Shelly Benjaminy1, Ian Macdonald2, Tania Bubela1. 1. School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Alberta, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Ocular gene transfer clinical trials are raising patient hopes for the treatment of choroideremia--a blinding degenerative retinopathy. Phase I choroideremia gene transfer trials necessitate communicating about the risks of harm and potential benefits with patients while avoiding the sensationalism that has historically undermined this field of translational medicine. METHODS: We conducted interviews between June 2011 and June 2012 with 6 choroideremia patient advocates, 20 patients, and 15 clinicians about their hopes for benefits, perceived risks of harm, and hopes for the time frame of clinical implementation of choroideremia gene transfer. RESULTS: Despite the safety focus of phase I trials, participants hoped for direct visual benefits with evident discrepancies between stakeholder perspectives about the degree of visual benefit. Clinicians and patient advocates were concerned by limited patient attention to risks of harm. Interviews revealed confusion about the time frames for the clinical implementation of choroideremia gene transfer and patient urgency to access gene transfer within a limited therapeutic window. CONCLUSION: Differences in stakeholder perspectives about choroideremia gene transfer necessitate strategies that promote responsible communications about choroideremia gene transfer and aid in its translation. Strategies should counter historical sensationalism associated with gene transfer, promote informed consent, and honor patient hope while grounding communications in current clinical realities.
PURPOSE: Ocular gene transfer clinical trials are raising patient hopes for the treatment of choroideremia--a blinding degenerative retinopathy. Phase I choroideremia gene transfer trials necessitate communicating about the risks of harm and potential benefits with patients while avoiding the sensationalism that has historically undermined this field of translational medicine. METHODS: We conducted interviews between June 2011 and June 2012 with 6 choroideremia patient advocates, 20 patients, and 15 clinicians about their hopes for benefits, perceived risks of harm, and hopes for the time frame of clinical implementation of choroideremia gene transfer. RESULTS: Despite the safety focus of phase I trials, participants hoped for direct visual benefits with evident discrepancies between stakeholder perspectives about the degree of visual benefit. Clinicians and patient advocates were concerned by limited patient attention to risks of harm. Interviews revealed confusion about the time frames for the clinical implementation of choroideremia gene transfer and patient urgency to access gene transfer within a limited therapeutic window. CONCLUSION: Differences in stakeholder perspectives about choroideremia gene transfer necessitate strategies that promote responsible communications about choroideremia gene transfer and aid in its translation. Strategies should counter historical sensationalism associated with gene transfer, promote informed consent, and honor patient hope while grounding communications in current clinical realities.
Authors: Gail E Henderson; Arlene M Davis; Nancy M P King; Michele M Easter; Catherine R Zimmer; Barbra Bluestone Rothschild; Benjamin S Wilfond; Daniel K Nelson; Larry R Churchill Journal: Mol Ther Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 11.454
Authors: Daniel P Sulmasy; Alan B Astrow; M Kai He; Damon M Seils; Neal J Meropol; Ellyn Micco; Kevin P Weinfurt Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-08-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Victoria A Miller; Justin N Baker; Angela C Leek; Sabahat Hizlan; Susan R Rheingold; Amy D Yamokoski; Dennis Drotar; Eric Kodish Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2012-10-03 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Albert M Maguire; Francesca Simonelli; Eric A Pierce; Edward N Pugh; Federico Mingozzi; Jeannette Bennicelli; Sandro Banfi; Kathleen A Marshall; Francesco Testa; Enrico M Surace; Settimio Rossi; Arkady Lyubarsky; Valder R Arruda; Barbara Konkle; Edwin Stone; Junwei Sun; Jonathan Jacobs; Lou Dell'Osso; Richard Hertle; Jian-xing Ma; T Michael Redmond; Xiaosong Zhu; Bernd Hauck; Olga Zelenaia; Kenneth S Shindler; Maureen G Maguire; J Fraser Wright; Nicholas J Volpe; Jennifer Wellman McDonnell; Alberto Auricchio; Katherine A High; Jean Bennett Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-04-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Albert M Maguire; Katherine A High; Alberto Auricchio; J Fraser Wright; Eric A Pierce; Francesco Testa; Federico Mingozzi; Jeannette L Bennicelli; Gui-shuang Ying; Settimio Rossi; Ann Fulton; Kathleen A Marshall; Sandro Banfi; Daniel C Chung; Jessica I W Morgan; Bernd Hauck; Olga Zelenaia; Xiaosong Zhu; Leslie Raffini; Frauke Coppieters; Elfride De Baere; Kenneth S Shindler; Nicholas J Volpe; Enrico M Surace; Carmela Acerra; Arkady Lyubarsky; T Michael Redmond; Edwin Stone; Junwei Sun; Jennifer Wellman McDonnell; Bart P Leroy; Francesca Simonelli; Jean Bennett Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-10-23 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Murat Sartas; Piet van Asten; Marc Schut; Mariette McCampbell; Moureen Awori; Perez Muchunguzi; Moses Tenywa; Sylvia Namazzi; Ana Sole Amat; Graham Thiele; Claudio Proietti; Andre Devaux; Cees Leeuwis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi; Karen Macpherson; Lauren Elston; Susan Myles; Jennifer Washington; Nisha Sungum; Mark Briggs; Philip N Newsome; Melanie J Calvert Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2020-12-08 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Patrick Bodilly Kane; Daniel M Benjamin; Roger A Barker; Anthony E Lang; Todd Sherer; Jonathan Kimmelman Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Heather G Mack; Fred K Chen; John Grigg; Robyn Jamieson; John De Roach; Fleur O'Hare; Alexis Ceecee Britten-Jones; Myra McGuinness; Nicole Tindill; Lauren Ayton Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 2.692