Patient‐centred care in haemophilia: Patient perspectives on visualization and participation in decision‐making

Shared decision-making related to treatment of haemophilia: A scoping review of influential factors and available support tools

INTRODUCTION

Treatment selection in haemophilia is increasingly challenging given evolving therapeutic options and the need for individualization. Shared decision-making (SDM) approaches have recently gained interest, though a synthesis of available studies is lacking.

AIM

A scoping review was conducted to summarize literature reporting on factors impacting treatment SDM in haemophilia and tools or models available to support such decisions.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and grey literature were searched for studies published through August 2023. Original studies reporting on facilitators and barriers to haemophilia SDM and SDM tools were included and analyzed for themes, characteristics and gaps.

RESULTS

A total of 625 records were identified and 14 unique studies were selected (factors influencing treatment SDM, n = 7; SDM tools, n = 7). The studies typically included input from persons with haemophilia, caregivers and healthcare practitioners (HCPs). Thematic organization of factors influencing SDM revealed three main categories: knowledge, patient characteristics and HCP-patient interactions. Availability of information was a commonly reported facilitator of SDM, while poor HCP-patient engagement was a commonly reported barrier. Tools varied in focus, with some facilitating general treatment SDM while others supported selection of certain therapy types. The studies underscored additional factors critical for SDM, such as alignment of HCP-patient perceptions, shared language and tailoring of tools to specific subpopulations.

CONCLUSION

Few studies report on treatment SDM factors and tools in haemophilia; available tools vary considerably. It remains unclear whether published tools have been successfully implemented into clinical practice. Additional research is warranted.

Development of a haemophilia A gene therapy shared decision-making tool for clinicians

INTRODUCTION

As gene therapies are incorporated into clinical practice, shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended for implementation.

AIM

To inform development of a clinician SDM tool for haemophilia A gene therapy.

METHODS

Clinicians at US Hemophilia Treatment Centers completed semi-structured interviews about their experience with SDM and provided feedback on a clinician SDM tool prototype. Interviews were transcribed verbatim for coding and thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Ten participants enrolled, eight physicians and two haemophilia nurses. All participants care for adults with haemophilia (1-27 years of experience) and 7 have gene therapy trials open at their institution. Confidence in having a clinical discussion about gene therapy included none (N = 1), slight (N = 3), moderate (N = 5) and high (N = 1). All participants reported familiarity with SDM and agreed that the tool would be useful for their clinical practice. Key themes in participant feedback for the tool were (1) language and presentation; (2) content; and (3) implementation. Participants highlighted the importance of providing unbiased information and having companion tools with patient-centric language.

CONCLUSION

These data highlight the need for SDM tools for haemophilia A gene therapy. Key information to include in the tool are safety, efficacy, cost and detailed information on the gene therapy process. Data should be provided in an unbiased format and allow comparison to other treatments. The tool will be evaluated in clinical practice and refined as clinical trial data and real-world experience mature.

Patients' and health care providers' perspectives on quality of hemophilia care in the Netherlands: a questionnaire and interview study

Background

Hemophilia care has improved greatly because of advances in treatment options and comprehensive care. In-depth insight into the perspectives of persons with hemophilia and health care providers on their care may provide targets for further improvements.

Objectives

To assess satisfaction of the hemophilia population with their care, to explore factors determining care satisfaction, and to identify areas for potential health care improvements, including digital health tools.

Methods

First, to assess care satisfaction and factors determining satisfaction and health care improvements, data from a nationwide, cross-sectional questionnaire among 867 adult and pediatric Dutch persons with hemophilia A or B were analyzed. This included the Hemophilia Patient Satisfaction Scale questionnaire, Canadian Hemophilia Outcomes Kids' Life Assessment Tool satisfaction questions, a visual analog scale satisfaction score, and open questions. Second, to further explore factors determining satisfaction and health care improvements, semistructured interviews were conducted with 19 persons with hemophilia or their parents and 18 health care providers.

Results

High care satisfaction was found, with an overall median Hemophilia Patient Satisfaction Scale score of 12 (IQR, 6-21). Participants in the interviews reported that patient-professional interactions, availability of care, and coordination of care were major factors determining satisfaction. Suggested health care improvements included improved information provision and coordination of care, especially shared care with professionals not working within comprehensive care centers. Participants suggested that digital health tools could aid in this.

Conclusion

Satisfaction with hemophilia care is high among persons with hemophilia in the Netherlands, although several potential improvements have been identified. Accentuating these is especially relevant in the current era of treatment innovations, in which we might focus less on other aspects of care.

Gene Therapy for Hemophilia A: A Mixed Methods Study of Patient Preferences and Shared Decision-Making

Purpose

As gene therapies for hemophilia are incorporated into clinical practice, shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended for implementation. SDM tools may facilitate informed decision-making for gene therapy and other novel therapies.

Objective

To inform the development of SDM tools for hemophilia gene therapy.

Patients and Methods

Men with severe hemophilia were recruited from the National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF) Community Voices in Research (CVR). Semi-structured interviews were completed, and the interviews were transcribed verbatim for quantitative and qualitative analysis.

Results

Twenty-five men with severe hemophilia A participated. All participants reported treatment with prophylaxis, nine (36%) on continuous prophylaxis with clotting factor, one (4%) on intermittent prophylaxis with clotting factor, and 15 (60%) on continuous prophylaxis with emicizumab. Ten (40%) indicated that they are excited about gene therapy, 12 (48%) indicated that they are hopeful about gene therapy, one (4%) indicated that they are worried or scared about gene therapy, and one (4%) indicated that they do not have strong feelings about gene therapy. Participants reported engaging Hemophilia Treatment Center, family, and the hemophilia community in their decision-making process. The most reported information needs are efficacy, safety, cost/insurance, mechanism of action, and follow-up. In addition, key information themes that emerged were patient testimonials, hard data and statistics, and comparison to other products. Twenty-two (88%) indicated that a SDM tool would be useful when discussing gene therapy with their hemophilia team. Two indicated that they do their own research, and the tool would not add anything. One needed more information to provide an answer.

Conclusion

These data highlight the utility of a SDM tool for hemophilia gene therapy and key information needs. Data including comparison to other treatments should be provided along with patient testimonials in a transparent format. Patients will engage the Hemophilia Treatment Center, family, and community members in the decision-making process.

Multiple criteria decision analysis for therapeutic innovations in a hemophilia care center: A pilot study of the organizational impact of innovation in hemophilia care management

Background

Several innovative drugs liable to lead to changes in healthcare organization are or soon will be available for the management of hemophilia. Analyzing their implementation can shed further light on healthcare decision-making, to anticipate changes and risk of breakdown in the patient’s care pathway.

Methods

Multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA), based on ISPOR recommendations, was used to assess the organizational impact of innovation in hemophilia care management. The MCDA process designed for this specific context involved ten French experts in hemophilia care management (physicians, nurses, pharmacist, physiotherapist and psychologist) in the hemophilia care center of Chambéry, in the Rhône-Alpes Region of France. This pilot study involved seven steps: (i) defining the decision problem; (ii) selecting and structuring criteria; (iii) assessing the relative weight of each criterion with software-assisted simulation based on pairwise comparisons of different organizational change scenarios; (iv) measuring the performance of the selected innovations; (v) scoring alternatives; (vi) calculating aggregate scores; (vii) discussion. The endpoint was to determine the expected overall organizational impact on a 0–100 scale.

Results

Seven organizational criteria were selected. "Acceptability for patient/caregiver/association" was the most heavily weighted. Factor VIII by subcutaneous route obtained the highest aggregate score: i.e., low impact on care organization (88.8 out of 100). The innovation with strongest organizational impact was gene therapy (27.3 out of 100).

Conclusion

This approach provided a useful support for discussion, integrating organizational aspects in the treatment decision-making process, at healthcare team level. The study needs repeating in a few years’ time and in other hemophilia centers.

Haemophilia in France: Modelisation of the Clinical Pathway for Patients

Process-of-care studies participate in improving the efficiency of the care pathway for patient with haemophilia (CPPH) and rationalize the multidisciplinary management of patients. Our objective is to establish a current overview of the different actors involved in the management of patients with haemophilia and to provide an accurate description of the patient trajectory. This is a qualitative exploratory research based on interviews of the principal health professionals of four haemophilia services, between November 2019 and February 2020, in France. Mapping of the CPPH processes within the different institutions and/or services, as well as the rupture zones, were identified. Treatment delivery and biological analyses were carried out exclusively in healthcare institutions. The main liberal health professionals solicited were nurses, physiotherapists and general practitioner. Obstacles and barriers within the specialized service, with other hospital services and external hospital or private services, community health care providers et community environment and individual one was complex and multiples. Our research identified potential concerns that need to be addressed to improve future studies to identify influential elements. Similarly, other qualitative studies will have to be conducted on the perceptions and literacy of patients with haemophilia to develop a global interactive mapping of their trajectories.

Diagnosis and treatment of chronic synovitis in patients with haemophilia: consensus statements from the Italian Association of Haemophilia Centres

Although synovitis is recognized as a marker of joint disease activity, its periodic assessment is not included in routine clinical surveillance of patients with haemophilia (PwH). In order to evaluate the current knowledge and to identify controversial issues, a preliminary literature search by the Musculoskeletal Committee of the Italian Association of Haemophilia Centres (AICE) has been conducted. Statements have been established and sent to the Italian AICE members to collect their level of agreement or disagreement by a Delphi process. Thirty‐seven consensus recommendations have been drafted. We found a general agreement on the indication to consider the presence of synovitis as a marker of joint disease activity in PwH. Accordingly, there was agreement on the indication to search for synovitis both in patients reporting joint pain and in asymptomatic ones, recognizing ultrasound as the most practical imaging technique to perform periodic joint screening. Interestingly, after detection of synovitis, there was agreement on the indication to modify the therapeutic approach, suggesting prophylaxis in patients treated on demand and tailoring treatment in patients already under prophylaxis. Whereas the need of an early consultation with a physiotherapist is recommended for PwH affected by chronic synovitis, the exact timing for an orthopaedic surgeon consultation is currently unknown.

Beliefs and Values About Gene Therapy and In-Utero Gene Editing in Patients with Hemophilia and Their Relatives

AIM

Hemophilia is an inherited disease for which current treatment is noncurative. While gene therapy and gene editing are being researched, we do not know how the hemophilia community perceives them. Herein, we explore the beliefs and values regarding these new therapies in patients with hemophilia and their relatives.

METHODS

This qualitative study used phone-based semi-structured interviews on 21 adult English-speaking patients with hemophilia A or B and their parents across the United States during March to July 2019. The study was advertised through different chapters of the Hemophilia Foundation. The interview guide included questions about participants' prior experience with hemophilia, and included two case scenarios about the use of gene therapy and in utero gene editing, after which participants were asked about their opinions, beliefs, and values on each scenario. We used a grounded theory approach and identified the main themes using an inductive process.

RESULTS

We interviewed 21 participants-12 patients and 9 mothers. Most of them had or were related to a patient with severe disease. The main themes discussed were related to efficacy, safety and financial concerns and insurance coverage for both gene therapy and in utero gene editing. Patients and their parents had expected outcomes in terms of durability of therapy and impact on emotional health and lifestyle changes in the long term. Gene therapy was more accepted among patients with severe and uncontrolled disease. In-utero gene editing was not completely accepted because of safety and ethical issues.

CONCLUSION

Patients with severe hemophilia perceive gene therapy as a potential cure, while gene editing was more controversial. Patients still have questions that remain to be answered regarding safety and efficacy that should be assessed with long-term follow up studies.

Optimising prophylaxis in haemophilia A: The ups and downs of treatment

The classical goals of haemophilia A treatment are to prevent bleeds, minimise the risk of long-term complications associated with joint damage, and improve quality of life by maintaining appropriate factor VIII [FVIII] levels. The dose and frequency of FVIII replacement therapies required to reduce bleeds is now known to vary amongst individuals, and may change for the same individual over time, meaning that a standardised dose and regimen may not provide optimal protection to all patients. Here we review the evolving treatment landscape for haemophilia A, and discuss how an increased understanding of the pharmacology and pharmacokinetics underlying FVIII replacement and non-factor replacement therapies could improve patient outcomes. We also review the strengths and weaknesses of current treatments and explore the benefits of personalised therapy and review how this may best be achieved with current treatment options. The key points of our review are summarised in this accompanying short video.

Patients' Perception of the Impact of Innovation on Hemophilia Care Management Organization: A Qualitative Study Protocol (INNOVHEMO Study)

BACKGROUND

New therapies provide a favorable evolution in the care management of persons with hemophilia. However, the impact of these new therapies on patient care organization remains to be determined. A qualitative study will be implemented to analyze patients' perception regarding the impact of innovation on the organization of their care management. Secondary objectives will include refining specific factors related to persons with hemophilia (barriers or facilitators, especially the place of treatment) to consider within an organizational impact analysis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Semi-structured individual interviews will be conducted via videoconferencing or by phone by two researchers using an interview guide. Participants will be recruited from the Rhône-Alpes region, in France. Physicians from two hemophilia treatment centers will identify eligible patients. Moreover, a call for volunteers will be launched by the Rhône-Alpes committee of the French hemophilia association. Interviews will be conducted with adult patients, adolescent patients or parents of a minor with hemophilia regularly treated prophylactically or on demand. Data analysis will be performed with NVivo^® software. Each interview will be analyzed by two researchers using an inductive content analytic method.

DISCUSSION

The INNOVHEMO study is an original study analyzing the way patients perceive the impact of an innovation on their care management organization. The resulting patient-specific factors, identified as barriers or facilitators, will need to be integrated into a more comprehensive analysis of the impact of innovation on care management organization.