to make when choosing between prophylactic factor replacement therapy (PFRT) and gene therapy.Methods
The threshold technique was used to quantify the minimum acceptable benefit (MAB) of a switch from PFRT to gene therapy in terms of 'Annual bleeding rate' (ABR), 'Chance to stop prophylaxis' (STOP), and 'Quality of life' (QOL). The design was supported by stakeholder involvement and included an educational tool on gene therapy. Threshold intervals were analysed using interval regression models in Stata 16.Results
A total of 117 PWH completed the survey. Mean thresholds were identified for all benefits, but substantial preference heterogeneity was observed; especially for the STOP thresholds, where the distribution of preferences was bimodal. Time spent on the educational tool and residence were found to impact MAB thresholds. The most accepted (88% of PWH) gene therapy profile investigated in this study comprised of zero bleeds per year (vs. six for PFRT), 90% chance to stop prophylaxis, no impact on QoL, and 10 years of follow-up on side effects (vs. 30 for PFRT).Conclusions
Results from this study proved the value of educating patients on novel treatments. Moreover, preference heterogeneity for novel treatments was confirmed in this study. In gene therapy decision-making, preference heterogeneity and the impact of patient education on acceptance should be considered.
SUBMITTER: van Overbeeke E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9293173 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionExploring patient perceptions regarding gene therapies may provide insights about their acceptability to patients.ObjectiveTo investigate opinions of people with haemophilia (PWH) regarding gene therapies. Moreover, this study aimed to identify patient-relevant attributes (treatment features) that influence PWH's treatment choices.MethodsSemi-structured individual interviews were conducted with Belgian PWH, types A and B. A predefined interview guide included information sections and open, attribute ranking and case questions. Qualitative data were organized using NVivo 12 and analysed following framework analysis. Sum totals of scores obtained in the ranking exercise were calculated per attribute.ResultsIn total, 20 PWH participated in the interviews. Most participants demonstrated a positive attitude towards gene therapy and were very willing (40%; n = 8) or willing (35%; n = 7) to receive this treatment. The following five attributes were identified as most important to PWH in making their choice: annual bleeding rate, factor level, uncertainty of long-term risks, impact on daily life, and probability that prophylaxis can be stopped. While participants were concerned about the uncertainty regarding long-term safety, most participants were less concerned about uncertainty regarding long-term efficacy.ConclusionsThis qualitative study showed that most PWH have a positive attitude towards gene therapy and that besides efficacy, safety and the related uncertainties, also impact on daily life is important to patients. The identified patient-relevant attributes may be used by regulators, health technology assessment bodies and payers in their evaluation of gene therapies for haemophilia. Moreover, they may inform clinical trial design, pay-for-performance schemes and real-world evidence studies.
| S-EPMC7894464 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionGene therapy has shown promise in clinical trials for patients with haemophilia, but patient preference studies have focused on factor replacement treatments.AimWe conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to investigate the relative importance and differential preferences patients provide for gene therapy attributes.MethodsWe surveyed male adults with haemophilia in the United States recruited from patient panels including the National Hemophilia Foundation Community Voices in Research platform using an online survey over 4 months in 2020/21. Participants indicated preferences for gene therapy attributes including dosing frequency/durability, effect on annual bleeding, uncertainty related to side effects, impact on daily activities, impact on mental health, and post-treatment requirements. The relative importance of each attribute was analysed overall and for subgroups based on haemophilia type and severity.ResultsA total of 183 males with haemophilia A (n = 120) or B (n = 63) were included. Half (47%) had severe haemophilia; most (75%) were White. Overall, participants gave effect on bleeding rate the greatest relative importance (31%), followed by dose frequency/durability (26%), uncertainty regarding safety issues (17%), and impact on daily activities (11%). Dose frequency/durability had the greatest importance for those with haemophilia B (35%).ConclusionPeople with haemophilia prioritised reduced bleeding and treatment burden; the former was more important in haemophilia A and the latter in haemophilia B, followed by safety and impact on daily life in this DCE of gene therapy attributes. These findings and differences can inform clinical and health policy decisions to improve health equity for people with haemophilia.
| S-EPMC9290457 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: Gene therapies are innovative therapies that are increasingly being developed. However, health technology assessment (HTA) and payer decision making on these therapies is impeded by uncertainties, especially regarding long-term outcomes. Through measuring patient preferences regarding gene therapies, the importance of unique elements that go beyond health gain can be quantified and inform value assessments. We designed a study, namely the Patient preferences to Assess Value IN Gene therapies (PAVING) study, that can inform HTA and payers by investigating trade-offs that adult Belgian hemophilia A and B patients are willing to make when asked to choose between a standard of care and gene therapy. Methods and Analysis: An eight-step approach was taken to establish the protocol for this study: (1) stated preference method selection, (2) initial attributes identification, (3) stakeholder (HTA and payer) needs identification, (4) patient relevant attributes and information needs identification, (5) level identification and choice task construction, (6) educational tool design, (7) survey integration, and (8) piloting and pretesting. In the end, a threshold technique survey was designed using the attributes "Annual bleeding rate," "Chance to stop prophylaxis," "Time that side effects have been studied," and "Quality of Life." Ethics and Dissemination: The Medical Ethics Committee of UZ KU Leuven/Research approved the study. Results from the study will be presented to stakeholders and patients at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. We hope that results from the PAVING study can inform decision makers on the acceptability of uncertainties and the value of gene therapies to patients.
| S-EPMC7985056 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHaemophilia is a genetic disorder characterized by spontaneous or provoked, often uncontrolled, bleeding into joints, muscles and other soft tissues. Current methods of treatment are expensive, challenging and involve regular administration of clotting factors. Gene therapy for haemophilia is a curative treatment modality currently under investigation. This is an update of a published Cochrane Review.ObjectivesTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of gene therapy for treating people with haemophilia A or B.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis & Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Date of last search: 17 April 2020.Selection criteriaEligible trials include randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials, including controlled clinical trials comparing gene therapy (with or without standard treatment) with standard treatment (factor replacement) or other 'curative' treatment such as stem cell transplantation for individuals with haemophilia A or B of all ages who do not have inhibitors to factor VIII or IX.Data collection and analysisNo trials of gene therapy for haemophilia matching the inclusion criteria were identified.Main resultsNo trials of gene therapy for haemophilia matching the inclusion criteria were identified.Authors' conclusionsNo randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials of gene therapy for haemophilia were identified. Thus, we are unable to determine the safety and efficacy of gene therapy for haemophilia. Gene therapy for haemophilia is still in clinical investigation and there is a need for well-designed clinical trials to assess the long-term feasibility, success and risks of gene therapy for people with haemophilia.
| S-EPMC7192367 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHaemophilia is a genetic disorder characterized by spontaneous or provoked, often uncontrolled, bleeding into joints, muscles and other soft tissues. Current methods of treatment are expensive, challenging and involve regular administration of clotting factors. Gene therapy has recently been prompted as a curative treatment modality. This is an update of a published Cochrane Review.ObjectivesTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of gene therapy for treating people with haemophilia A or B.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis & Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.Date of last search: 18 August 2016.Selection criteriaEligible trials include randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials, including controlled clinical trials comparing gene therapy (with or without standard treatment) with standard treatment (factor replacement) or other 'curative' treatment such as stem cell transplantation for individuals with haemophilia A or B of all ages who do not have inhibitors to factor VIII or IX.Data collection and analysisNo trials of gene therapy for haemophilia were found.Main resultsNo trials of gene therapy for haemophilia were identified.Authors' conclusionsNo randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials of gene therapy for haemophilia were identified. Thus, we are unable to determine the safety and efficacy of gene therapy for haemophilia. Gene therapy for haemophilia is still in its nascent stages and there is a need for well-designed clinical trials to assess the long-term feasibility, success and risks of gene therapy for people with haemophilia.
| S-EPMC6463803 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Gene therapy has the potential to revolutionise treatment for patients with haemophilia and is close to entering clinical practice. While factor concentrates have improved outcomes, individuals still face a lifetime of injections, pain, progressive joint damage, the potential for inhibitor development and impaired quality of life. Recently published studies in adeno-associated viral (AAV) vector-mediated gene therapy have demonstrated improvement in endogenous factor levels over sustained periods, significant reduction in annualised bleed rates, lower exogenous factor usage and thus far a positive safety profile. In making the shared decision to proceed with gene therapy for haemophilia, physicians should make it clear that research is ongoing and that there are remaining evidence gaps, such as long-term safety profiles and duration of treatment effect. The eligibility criteria for gene therapy trials mean that key patient groups may be excluded, eg children/adolescents, those with liver or kidney dysfunction and those with a prior history of factor inhibitors or pre-existing neutralising AAV antibodies. Gene therapy offers a life-changing opportunity for patients to reduce their bleeding risk while also reducing or abrogating the need for exogenous factor administration. Given the expanding evidence base, both physicians and patients will need sources of clear and reliable information to be able to discuss and judge the risks and benefits of treatment.
| S-EPMC6852207 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10032461 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Telemedicine is an increasingly recognized option for cost-effective management of chronic conditions. We surveyed Sleep Clinic patients about their experiences and preferences regarding different forms of telemedicine. Adult Sleep Clinic patients seen between 2009 and 2011 received a brief survey either by postal mail (n = 156) or, for those with an available email address, electronically (n = 282). The overall response rate was 28.1% (n = 123 responses), with email response rates being higher than postal mail responses. The most commonly reported barriers to in-person physician visits were parking cost (44%), time away from work/school (34%), and cost of gas (26%). Whereas 89% of respondents indicated using telephone and 55% of respondents indicated using email to communicate with providers, none reported experience with video telemedicine. Despite this lack of experience, over 60% reported feeling comfortable or willing to try it. Of those who were uncomfortable about video telemedicine, the two main reasons were that in-person visits feel more natural (48%) and that the doctor might need to perform an examination (24%). More than half of respondents reported willingness to pay a copay for a video visit. Video telemedicine represents a feasible option for chronic sleep disorders management.
| S-EPMC3400365 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPrevious research has demonstrated a correlation among patient preferences, dosing burden, and medication nonadherence, a well-recognized challenge in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The objective of this study was to elicit preferences for alternative dosing regimens for oral antihyperglycemic therapies among patients with T2DM and to quantify differences in dosing preferences among patients with different characteristics.MethodsPreferences for dosing of oral antihyperglycemic drugs (OAD) were evaluated by surveying patients with T2DM in the United States (US). Survey participants were adult US patients with T2DM who were taking no or only 1 OAD and no injectable therapies. Each patient completed a web-enabled discrete-choice experiment (DCE) including a series of 8 pairs of hypothetical OAD profiles. Each profile was defined by reductions in average glucose, dosing schedule (e.g., once-weekly, once-daily, or twice-daily dosing), chance of mild-to-moderate gastrointestinal side effects, frequency of hypoglycemia, weight change, incremental risk of congestive heart failure, and cost. Each participant also answered a direct question about dosing preference. Random-parameters logit was used to analyze the DCE data. Prespecified subgroups were analyzed.ResultsOf 2,262 patients invited to participate, 923 were included in the analysis (mean age 63 years, 45% male, 79% white). Reducing dosing frequency was statistically significantly important to patients; however, it was relatively less important than medication cost or clinical outcomes. On average, patients preferred once-weekly to once-daily dosing. Patients not currently taking an OAD had a stronger preference for once-weekly dosing than patients on treatment (P = 0.012). Patients younger than 45 years had a stronger preference for weekly dosing than older patients (P < 0.075).ConclusionsFor younger patients and patients not currently on treatment, once-weekly dosing may provide additional incentive to initiate and adhere to antihyperglycemic treatment; however, additional research will be required to confirm this hypothesis.
| S-EPMC4374080 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Physician-patient communication in patients suffering from common chronic respiratory disease should encompass discussion about pulmonary function test (PFT) results, diagnosis, disease education, smoking cessation and optimising inhaler technique. Previous studies have identified that patients with chronic respiratory disease/s often express dissatisfaction about physician communication. Currently there is a paucity of data regarding patient awareness of their PFT results (among those who have undergone PFTs previously) or patient preferences about PFT result communication.We undertook a three-month prospective study on outpatients referred to two Pulmonary Function Laboratories. If subjects had undergone PFTs previously, the awareness of their previous test results was evaluated. All subjects were asked about their preferences for PFT result communication. Subjects were determined to have chronic respiratory disease based on their past medical history.300 subjects (50% male) with a median age (± SD) of 65 (± 14) years participated in the study. 99% of the study participants stated that they were at least moderately interested in knowing their PFT results. 72% (217/300) of the subjects had undergone at least one PFT in the past, 48% of whom stated they had not been made aware of their results. Fewer subjects with chronic respiratory disease preferred that only a doctor discuss their PFT results with them (28% vs. 41%, p = 0.021).Our study demonstrates that while almost all subjects want to be informed of their PFT results, this does not occur in a large number of patients. Many subjects are agreeable for their PFT results to be communicated to them by clinicians other than doctors. Further research is required to develop an efficient method of conveying PFT results that will improve patient satisfaction and health outcomes.
| S-EPMC4423884 | biostudies-other