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

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.

Research Priorities to Increase Confidence in and Acceptance of Health Preference Research: What Questions Should be Prioritized Now?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

There has been an increase in the study and use of stated-preference methods to inform medicine development decisions. The objective of this study was to identify prioritized topics and questions relating to health preferences based on the perspective of members of the preference research community.

METHODS

Preference research stakeholders from industry, academia, consultancy, health technology assessment/regulatory, and patient organizations were recruited using professional networks and preference-targeted e-mail listservs and surveyed about their perspectives on 19 topics and questions for future studies that would increase acceptance of preference methods and their results by decision makers. The online survey consisted of an initial importance prioritization task, a best-worst scaling case 1 instrument, and open-ended questions. Rating counts were used for analysis. The best-worst scaling used a balanced incomplete block design.

RESULTS

One hundred and one participants responded to the survey invitation with 66 completing the best-worst scaling. The most important research topics related to the synthesis of preferences across studies, transferability across populations or related diseases, and method topics including comparison of methods and non-discrete choice experiment methods. Prioritization differences were found between respondents whose primary affiliation was academia versus other stakeholders. Academic researchers prioritized methodological/less studied topics; other stakeholders prioritized applied research topics relating to consistency of practice.

CONCLUSIONS

As the field of health preference research grows, there is a need to revisit and communicate previous work on preference selection and study design to ensure that new stakeholders are aware of this work and to update these works where necessary. These findings might encourage discussion and alignment among different stakeholders who might hold different research priorities. Research on the application of previous preference research to new contexts will also help increase the acceptance of health preference information by decision makers.

Perspectives and perception of haemophilia gene therapy by French patients

INTRODUCTION AND AIM

A national survey was initiated by representatives of French patients with haemophilia (AFH) and the French reference centre for haemophilia, in order to appreciate the awareness and knowledge of these patients regarding haemophilia gene therapy (HGT) and understand better their position about this innovative treatment that will soon become available.

RESULTS

Of 143 answers received, 137 could be analysed, representing about 3.5% of patients with severe or moderate haemophilia over 16year-old. They were 80.3% with haemophilia A and 19.7 % with haemophilia B, with a severe form of the disease for 80.3 % of them. Curiosity for HGT was formulated by 64.2% of the participants, 33.6 % being interested by this approach as soon as it will be available and 38.7 % preferring to wait until more patients have been treated. Only 3.6 % of the participants would never consider receiving HGT. The level of awareness and knowledge was estimated to be limited by 39.5 % of the patients. More than 60 % of them declared having never or almost never discussed HGT with the team of their haemophilia centre. Before deciding to get HGT, 54.4 % of the participants considered that it will be very important to compare it with their current treatment and 53.7 % would like to be better informed by their care providers.

CONCLUSIONS

These results highlight the need for training and education for patients, but also for professionals at haemophilia centres, about HGT and the shared decision-making process. Objective, unbiased and transparent information must be available for patients about this very promising therapy which nonetheless carries more uncertainty and unknowns compared to other haemophilia treatments.

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.

Gene Therapy in Hemophilia: A Transformational Patient Experience

Hemophilia is a bleeding disorder caused by a single absent/defective gene and characterized by a lack of functional clotting factors. People with hemophilia may experience joint damage, pain, and psychological impairments, all of which could contribute to reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The current standard of care is clotting factor replacement, which is associated with regular infusions; therefore, alternative treatments such as gene therapy (GT) are in development. GT involves the delivery of a functional copy of the clotting factor 8/9 gene by a single infusion into the patient's cells, enabling them to produce their own clotting factor VIII/IX. The impact of treatment on patients' HRQoL can be assessed using hemophilia-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Since these measures were designed before the advent of GT, there is a need for updated individualized PRO measures. Patient groups and regulatory authorities emphasize the need for increased patient engagement when considering clinical trial design. Here, we provide patients' perspective on undergoing GT and discuss how to capture the patient voice when measuring the therapy's transformative impact.

How can patient preferences be used and communicated in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products? Findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER and call to action

Objective: Patients have unique insights and are (in-)directly affected by each decision taken throughout the life cycle of medicinal products. Patient preference studies (PPS) assess what matters most to patients, how much, and what trade-offs patients are willing to make. IMI PREFER was a six-year European public-private partnership under the Innovative Medicines Initiative that developed recommendations on how to assess and use PPS in medical product decision-making, including in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products. This paper aims to summarize findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER regarding i) PPS applications in regulatory evaluation, ii) when and how to consult with regulators on PPS, iii) how to reflect PPS in regulatory communication and iv) barriers and open questions for PPS in regulatory decision-making. Methods: PREFER performed six literature reviews, 143 interviews and eight focus group discussions with regulators, patient representatives, industry representatives, Health Technology Assessment bodies, payers, academics, and clincians between October 2016 and May 2022. Results: i) With respect to PPS applications, prior to the conduct of clinical trials of medicinal products, PPS could inform regulators' understanding of patients' unmet needs and relevant endpoints during horizon scanning activities and scientific advice. During the evaluation of a marketing authorization application, PPS could inform: a) the assessment of whether a product meets an unmet need, b) whether patient-relevant clinical trial endpoints and outcomes were studied, c) the understanding of patient-relevant effect sizes and acceptable trade-offs, and d) the identification of key (un-)favorable effects and uncertainties. ii) With respect to consulting with regulators on PPS, PPS researchers should ideally have early discussions with regulators (e.g., during scientific advice) on the PPS design and research questions. iii) Regarding external PPS communication, PPS could be reflected in the assessment report and product information (e.g., the European Public Assessment Report and the Summary of Product Characteristics). iv) Barriers relevant to the use of PPS in regulatory evaluation include a lack of PPS use cases and demonstrated impact on regulatory decision-making, and need for (financial) incentives, guidance and quality criteria for implementing PPS results in regulatory decision-making. Open questions concerning regulatory PPS use include: a) should a product independent broad approach to the design of PPS be taken and/or a product-specific one, b) who should optimally be financing, designing, conducting, and coordinating PPS, c) when (within and/or outside clinical trials) to perform PPS, and d) how can PPS use best be operationalized in regulatory decisions. Conclusion: PPS have high potential to inform regulators on key unmet needs, endpoints, benefits, and risks that matter most to patients and their acceptable trade-offs. Regulatory guidelines, templates and checklists, together with incentives are needed to foster structural and transparent PPS submission and evaluation in regulatory decision-making. More PPS case studies should be conducted and submitted for regulatory assessment to enable regulatory discussion and increase regulators' experience with PPS implementation and communication in regulatory evaluations.

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.

The Impact of Video-Based Educational Materials with Voiceovers on Preferences for Glucose Monitoring Technology in Patients with Diabetes: A Randomised Study

INTRODUCTION

Ensuring patients have enough information about healthcare choices prior to completing a preference study is necessary to support the validity of the findings. Patients are commonly informed using text-based information with supporting graphics. Video-based information may be more engaging for the general patient population. This study aimed to assess (1) the impact that educating patients using video-based educational materials with a voiceover has on patient preferences compared to traditional text, and (2) whether this impact is consistent between two countries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A video-based educational tool was developed to inform patients prior to completing a discrete choice experiment assessing preferences for glucose monitors. Patients with diabetes from the Netherlands and Poland were recruited through an online research panel. Respondents were randomised to receive information in either a text or a video with animations and a voiceover. Data were analysed using a mixed-logit model.

RESULTS

N = 981 completed surveys were analysed from the Netherlands (n = 459) and Poland (n = 522). Differences were found between the countries, but no interpretable pattern of differences was found between the two types of educational materials. Patients spent less time in the educational material than would be necessary to fully review all of the content.

CONCLUSIONS

Simply providing educational material in a video with animations and voiceovers does not necessarily lead to better engagement from respondents or different preference outcomes in a sample of diabetes patients when compared to text. Increasing engagement with educational materials should be a topic of future research for those conducting patient preference research as no amount of educational material will be helpful if respondents do not access it.

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.