Perspectives on Spinraza (Nusinersen) Treatment Study: Views of Individuals and Parents of Children Diagnosed with Spinal Muscular Atrophy

BACKGROUND

Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a genetic disorder characterized by muscle loss. In December 2016 the FDA approved the first and only treatment drug for SMA: Spinraza (nusinersen). Despite excitement and optimism, there are no published data on the perceptions of individuals with SMA and their families about the benefits, risks, and challenges associated with treatment.

OBJECTIVE

This qualitative interview study sought to characterize the perspectives of patients/families with SMA who did not want, or were unsure about, receiving this new innovative treatment for a previously untreatable and often fatal condition.

METHODS

Individuals and families were recruited via advertisements on Facebook groups related to SMA and through the Stanford Neuromuscular Contact Registry. Participants completed a demographic questionnaire and participated in a semi-structured interview via voice conferencing. Interview questions focused on: 1) experiences with SMA, 2) opinions about Spinraza treatment, and 3) factors considered in decisions regarding treatment.

RESULTS

Thirteen people were interviewed: ten adults with SMA (ages 27-48, nine with Type II) and three parents of minor children with SMA (one each of Types I, II and III). Qualitative content analysis identified a range of opinions about Spinraza treatment: five were uninterested (2 adults, 3 parents), four adults were still deciding whether to pursue treatment, three adults were interested or in the process of pursuing treatment, and one adult was currently receiving the drug after overcoming significant reluctance. Participants described several key factors influencing their treatment decisions, including: concerns about risk factors and side effects, high cost, insurance coverage, time involvement, and lack of data about efficacy. Participants reported learning about most of these factors through parent/patient testimonials on SMA-specific social media groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants reported basing decisions about pursuing Spinraza on a variety of practical and value-based considerations. They described carefully weighing the perceived potential benefits and risks of treatment through the lens of their current quality of life and prognosis. These findings suggest that providers should be aware that some patients and parents, especially those with Types II-IV, may approach treatment decisions differently than parents of children with SMA I. Informed treatment decisions can be supported through: 1) the collection and dissemination of better data on Spinraza treatment in these populations; 2) clear communication about risks, side effects and eligibility; 3) improved access to payment and treatment facilities; and 4) facilitation of discussions between providers and patients/families about identity and disability in the context of goals of care and other life and support challenges.

Attitudes of people with inherited retinal conditions toward gene editing technology

Background

The views of people with genetic conditions are crucial to include in public dialogue around developing gene editing technologies. This qualitative study sought to characterize the attitudes of people with inherited retinal conditions (retinitis pigmentosa [RP] and Leber congenital amaurosis [LCA]) toward gene editing.

Methods

Individuals with RP (N = 9) and LCA (N = 8) participated in semi‐structured qualitative interviews about their experience with and attitudes toward blindness, and their views about gene editing technology for somatic, germline, and enhancement applications.

Results

Participants saw potential benefits from gene editing in general, but views about its use for retinal conditions varied and were influenced by personal perspectives on blindness. Those who felt more negatively toward blindness, particularly those with later onset blindness, were more supportive of gene editing for retinal conditions. Concerns about both germline and somatic editing included: the importance of informed consent; impacts of gene editing on social attitudes and barriers affecting blind people; and worries about “eliminating” blindness or other traits.

Conclusion

People with RP and LCA have diverse attitudes toward gene editing technology informed by their own lived experience with disability, and many have concerns about how the ways in which it is discussed and implemented might affect them.