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

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 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.

What matters most to patients with multiple myeloma? A Pan-European patient preference study

INTRODUCTION

Given the rapid increase in novel treatments for patients with multiple myeloma (MM), this patient preference study aimed to establish which treatment attributes matter most to MM patients and evaluate discrete choice experiment (DCE) and swing weighting (SW) as two elicitation methods for quantifying patients' preferences.

METHODS

A survey incorporating DCE and SW was disseminated among European MM patients. The survey included attributes and levels informed by a previous qualitative study with 24 MM patients. Latent class and mixed logit models were used to estimate the DCE attribute weights and descriptive analyses were performed to derive SW weights. MM patients and patient organisations provided extensive feedback during survey development.

RESULTS

393 MM patients across 21 countries completed the survey (M years since diagnosis=6; M previous therapies=3). Significant differences (p<.01) between participants' attribute weights were revealed depending on participants' prior therapy experience, and their experience with side-effects and symptoms. Multivariate analyses showed that participants across the three MM patient classes identified via the latent class model differed regarding their past number of therapies (F=4.772, p=.009). Patients with the most treatments (class 1) and those with the least treatments (class 3) attached more value to life expectancy versus quality of life-related attributes such as pain, mobility and thinking problems. Conversely, patients with intermediary treatment experience (class 2) attached more value to quality of life-related attributes versus life expectancy. Participants highlighted the difficulty of trading-off between life expectancy and quality of life and between physical and mental health. Participants expressed a need for greater psychological support to cope with their symptoms, treatment side-effects, and uncertainties. With respect to patients' preferences for the DCE or SW questions, 42% had no preference, 32% preferred DCE, and 25% preferred SW.

CONCLUSIONS

Quality of life-related attributes affecting MM patients' physical, mental and psychological health such as pain, mobility and thinking problems were considered very important to MM patients, next to life expectancy. This underscores a need to include such attributes in decision-making by healthcare stakeholders involved in MM drug development, evidence generation, evaluation, and clinical practice. This study highlights DCE as the preferred methodology for understanding relative attribute weights from a patient's perspective.

Patient preferences and priorities for haemophilia gene therapy in the US: A discrete choice experiment

Introduction

Gene therapy has shown promise in clinical trials for patients with haemophilia, but patient preference studies have focused on factor replacement treatments.

Aim

We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to investigate the relative importance and differential preferences patients provide for gene therapy attributes.

Methods

We surveyed male adults with haemophilia in the United States recruited from patient panels including the National Hemophilia Foundation Community Voices in Research platform using an online survey over 4 months in 2020/21. Participants indicated preferences for gene therapy attributes including dosing frequency/durability, effect on annual bleeding, uncertainty related to side effects, impact on daily activities, impact on mental health, and post‐treatment requirements. The relative importance of each attribute was analysed overall and for subgroups based on haemophilia type and severity.

Results

A total of 183 males with haemophilia A (n = 120) or B (n = 63) were included. Half (47%) had severe haemophilia; most (75%) were White. Overall, participants gave effect on bleeding rate the greatest relative importance (31%), followed by dose frequency/durability (26%), uncertainty regarding safety issues (17%), and impact on daily activities (11%). Dose frequency/durability had the greatest importance for those with haemophilia B (35%).

Conclusion

People with haemophilia prioritised reduced bleeding and treatment burden; the former was more important in haemophilia A and the latter in haemophilia B, followed by safety and impact on daily life in this DCE of gene therapy attributes. These findings and differences can inform clinical and health policy decisions to improve health equity for people with haemophilia.