The role of patient and healthcare professionals in the era of new hemophilia treatments in developed and developing countries

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.

Race and ethnicity and the success of immune tolerance induction among people with severe haemophilia A in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Immune tolerance induction (ITI) is the only treatment to eradicate inhibitors in people with severe haemophilia A with inhibitors. Since the risk of inhibitor development is greater among Black and Hispanic persons, it has been hypothesized that race and ethnicity may influence ITI success. Limited studies have evaluated this hypothesis.

AIM

To examine the success of ITI according to race and ethnicity.

METHODS

Participants who entered the Community Counts (CC) Registry between 2013 and 2017, were aged ≥3 years at study entry, and received ITI were included (n = 559). The proportion of participants with successful ITI was examined with adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).

RESULTS

Among 559 participants, 56.9%, 19.1%, 18.1% and 4.3% were Non-Hispanic (NH) White, NH Black, Hispanic and Asian, respectively, and 1.7% were coded as other or missing. Approximately 80% of Hispanic, NH Black and NH White participants had good/very good prognosis, defined as having a pre-ITI peak inhibitor of < 200 Bethesda Units per millilitre. Nearly 60% of participants (59.7%) achieved successful ITI, 20.7% and 19.5% experienced partially successful or failed ITI, respectively. Successful ITI was non-significantly lower in NH Black (54.2%; aPR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.62-1.44) and Hispanic (55.4%; aPR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.71-1.13) relative to NH White participants (62.6%).

CONCLUSION

In this study, 60% of participants in the CC Registry had successful ITI, consistent with previous studies. The proportion with successful ITI was generally comparable across racial and ethnic groups with similar prognosis. These findings do not support the hypothesis that ITI response varies according to race or ethnicity.

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.

Evaluating Gene Therapy as a Potential Paradigm Shift in Treating Severe Hemophilia

Hemophilia is characterized by a deficiency in coagulation factors VIII or IX. The general standard of care for severe hemophilia is frequent intravenous recombinant or plasma-derived factor replacement to prevent bleeding. While this treatment is effective in preventing bleeding, frequent infusions are burdensome for patients. Nonadherence to the therapeutic regimen leaves people with hemophilia at risk for spontaneous and traumatic bleeds into joints as well as life-threatening bleeds such as intracranial hemorrhage. The chronicity of the disorder often leads to the formation of target joints, causing long-term pain and impairing mobility. As a monogenic disorder with well-understood genetics, hemophilia is an ideal disorder for implementing innovations in gene therapies. Indeed, recent approvals of two gene therapy products have the potential to shift the hemophilia treatment paradigm. Valoctocogene roxaparvovec and etranacogene dezaparvovec-drlb are gene therapies for hemophilia A and B, respectively. These therapies, given as a single intravenous infusion, may improve patients' quality of life, decreasing treatment burden and resulting in factor expression that virtually eliminates the need for factor replacement. Since both treatments involve viral vectors targeted to the liver, short- and long-term safety and efficacy monitoring involves monitoring liver enzymes to track liver health. Long-term monitoring of efficacy, durability of gene expression, and safety are ongoing. Gene therapy presents a promising new therapeutic option for patients with hemophilia and warrants continued innovation and investigation.

Hemophilia gene therapy: first, do no harm

The introduction of adeno-associated virus-mediated, liver-directed gene therapy into the hemophilia treatment landscape brings not only great promise but also considerable uncertainty to a community that has a history punctuated by the devastating effects of HIV and hepatitis C virus. These infections were introduced into people with hemophilia through the innovation of factor concentrates in the 1970s and 1980s. Concentrates, heralded as a major advance in treatment at the time, brought devastation and death to the community already challenged by the complications of bleeding into joints, vital organs, and the brain. Over the past 5 decades, considerable advances in hemophilia treatment have improved the survival, quality of life, and participation of people with hemophilia, although challenges remain and health equity with their unaffected peers has not yet been achieved. The decision to take a gene therapy product is one in which an informed, holistic, and shared decision-making approach must be employed. Bias on the part of health care professionals and people with hemophilia must be addressed and minimized. Here, we review data leading to the regulatory authorization of valoctocogene roxaparvovec, an adeno-associated virus 5 gene therapy, in Europe to treat hemophilia A and etranacogene dezaparvovec-drlb in the United States and Europe to treat hemophilia B. We also provide an overview of the decision-making process and recommend steps that should be taken by the hemophilia community to ensure the safety of and optimal outcomes for people with hemophilia who choose to receive a gene therapy product.

Laying the foundations for gene therapy in Italy for patients with haemophilia A: A Delphi consensus study

INTRODUCTION

Current treatment for haemophilia A involves factor VIII replacement or non-replacement (emicizumab) therapies, neither of which permanently normalise factor VIII levels. Gene therapy using adeno-associated viral (AAV) vectors is an emerging long-term treatment strategy for people with severe haemophilia A (PwSHA) that is likely to be available for clinical use in the near future.

AIM

This article proposes practical guidelines for the assessment, treatment, and follow-up of potential PwSHA candidates for AAV-based gene therapy.

METHOD

Using the Delphi method, a working group of Italian stakeholders with expertise in and knowledge of the care of adults with haemophilia A analysed literature for AAV-based gene therapy and drafted a list of statements that were circulated to a panel of Italian peers. During two rounds of voting, panel members voted on their agreement with each statement to reach a consensus.

RESULTS

The Delphi process yielded 40 statements regarding haemophilia A gene therapy, across five topics: (1) organisational model; (2) multidisciplinary team; (3) patient engagement; (4) laboratory surveillance; and (5) patient follow-up and gene therapy outcomes. The consensus was reached for all 40 statements, with the second round of voting needed for five statements.

CONCLUSION

Use of the hub-and-spoke organisational model and multidisciplinary teams are expected to optimise patient selection for gene therapy, as well as the management of dosing and patient follow-up, patient engagement, laboratory surveillance, and patient expectations regarding outcomes. This approach should allow the benefits of AAV-based gene therapy for haemophilia A to be maximised.

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.

Hemophilia Patient Experience in a Physical Therapy-Guided Health Education Intervention: A Mixed-Method Design

People with hemophilia usually have negative joint consequences due to their illness. Evidence suggests that exercise and therapeutic education bring some benefits. An important factor that affects health interventions was the experience and degree of satisfaction. Thus, it is relevant to analyze qualitative and quantitative data to obtain a complete view of the patient’s experience. As a result, a concurrent nested mixed method with quantitative predominance study design was carried out. Nine people with hemophilia of Hemoaralar with a homogeneous environment participated in this study. The items evaluated were the level of satisfaction through the GCPC-UN-ESU survey and the experience with healthcare interventions through a focus group. A high level of satisfaction was obtained, but some divergences between quantitative and qualitative data were found. Further research about physical therapy and this type of intervention in people with hemophilia should be considered to better address the impact of living with the disease.

Hemophilia treatment in 2021: Choosing the"optimal" treatment using an integrative, patient-oriented approach to shared decision-making between patients and clinicians

The mainstay of hemophilia treatment is to prevent bleeding through regular long-term prophylaxis and to control acute breakthrough bleeds. Various treatment options are currently available for prophylaxis, and treatment decision-making is a challenging and multifaceted process of identifying the most appropriate option for each patient. A multidisciplinary expert panel convened to develop a practical, patient-oriented algorithm to facilitate shared treatment decision-making between clinicians and patients. Key variables were identified, and an algorithm proposed based on five variables: bleeding phenotype, musculoskeletal status, treatment adherence, venous access, and lifestyle. A complementary, patient-focused preference tool was also hypothesized, with the aim of exploring individual patients' priorities, preferences, and goals. It is hoped that the proposed algorithm and the hypothesized patient preference tool will assist in selecting a treatment for each patient that is as efficient as possible in preventing bleeds while also accounting for the patient's expectations and priorities.

Patient-relevant health outcomes for hemophilia care: Development of an international standard outcomes set

BACKGROUND

Patient-relevant health outcomes for persons with hemophilia should be identified and prioritized to optimize and individualize care for persons with hemophilia. Therefore, an international group of persons with hemophilia and multidisciplinary health care providers set out to identify a globally applicable standard set of health outcomes relevant to all individuals with hemophilia.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify possible health outcomes and risk adjustment variables. Persons with hemophilia and multidisciplinary health care providers were involved in an iterative nominal consensus process to select the most important health outcomes and risk adjustment variables for persons with hemophilia. Recommendations were made for outcome measurement instruments.

RESULTS

Persons with hemophilia were defined as all men and women with an X-linked inherited bleeding disorder caused by a deficiency of coagulation factor VIII or IX with plasma activity levels <40 IU/dL. We recommend collecting the following 10 health outcomes at least annually, if applicable: (i) cure, (ii) impact of disease on life expectancy, (iii) ability to engage in normal daily activities, (iv) severe bleeding episodes, (v) number of days lost from school or work, (vi) chronic pain, (vii) disease and treatment complications, (viii) sustainability of physical functioning, (ix) social functioning, and (x) mental health. Validated clinical as well as patient-reported outcome measurement instruments were endorsed. Demographic factors, baseline clinical factors, and treatment factors were identified as risk-adjustment variables.

CONCLUSION

A consensus-based international set of health outcomes relevant to all persons with hemophilia, and corresponding measurement instruments, was identified for use in clinical care to facilitate harmonized longitudinal monitoring and comparison of outcomes.

Optimizing language for effective communication of gene therapy concepts with hemophilia patients: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

For communities of people living with hemophilia and other genetic conditions, gene therapy could represent a paradigm shift in treatment strategies. As investigational therapeutic modalities such as gene therapy become more widely used and discussed, there is a critical need for all stakeholders to communicate using a lexicon that is intelligible, accurate, consistent, and representative of novel treatments. In doing so, expectations can be more carefully managed and potential risks, benefits, and limitations better understood. In recognition of this need, a first-ever study of gene therapy lexicon was conducted using established methods of market research and linguistic analysis.

METHODS

Ninety-four participants representing hematologists, nurses, caregivers, and people with hemophilia A, in six countries (US, UK, Spain, Germany, France, Italy) took part in a series of in-depth interviews, face-to-face focus groups, an advisory board meeting, and online group interviews to develop, refine, and test verbal, written, and pictorial language concepts through a three-phase iterative process. Sessions were conducted in local languages using detailed discussion guides. Feedback from participants was captured using real-time instant-response dial testing to measure moment-by-moment emotional responses to language stimuli. Semiquantitative analysis of the responses informed selection of preferred language concepts for final testing, and qualitative discussion explored preference rationale. Participants also completed polling and forced rank and choice written exercises.

RESULTS

Study feedback showed that the hemophilia community has preferences around consistent lexicon to describe hemophilia and its management. Expert linguistic analysis of feedback from the three phases enabled agreement of a consensus lexicon of vocabulary and an optimized summary narrative for talking about gene therapy amongst people affected by hemophilia A. Preferences were largely consistent across audiences and countries, although some country-specific recommendations were made. A representative summary phrase was agreed: "Gene therapy is being studied in clinical trials with the aim to allow the body to produce factor VIII protein on its own".

CONCLUSIONS

The use of preferred language across different stakeholders increases understanding and comfort during discussions of novel and complex therapeutic modalities such as gene therapy. Consistent use of community-informed lexicon minimizes miscommunication and facilitates informed decision-making regarding potential future treatment opportunities.

Patient Perspectives on Novel Treatments in Haemophilia: A Qualitative Study

Background and Objective

New treatments for haemophilia are under development or entering the market, including extended half-life products, designer drugs and gene therapy, thereby increasing treatment options for haemophilia. It is currently unknown how people with haemophilia decide whether to switch to a new treatment. Therefore, the objective of this study was to explore what factors may play a role when Dutch patients and parents of boys with moderate or severe haemophilia make decisions about whether to switch to a different treatment, and how disease and treatment characteristics may affect these decisions. This may aid clinical teams in tailored information provision and shared decision making.

Methods

We conducted interviews among adults with moderately severe or severe haemophilia and parents of young boys with severe haemophilia. We aimed to include participants from a variety of backgrounds in terms of involvement in the haemophilia community, age, treatment centre and treatments. Participants were recruited through the Netherlands Haemophilia Society and a haemophilia treatment centre. Semi-structured interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic content analysis was used to analyse the data.

Results

Twelve people with haemophilia and two mothers of boys with haemophilia were included. In general, participants reported to be satisfied with their current treatment. However, they considered ease of use of the medication (fewer injections, easier handling, alternative administration) an added value of new treatments. Participants were aware of the high cost of coagulation factor products and some expressed their concern about the Netherlands Haemophilia Society’s long-term willingness to pay for current and novel treatments, especially for increased usage due to high-risk activities. Participants also expressed their concerns about the short- and long-term safety of new treatments and believed the effects of gene therapy were not yet fully understood. Participants expected their treatment team to inform them when a particular new treatment would be suitable for them.

Conclusions

With the number of treatment options set to increase, it is important for healthcare providers to be aware of how patient experiences shape patients’ decisions about new therapies.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40271-019-00395-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Safety evaluation of emicizumab prophylaxis in individuals with haemophilia A

INTRODUCTION

Emicizumab is a bispecific-humanized monoclonal antibody that improves hemostasis by bridging activated factor IX and factor X to substitute for the function of missing activated FVIII. It is an alternative to prophylaxis with factor VIII replacement and is associated with improved outcomes in individuals with hemophilia A with and without inhibitors.

AREAS COVERED

Emicizumab is efficacious in reducing bleeding events when compared to on-demand treatment and factor-based prophylaxis. Except for the few thrombotic microangiopathy and thrombotic event cases mainly seen in the HAVEN 1 trial, emicizumab has an overall excellent safety profile with minimal side effects.

EXPERT OPINION

Knowledge gaps include the efficacy and safety of emicizumab in younger age groups and those with mild or moderate hemophilia A. Future directions for research include exploring the risk of inhibitor recurrence in patients with a history of high titer inhibitor who have been successfully tolerized, who switch from factor prophylaxis to emicizumab, as well as conducting 'real world studies' to evaluate the patient's perception of emicizumab in regard to ease and tolerability in order to optimize individualized treatment plans.

How to implement medical and patient associations in low-income countries: A proposition from the African French Alliance for the Treatment of Haemophilia (AFATH)

INTRODUCTION

There is a lack of joint recommendations by healthcare professionals (HCP) and patient organizations when a partnership between high and low-income countries in the field of haemophilia is planned.

AIM

To draft recommendations to clarify the methodology when a partnership between low- and high-income countries is planned with the objective of a long-term implication. This methodology is to be implemented for fulfilling both medical and associative aims.

METHODS

Based on the available literature, a first document was written, then diffused to AFATH (Alliance Franco-Africaine pour le Traitement de l'Hémophilie) members, and after a one-day meeting and further amendments, a second draft was approved by all members before submission for publication.

RESULTS

Based on 6 years experience, several recommendations regarding the joint and separate roles of patient association and HCP for a first mission in French-speaking sub-Saharan African countries have been established. The proposed methodology for establishing preliminary contacts, the first visit and the key points for diagnostic action, medical follow-up, patient education and advocacy strategy outlines a model of partnership between patients and HCP.

CONCLUSION

This paper written jointly by patients and physicians underlines the importance of reciprocal expert guidance and a partnership based on complementary inputs.

Etranacogene dezaparvovec for hemophilia B gene therapy

The treatment landscape for hemophilia has been rapidly changing with introduction of novel therapies. Gene therapy for hemophilia is a promising therapeutic option for sustained endogenous factor production to mitigate the need for prophylactic treatment to prevent spontaneous and traumatic bleeding. Etranacogene dezaparvovec is an investigational factor IX (FIX) gene transfer product that utilizes the adeno-associated virus (AAV) 5 vector with a liver-specific promoter and a hyperactive FIX transgene. Here, the development of etranacogene dezaparvovec and available efficacy and safety data from clinical trials are reviewed. Overall, etranacogene dezaparvovec provides sustained FIX expression for more than 2 years and allows for a bleed and infusion-free life in the majority of patients. Safety, efficacy, and quality-of-life data will inform shared decision-making for patients who are considering gene therapy. Long-term follow-up regarding duration of expression and safety are crucial.

Comparative analysis of oral health and treatment necessities in hemophilia individuals of Davangere population - A case control study

Background:

The integrated approach towards the oral care of individuals with special needs requires proper motivation and prophylactic guidance by primary health care professionals, including musculoskeletal support to psychological therapy. In developing countries like India, oral care is not of primary importance as oral hygiene practices are less performed by compromised individuals suffering from hemophilia. Here, primary health care professionals play a significant role. The present study was commenced to evaluate oral health and treatment necessities in hemophilic individuals of Davangere population, Karnataka.

Objective:

The present study was conducted to assess and compare the oral hygiene, dentition status, and treatment needs of individuals with hemophilia.

Methods:

Simplified Oral Hygiene Index (OHI-S), decayed, missed, filled tooth (DMFT) indices and treatment needs in 50 hemophiliac patients registered at Karnataka hemophilia society were evaluated along with an Oral health-related quality of life (OHR-QoL) questionnaire. They were matched with healthy controls of the same age and gender. The data was analyzed using t test and Chi square test.

Results:

The oral hygiene was fair in both hemophilic and healthy individuals with a mean value of 1.82 ± 0.79 and 1.83 ± 0.73, respectively. All the parameters such as OHIS, DMFT indices, and teatment needs were not statistically significant. The spontaneous oral bleeding was the only significant factor in OHR-Qol questionnaire.

Conclusion:

The present study concluded that oral hygiene, dental caries prevalence, and treatment needs were similar in both hemophiliac and control groups. With proper guidance, motivation, and preventive care by primary health care professionals, it was relatively easy for individuals with congenital blood disorder (CBD) to maintain oral health-related quality of life in Davangere population, Karnataka.

Comparing Physician and Patient Perspectives on Prophylactic Treatment with BAY 94-9027 for Severe Haemophilia A: A Post Hoc Analysis

Introduction

BAY 94-9027 is a newly developed extended half-life product to treat haemophilia, allowing for fewer injections than with standard products. This post hoc analysis aimed to compare physicians’ and patients’ opinions on BAY 94-9027 prophylaxis, and explore how qualitative interview data is aligned with the data from the Haemophilia-specific Quality of Life questionnaire for Adults (Haemo-QoL-A).

Methods

Exploratory qualitative interviews were conducted with physicians and patients by phone upon the exit of patients from the PROTECT VIII extension phase following a semi-directed guide. In this post hoc analysis, all transcripts were reviewed and reported concepts were compared to assess the level of concordance between physicians and patients. These qualitative data were compared with the Haemo-QoL-A mean global and subscale scores at baseline and end of main phase (36 weeks later).

Results

Ten physicians and 16 patients (mean age 47 years) from Israel, the Netherlands and the USA were interviewed. Significant improvements were reported by all physicians from baseline [e.g. lower frequency of bleeds (80%), improvement in emotional functioning (90%)], which is in concordance with patients’ reports. The improved confidence reported by physicians cascaded to greater participation in various activities, resulting in a better perceived emotional state and a significant improvement on the Haemo-QoL-A emotional impact subscale score (p = 0.04) between baseline and end of main phase. Most physicians (80%) reported improvement in bleed frequency, as patients did (88%). Improvement in physical functioning or mobility was not consistently reported in this 8-month study.

Conclusion

Interviewed physicians and patients generally agreed on the beneficial impact of BAY 94-9027, specifically regarding the increased level of self-confidence in patients and its subsequent positive impact on patients’ lives. These findings supported the observed improvement on the Haemo-QoL-A emotional impact subscale. Overall, this study highlights the concordance between physician and patient perspective on the positive experience with BAY 94-9027.

Shared decision making: Does a physician's decision-making style affect patient participation in treatment choices for primary immunodeficiency?

Overall health care spending in the United States is equivalent to more than 15% of GDP, yet outcomes rank below the top 25 in most quality categories when compared with other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. The majority of spending is consumed by small patient populations with chronic diseases. Experts believe increased patient-physician shared decision making (SDM) should result in better overall longitudinal care but understanding the physician's role in facilitating SDM is limited. Structural equation modelling was applied to results of a 2016 questionnaire-based survey of 330 US physicians who treat approximately 55% of primary immune deficiency requiring immune globulin therapy; it tested the relationship between slow/rational vs fast/intuitive decision-making styles and SDM as mediated by patient-centric care and moderated by physician's trust in the patient. The results showed a statistically significant relationship between slow/rational decision making and SDM. The results also suggest differences related to age, gender, education, and race but no differences related to trust.

UK vs US physician decision-making in the treatment of haemophilia

INTRODUCTION

Patient-physician shared decision-making (SDM) has become increasingly seen as having a positive effect on management of chronic diseases. However, little is known of the factors that encourage SDM or how effective it may be at improving health outcomes or how cost-effective it is.

AIM

To investigate the uses and applications of patient physician-SDM in the management of haemophilia and the influence of healthcare systems in the United States and the United Kingdom.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study based on interviews with treatment experts in the United States and United Kingdom. A grounded theory approach was used to analyse the data from the transcribed interviews and themes that emerged as related to the decision influencers. Twelve physicians from each country were interviewed by the author.

RESULTS

Treatment guidelines were viewed as having only limited applicability because of the lack of universal best options in haemophilia. The US physicians in the sample appeared to be more influenced by patient preferences than physicians in the UK, who instead tended to follow policies and standards of care more closely. Physicians in both countries commented that many of their patents had become highly knowledgeable of their bleeding disorder. US physicians were sometimes limited by insurance company policies but also reported that they were often successful in appealing insurance decisions.

CONCLUSION

The research suggests that there are different influences on decision-making between healthcare systems; patients and overarching healthcare systems play a major role in how physicians treat haemophilia.

How to discuss gene therapy for haemophilia? A patient and physician perspective

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.