Patient perspectives regarding gene therapy in haemophilia: Interviews from the PAVING study

Development of the World Federation of Hemophilia Shared Decision-Making Tool

INTRODUCTION

The use of shared decision-making (SDM) in clinical settings is becoming more prevalent. The evolving and increasingly complex treatment landscape of haemophilia management has augmented the need and desire for SDM between patients and their healthcare team. SDM tools have been used in other chronic conditions and can be an effective form of education for patients and clinicians.

AIM

The World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) partnered with people with haemophilia (PWH), patient advocacy groups, and healthcare practitioners to form an expert working group to develop an educational tool for PWH and their caregivers. The primary objectives included educating PWH on the available prophylactic treatments and facilitating discussion between PWH and their healthcare team.

METHODS

The tool was proposed and developed by the expert working group, workshopped at conference round tables, and evaluated in two focus groups.

RESULTS

The interactive WFH SDM Tool guides users through the SDM treatment journey and provides an opportunity for reflection on current disease impact and treatment preferences, educational fact sheets and videos, and a comparison between treatment classes. Two forms of the SDM Tool are available: an online platform with a summary page that may be printed and shared and a printable workbook. All evidence in the tool is based on the prescribing information or phase III clinical trial publications. The Tool will be updated twice each year.

CONCLUSION

The WFH SDM Tool is the first available resource that translates published guidance on SDM in haemophilia into a practical, user-friendly tool aimed at facilitating patient-centred treatment decisions.

A 360-degree perspective on adeno-associated virus (AAV)-based gene therapy for haemophilia: Insights from the physician, the nurse and the patient

BACKGROUND

Adeno-associated virus (AAV)-based gene therapy for haemophilia has advanced substantially in the last 13 years; recently, three products have received approvals from regulatory authorities. Although the impact on quality of life seems promising, some limitations remain, such as the presence of pre-existing anti-AAV neutralising antibodies and the occurrence of hepatotoxicity. This review follows the CSL Behring-sponsored symposium at the 27th Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA) 2022 that examined the haemophilia gene therapy process from a 360-degree multidisciplinary perspective. Here, the faculty (haematologist, nurse and haemophilia patient) summarised their own viewpoints from the symposium, with the aim of highlighting the key considerations required to engage with gene therapy effectively, for both patients and providers, as well as the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration, including with industry.

RESULTS

When considering these new therapies, patients face a complex decision-making process, which includes whether gene therapy is right for them at their current stage of life. The authors agreed that collaboration and tailored education across the multidisciplinary team (including patients and their carers/families), starting early in the process and continuing throughout the long-term follow-up period, is key for the success of gene therapy. Additionally, patient expectations, which may surround eligibility, follow-up requirements and treatment outcomes, should be continually explored. During these ongoing discussions, transparent communication of the unknown factors, such as anticipated clotting factor levels, long-term factor expression and safety, and psychological changes, is critical. To ensure efficiency and comprehensiveness, clearly‑defined protocols should outline the whole process, which should include the recording and management of long-term effects.

CONCLUSION

In order to engage effectively, both patients and providers should be familiar with these key considerations prior to their involvement with the haemophilia gene therapy process. The future after the approval of haemophilia gene therapies remains to be seen and real-world evidence is eagerly awaited.

The benefits of gene therapy in people with haemophilia

Haemophilia is an inherited bleeding disorder which causes significant morbidity and mortality, especially in the severe form. Prophylaxis with factor replacement has high efficacy in reducing bleeding but is limited by the need for frequent intravenous infusion and fluctuations in haemostasis between doses. Additional prophylaxis therapies are being developed which may overcome some of the current treatment barriers. Gene therapy (GT) is being developed to provide a functional cure such that there is sustained factor expression and minimal to no need for additional haemostatic therapy. There are now two approved gene therapies for haemophilia which may be transformative for many individuals. Benefits of GT should go beyond increasing factor activity and reducing bleeding as persons with haemophilia aim to achieve a 'haemophilia-free mind' and health equity with optimal health and well-being.

Knowledge and attitudes toward gene therapy of a cohort of Italian patients with hemophilia

BACKGROUND

Gene therapy (GT) has recently become a new therapeutic option for hemophilia A and B. However, patient levels of knowledge and attitudes toward it are poorly understood. A general lack of knowledge and education has been highlighted in previous studies. To date, no studies focused on patient attitudes toward GT, priorities, concerns, and information needs, nor how these factors might influence their willingness to accept it.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate knowledge and attitudes toward GT of an Italian cohort of patients with hemophilia.

METHODS

A questionnaire was administered to patients with hemophilia A and B to evaluate: (1) clinical data; (2) GT knowledge; (3) willingness to accept GT, perceived benefits and concerns, and information needs.

RESULTS

Eighty-five patients participated in the study; 64 with severe hemophilia A and 4 with severe hemophilia B. Participants appeared to know only general information on GT, but little about its detailed functioning. The avoidance of frequent infusions and the reduction of bleeding episodes seem to be the most relevant expected benefits. The possibility of failing or losing effectiveness of GT over time was the main concern. Regarding willingness to undergo GT, 54.4% of respondents gave a negative response, mainly due to fear that treatment will lose effectiveness over time, fear of side effects, and lack of GT knowledge. Greater knowledge increased the acceptability of this disruptive therapy among patients with severe hemophilia.

CONCLUSION

Overall, Italian patients with hemophilia showed poor knowledge of GT. However, it seems that greater knowledge was associated with a greater willingness to have GT.

Barriers to gene therapy, understanding the concerns people with haemophilia have: an exigency sub-study

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

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

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.

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.

Etranacogene dezaparvovec for the treatment of adult patients with severe and moderately severe hemophilia B

INTRODUCTION

Etranacogene dezaparvovec is the first gene therapy approved for treatment of adults with severe and moderately severe hemophilia B.

AREAS COVERED

This review describes the results of the clinical trial program of AMT-060 and etranacogene dezaparvovec, outlining the pharmacokinetic, clinical efficacy and safety data. With the entry of etranacogene dezaparvovec into the market, this review summarizes the treatment landscape in hemophilia B and discusses the current unknowns in the field.

EXPERT OPINION

Gene therapy appears to be a feasible option for adults with severe and moderately severe hemophilia B. Etranacogene dezaparvovec enables most patients to reach stable factor IX (FIX) levels after a single intravenous infusion, eliminating the need for regular prophylaxis; thus, drastically reducing treatment burden and avoiding variable bleeding risk owing to fluctuating FIX activity levels. Efficacy of etranacogene dezaparvovec has been demonstrated even in the presence of preexisting neutralizing antibodies (up to a titer of 1:678), with a relative low risk of transaminitis and its associated potential loss of transgene expression. However, long-term data are required to ascertain the durability of FIX levels achieved and safety. The cost-effectiveness and adoption of innovative payment models for reimbursement are key in choosing gene therapy over existing treatments.

"I just wanted to speak to someone- and there was no one…": using Burden of Treatment Theory to understand the impact of a novel ATMP on early recipients

BACKGROUND

Advanced therapy medicinal products such as Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy offer ground-breaking opportunities for the treatment of various cancers, inherited diseases, and chronic conditions. With development of these novel therapies continuing to increase it's important to learn from the experiences of patients who were among the first recipients of ATMPs. In this way we can improve the clinical and psychosocial support offered to early patient recipients in the future to support the successful completion of treatments and trials.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a qualitative investigation informed by the principles of the key informant technique to capture the experience of some of the first patients to experience CAR-T therapy in the UK. A directed content analysis was used to populate a theoretical framework informed by Burden of Treatment Theory to determine the lessons that can be learnt in supporting their care, support, and ongoing self-management.

RESULTS

A total of five key informants were interviewed. Their experiences were described within the three domains of the burden of treatment framework; (1) The health care tasks delegated to patients, Participants described the frequency of follow-up and the resources involved, the esoteric nature of the information provided by clinicians; (2) Exacerbating factors of the treatment, which notably included the lack of understanding of the clinical impacts of the treatment in the broader health service, and the lack of a peer network to support patient understanding; (3) Consequences of the treatment, in which they described the anxiety induced by the process surrounding their selection for treatment, and the feeling of loneliness and isolation at being amongst the very first recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

If ATMPs are to be successfully introduced at the rates forecast, then it is important that the burden placed on early recipients is minimised. We have discovered how they can feel emotionally isolated, clinically vulnerable, and structurally unsupported by a disparate and pressured health service. We recommend that where possible, structured peer support be put in place alongside signposting to additional information that includes the planned pattern of follow-up, and the management of discharged patients would ideally accommodate individual circumstances and preferences to minimize the burden of treatment.

Expectation and loss when gene therapy for haemophilia is not an option: An exigency sub-study

BACKGROUND

Qualitative studies have explored why people with haemophilia (PwH) might consider or forgo gene therapy, the impact it has had on those who have received it, and what support might be needed throughout the process. No studies have yet examined what withdrawal prior to transfection might mean for PwH and their families.

AIMS

To understand the experiences of PwH and their families of withdrawal from gene therapy and to understand what support mechanisms might be required.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews were conducted with people with severe haemophilia who consented to take part in a gene therapy study in the UK but either withdrew or were withdrawn before transfection.

RESULTS

Nine PwH and a family member were invited to this sub-study. Eight participants were recruited: six PwH (five haemophilia A and one haemophilia B) and two family members. Four participants were excluded from a study after consenting but before transfection, having failed to meet all the inclusion criteria; two withdrew after consenting but before transfection due to concerns including duration of factor expression and the time commitment involved in follow-up. The mean age of participants was 40.5 years (range 25-63 years). Two major themes emerged during the interviews: Expectation and loss.

CONCLUSIONS

PwH have many expectations about the difference gene therapy can make to their lives. Studies show that these expectations may not be fully realised. For those who have either withdrawn or been withdrawn from gene therapy, any expectations they had may now be unachievable. The nature of these expectations and the loss expressed by the participants indicate that support needs to be provided to help them and their families manage it.

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.

Gene therapy preferences and informed decision-making: Results from a National Hemophilia Foundation Community Voices in research survey

INTRODUCTION

To inform education and treatment discussions, it is important to understand how persons with haemophilia prefer to learn about and discuss new therapies and to identify variables that influence decision-making.

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate preferences and variables which influence decision-making related to gene therapy and other novel haemophilia therapies.

METHODS

An online survey was sent to men with severe haemophilia enrolled in the National Hemophilia Foundation Community Voices in Research online platform for patient-powered research.

RESULTS

One hundred four men completed the survey including 33% Hispanics, 96 who had had not gene therapy and 71/96 (74%) who were on prophylaxis. Ninety-five percent were somewhat or very familiar with gene therapy. Men with haemophilia obtain information about new therapies from several sources, most commonly their haemophilia treatment team, patient advocacy groups and self-study. Participants identified safety and efficacy as well as other educational needs to inform decision-making. Of those without prior gene therapy, 73% indicated a high likelihood of considering gene therapy. Hispanic ethnicity and government-issued insurance were associated with a higher likelihood of considering gene therapy as a treatment option.

CONCLUSION

Haemophilia Treatment Centers and patient advocacy groups must be able to educate persons with haemophilia about aspects of novel therapies which are important to the individual, especially short- and long-term safety and efficacy. Further research is needed to determine how patient activation and health literacy influence decision-making and how to achieve equitable access and valid informed consent for novel therapies.

Gene Therapy and Hemophilia: Where Do We Go from Here?

Gene therapy for hemophilia using adeno-associated virus (AAV) derived vectors can reduce or eliminate patients' disease-related complications and improve their quality of life. Broad implementation globally will lead to societal gains and foster health equity. Several vector products each for factor IX (FIX) or factor VIII (FVIII) deficiency are in advanced clinical development. Safety data are reassuring. Efficacy data for up to 8 and 5 years, respectively, vary considerably among vector types and among individuals, but indicate significant reduction in bleeds and factor use. Products will soon be approved for marketing. This review highlights the relevant considerations for implementation of hemophilia gene therapy, specifically across a broad range of socioeconomic backgrounds globally, based on recent publications and our own experience. We address the current efficacy and safety data and relevant aspects of vector immunology. We then discuss pertinent implementation steps including pre-implementation and readiness assessments, considerations on cost, cost-effectiveness and payment models, approaches to education and informed consent, and the operational needs as well as the need for monitoring of health outcomes and implementation outcomes. To prevent a lag or complete lack of establishing access to this life-changing therapy option for all patients with hemophilia worldwide, adaptable pathways supported by collaborative and international efforts of all stakeholders are needed.

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.

Decision-making about gene therapy in transfusion dependent thalassemia

BACKGROUND

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is a treatment option with curative intent for patients with transfusion dependent thalassemia (TDT) but its application is limited by the lack of suitable donors and acceptability due to the related morbidity/mortality. Transplantation of autologous genetically modified hematopoietic cells, gene therapy (GT) is emerging as a promising treatment option for TDT as it eliminates graft versus host disease (GVHD) and need for immunosuppression. Early results of GT suggest that many, but not all patients achieve transfusion independence after the procedure. There is little information about the acceptability of GT in patients with TDT. We sought to examine patient/family knowledge about GT in TDT and to examine factors that influence decision-making about this therapy.

METHODS

Parents of children with TDT and adults with TDT were who provided informed consent underwent semi-structured interviews to understand patient/family knowledge and decision-making regarding GT in TDT. Transcribed interviews were coded and the data was examined for emerging themes using a combination of thematic and content analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-five study participants with mean age of 38Y (17-52Y) including eight adults living with TDT, and 17 parents of children with TDT underwent semi-structured qualitative interviews. Participant responses coalesced around broad themes related to knowledge of GT, motivating/deterring factors and outcomes. Study participants expressed a desire for 'cure' from thalassemia including transfusion independence, chelation reduction and improved quality of life as motivators for considering GT. Insufficient knowledge about the process, long-term outcomes, safety, and side effects as well as the potential for death/failure of the procedure were deterrents for the consideration GT. Reduction in frequency of transfusions, even without elimination of transfusions was an acceptable outcome of GT for most participants. Participant choice for preferred treatment modality was split between indefinitely continuing transfusions which was familiar to them versus GT which was unfamiliar, and with an uncertain outcome. None of the participants had a matched sibling donor; alternate donor HSCT was the least preferred option in this group.

CONCLUSION

There is tempered excitement about GT in patients/families with TDT with a general willingness to accept transfusions reduction as the outcome.

Examining patient and professional perspectives in the UK for gene therapy in haemophilia

Introduction

With the development of gene therapy for people with haemophilia (PWH), it is important to understand how people impacted by haemophilia (PIH) and clinicians prioritise haemophilia treatment attributes to support informed treatment decisions.

Objective

To examine the treatment attribute preferences of PIH and clinical experts in the United Kingdom (UK) and to develop a profile of gene therapy characteristics fit for use in future discrete choice experiments (DCEs).

Methods

Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with PIH (n = 14) and clinical experts (n = 6) who ranked pre‐defined treatment attributes by importance. Framework analysis was conducted to identify key themes and treatment attributes; points were allocated based on the rankings. Synthesis of results by a multidisciplinary group informed development of a profile of gene therapy characteristics for use in future research.

Results

Key themes identified by PIH and clinical experts included patient relevant features and the importance of ‘informed decision making'. The six top‐ranked treatment attributes were ‘effect on factor level’ (79 points), ‘uncertainty regarding long‐term risks’ (57 points), ‘impact on daily life’ (41 points), ‘frequency of monitoring’ (33 points), ‘impact on ability to participate in physical activity’ (29 points), and ‘uncertainty regarding long‐term benefits’ (28 points). The final treatment characteristics were categorised as therapeutic option, treatment effectiveness, safety concerns, impact on self‐management and quality of life (role limitations).

Conclusion

We identified several gene therapy characteristics important to PIH and clinicians in the UK. These characteristics will be used in a future DCE to further investigate patient preferences for gene therapy.

The experiences of people with haemophilia and their families of gene therapy in a clinical trial setting: regaining control, the Exigency study

BACKGROUND

Gene therapy has the potential to change the life experience of people with haemophilia and family members. Few studies have sought to explore the impact of gene therapy on both individuals and families. The aim of this study was to capture real-life experiences of gene therapy in People with haemophilia and their families.

RESULTS

Sixteen participants with severe haemophilia (11 haemophilia A, five haemophilia B), mean age 41.4 years (range 23-75 years), took part in a single qualitative interview; ten were accompanied by a family member. Mean time since transfection was 3.56 years (range 1-10 years). Participants saw their involvement in gene therapy as a positive experience, freeing them from the personal burden of haemophilia and furthering treatment options for the wider haemophilia community. However, participants reported being unprepared for the side effects of immunosuppression. Some also reported feeling unsupported and having little control over what was happening as their factor levels became the focus of the process.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that strategies need to be put into place to enable PwH fully to understand the process of gene therapy, and thereby make an informed choice as to whether it is a treatment they might wish for themselves. These include early and ongoing education, increased provision of psychosocial support and ongoing qualitative research.

The Hemophilia Gene Therapy Patient Journey: Questions and Answers for Shared Decision-Making

PURPOSE

The anticipated emergence of hemophilia gene therapy will present people with hemophilia (PWH) and treating clinicians with increasingly complex treatment options. It will be critical that PWH and their families be empowered to participate fully in decision-making through transparent communication and the development of targeted educational resources.

METHODS

The Council of Hemophilia Community (CHC) convened across a series of roundtable meetings to define the patient journey for hemophilia gene therapy, and to develop a question-and-answer style resource to guide discussion between healthcare professionals (HCPs) and their patients. Patient groups were also consulted during the development of this tool.

RESULTS

The CHC defined 5 key stages in the hemophilia gene therapy patient journey: pre-gene therapy (information-seeking and decision-making), treatment initiation, short- and long-term post-gene therapy follow-up. PWH will have different questions and concerns at each stage of their journey, which should be discussed with their HCP to aid decision-making. The resulting patient journey infographic and Q&A resource (see Supplementary Materials) has been developed for HCPs and PWH to provide a novel and practical roadmap of key issues and considerations throughout all stages.

CONCLUSION

These resources support a collaborative, patient-centric, shared decision-making approach to inform treatment decision discussions between HCPs and PWH. The value of such discussions will be influenced by the language adopted; health literacy is a particularly important consideration, and these discussions should be accessible and tailored to PWH. HCPs and PWH can benefit from awareness of the common questions and uncertainties as they progress together along the patient journey. While the contents of this article are specific to hemophilia gene therapy, the concepts developed here could be adapted to aid patients in other disease states.

Patient preferences for gene therapy in haemophilia: Results from the PAVING threshold technique survey

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.

Gene Therapy in Hemophilia: Recent Advances

Hemophilia is a monogenic mutational disease affecting coagulation factor VIII or factor IX genes. The palliative treatment of choice is based on the use of safe and effective recombinant clotting factors. Advanced therapies will be curative, ensuring stable and durable concentrations of the defective circulating factor. Results have so far been encouraging in terms of levels and times of expression using mainly adeno-associated vectors. However, these therapies are associated with immunogenicity and hepatotoxicity. Optimizing the vector serotypes and the transgene (variants) will boost clotting efficacy, thus increasing the viability of these protocols. It is essential that both physicians and patients be informed about the potential benefits and risks of the new therapies, and a register of gene therapy patients be kept with information of the efficacy and long-term adverse events associated with the treatments administered. In the context of hemophilia, gene therapy may result in (particularly indirect) cost savings and in a more equitable allocation of treatments. In the case of hemophilia A, further research is needed into how to effectively package the large factor VIII gene into the vector; and in the case of hemophilia B, the priority should be to optimize both the vector serotype, reducing its immunogenicity and hepatotoxicity, and the transgene, boosting its clotting efficacy so as to minimize the amount of vector administered and decrease the incidence of adverse events without compromising the efficacy of the protein expressed.

An exploration of why men with severe haemophilia might not want gene therapy: The exigency study

INTRODUCTION

For many people with haemophilia (PwH) gene therapy offers a potential functional cure. However, some have stated that they do not wish to have gene therapy either now or in the future.

AIM

This sub-study, part of the larger Exigency programme, assesses the attitudes, views and understanding of those who do not wish to undergo gene therapy.

METHODS

Participants were approached via social media and word of mouth referral and invited to participate in a focus group or individual interview to discuss their views. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Ten adult men with severe haemophilia (eight haemophilia A and two haemophilia B), mean age 34.3 years, participated in a 1-h focus group (n = 9) or interview (n = 1). All were on prophylaxis. None reported significant treatment burden, and all had annual bleeding rates of less than five in the previous 12 months. Four major themes emerged: self-identity and its loss, lack of long-term safety and efficacy data, ongoing concerns about past viral infection, and lack of current treatment burden.

CONCLUSION

There are many concerns about gene therapy, including eligibility, effectiveness and safety, which may result in individuals declining it as a therapy. These concerns may recede as more data are published. This study reveals a psychological dynamic around self-identity and belonging for PwH. The nature of this dynamic is poorly understood and needs exploration to facilitate support for those making decisions about gene therapy.

Patient selection for hemophilia gene therapy: Real-life data from a single center

Background

While the number of individuals with hemophilia who are expected to be or have already been included in gene therapy trials has been regularly reported, the number of unscreened or excluded individuals, in addition to the reasons for exclusion, is mostly not reported.

Methods

We conducted an eligibility assessment of all people with severe hemophilia for gene therapy trials in one large Belgian hemophilia treatment center based on patient selection criteria of gene therapy trials and patients’ profiling.

Results

Among 87 adult patients with severe hemophilia A and B, 11 aged ≥65 years and two women were excluded from analysis. Six patients were excluded because of inhibitor development. One patient exhibited active hepatitis C infection, one had insufficient exposure to factor VIII, and five had uncontrolled comorbidities, while two were enrolled in other trials and two abused alcohol. Overall, 43 patients were not screened owing to psychosocial factors. Among 14 patients accepting gene therapy, six had adeno‐associated virus type 5 neutralizing antibodies and one had liver fibrosis. The number of patients who would accept gene therapy in the absence of strict clinical trial requirements was estimated at 36 (41.4%), irrespective of any exclusion criteria.

Conclusion

The majority of individuals with severe hemophilia could not be enrolled in gene therapy trials, almost half of them because of partly modifiable psychosocial reasons (49.4%). The proportion of candidates should substantially increase in the future, as eligibility criteria are likely to change and as more data on long‐term efficacy and safety of gene therapy will become available.

Patient Preferences to Assess Value IN Gene Therapies: Protocol Development for the PAVING Study in Hemophilia

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.

Improving patient informed consent for haemophilia gene therapy: the case for change

Adeno-associated virus-based gene therapy points to a coming transformation in the treatment of people living with haemophilia, promising sustained bleed control and potential improvement in quality of life. Nevertheless, the consequences of introducing new genetic material are not trivial. The perceived benefits should not minimise the challenges facing patients in understanding the long-term risks and providing a valid and meaningful informed consent, whether in a research or clinical setting. Informed consent is a fundamentally important doctrine in both medical ethics and health law, upholding an individual's right to define their personal goals and make their own autonomous choices. Patients should be enabled to recognise their clinical situation, understand the implications of treatment and integrate every facet of their life into their decision. This review describes informed consent processes for haemophilia gene therapy clinical trials, factors affecting patients' decision making and the availability of patient-centred decision support interventions, to ensure that patients' interests are being protected. Regulatory guidance has been published for physicians and manufacturers in haemophilia on informed consent, including for gene therapy, while best-practice recommendations for patient-physician discussions are available. In all settings, however, communicating and presenting highly technical and complex therapeutic information is challenging, especially where multiple barriers to scientific knowledge and health literacy exist. We propose several evidence-informed strategies to enhance the consent procedure, such as utilising validated literacy and knowledge assessment tools as well as participatory learning environments over an extended period, to ensure that patients are fully cognisant of the consent they give or deny. Further research is needed to define new, creative approaches for patient education and the upholding of ethical values in the informed consent process for gene therapy. The lessons learnt and approaches developed within haemophilia could set the gold standard for good practice in ensuring ethical preparedness amidst advances in genetic therapies.

Plain language summary

Improving the informed consent process for people living with haemophilia considering gene therapy. Gene therapy is the process of replacing faulty genes with healthy ones. In haemophilia, gene therapy involves introducing a working copy of the gene for the clotting factor that patients are missing. Following treatment, patients should begin producing their own clotting factor normally. However, people living with haemophilia (PwH) need to be fully informed regarding the potential benefits and risks of gene therapy and what this means for them, whether as part of a research study or routine medical care.Patients must be respected and supported to make decisions about their own health and wellbeing, recognising their legal and moral right to set personal goals and make treatment choices. For this to happen in practice, patients should be aware of their individual health needs, understand the effects of treatment and consider lifestyle preferences in relation to their decisions. This article attempts to describe how informed consent is obtained in haemophilia gene therapy clinical trials, what affects a patient's ability to make decisions and the availability of information and support to respect and protect the interests of PwH.Regulators responsible for approving medical products have published guidance on informed consent for physicians and pharmaceutical manufacturers in haemophilia, including for gene therapy. Recommendations have been made about the best ways for PwH to discuss gene therapy with their physicians. Yet, poor communication of complex topics, such as gene therapy, can be problematic, especially if patients lack the skills and confidence to understand and discuss the science, or for physicians with limited time in clinic.We propose strategies to improve the consent process, so patients can feel more able to make informed decisions about new treatments. Further research is needed to find new, creative approaches for educating patients and ensuring that the informed consent process for gene therapy in haemophilia is ethical.

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.