Literature DB >> 24311736

Expectations and experiences of investigators and parents involved in a clinical trial for Duchenne/Becker muscular dystrophy.

Holly L Peay1, Aad Tibben, Tyler Fisher, Ethan Brenna, Barbara B Biesecker.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The social context of rare disease research is changing, with increased community engagement around drug development and clinical trials. This engagement may benefit patients and families but may also lead to heightened trial expectations and therapeutic misconception. Clinical investigators are also susceptible to harboring high expectations. Little is known about parental motivations and expectations for clinical trials for rare pediatric disorders.
PURPOSE: We describe the experience of parents and clinical investigators involved in a phase II clinical trial for Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy: their expectations, hopes, motivations, and reactions to the termination of the trial.
METHODS: This qualitative study was based on interviews with clinical investigators and parents of sons with Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy (DBMD) who participated in the phase IIa or IIb ataluren clinical trial in the United States. Interviews were transcribed and coded for thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Participants were 12 parents of affected boys receiving active drug and 9 clinical investigators. High trial expectations of direct benefit were reported by parents and many clinicians. Investigators described monitoring and managing parents' expectations; several worried about their own involvement in increasing parents' expectations. Most parents were able to differentiate their expectations from their optimistic hopes for a cure. Parents' expectations arose from other parents, advocacy organizations, and the sponsor. All parents reported some degree of clinical benefit to their children. Secondary benefits were hopefulness and powerful feelings associated with active efforts to affect the disease course. Parents and clinical investigators reported strong, close relationships that were mutually important. Parents and clinicians felt valued by the sponsor for the majority of the trial. When the trial abruptly stopped, they described loss of engagement, distress, and feeling unprepared for the possibility of trial termination. LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective study of one clinical trial. We were unable to recruit participants whose children received placebo. The interviews occurred during a time of significant uncertainty and distress for many of the participants.
CONCLUSION: This pilot study reflects complex outcomes of strong community engagement. The findings highlight a need for renewed education about, and support for, clinical trial termination and loss of drug access. The primary positive outcome was demonstration of strong relationships among committed parents and study teams. These relationships were highly valued by both parties and may suggest an ideal intervention opportunity for efforts to improve psychological well-being. A negative outcome attributed, in part, to community engagement was inappropriately high trial expectations. More optimistically, high expectations were attributed, in part, to the importance of hope and powerful feelings associated with active efforts to affect the disease course.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24311736      PMCID: PMC3935382          DOI: 10.1177/1740774513512726

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Trials        ISSN: 1740-7745            Impact factor:   2.486


  21 in total

1.  Conflict of interest: it is ethical for an investigator to also be the primary care-giver in a clinical trial.

Authors:  Mark Bernstein
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 4.130

2.  Misunderstanding in clinical research: distinguishing therapeutic misconception, therapeutic misestimation, and therapeutic optimism.

Authors:  Sam Horng; Christine Grady
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2003 Jan-Feb

3.  The invisible hand in clinical research: the study coordinator's critical role in human subjects protection.

Authors:  Arlene M Davis; Sara Chandros Hull; Christine Grady; Benjamin S Wilfond; Gail E Henderson
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 1.718

4.  Vulnerable populations in research: the case of the seriously ill.

Authors:  Philip J Nickel
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2006

5.  The patient-oriented clinician-researcher: advantages and challenges of being a double agent.

Authors:  Philip T Yanos; Douglas M Ziedonis
Journal:  Psychiatr Serv       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 3.084

Review 6.  Advocacy groups as research organizations: the PXE International example.

Authors:  Sharon F Terry; Patrick F Terry; Katherine A Rauen; Jouni Uitto; Lionel G Bercovitch
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 53.242

Review 7.  Ethical issues in clinical neuroscience research: a patient's perspective.

Authors:  Perry D Cohen; Linda Herman; Sheryl Jedlinski; Peggy Willocks; Paula Wittekind
Journal:  Neurotherapeutics       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 7.620

Review 8.  Questing for grails: duplicity, betrayal and self-deception in postmodern medical research.

Authors:  G J Annas
Journal:  J Contemp Health Law Policy       Date:  1996

9.  Safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of PTC124, a nonaminoglycoside nonsense mutation suppressor, following single- and multiple-dose administration to healthy male and female adult volunteers.

Authors:  Samit Hirawat; Ellen M Welch; Gary L Elfring; Valerie J Northcutt; Sergey Paushkin; Seongwoo Hwang; Eileen M Leonard; Neil G Almstead; William Ju; Stuart W Peltz; Langdon L Miller
Journal:  J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.126

Review 10.  Therapeutic misconception: hope, trust and misconception in paediatric research.

Authors:  Simon Woods; Lynn E Hagger; Pauline McCormack
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2014-03
View more
  18 in total

1.  Fragile X syndrome clinical trials: exploring parental decision-making.

Authors:  C S D'Amanda; H L Peay; A C Wheeler; E Turbitt; B B Biesecker
Journal:  J Intellect Disabil Res       Date:  2019-02-12

2.  Motivations and Decision Making Processes of Men With X-linked Retinoschisis Considering Participation in an Ocular Gene Therapy Trial.

Authors:  Amy Turriff; Delphine Blain; Morgan Similuk; Barbara Biesecker; Henry Wiley; Catherine Cukras; Paul A Sieving
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-03-16       Impact factor: 5.258

3.  Waivers and Alterations to Consent in Pragmatic Clinical Trials: Respecting the Principle of Respect for Persons.

Authors:  Scott Y H Kim; Franklin G Miller
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb

Review 4.  Living laboratory: whole-genome sequencing as a learning healthcare enterprise.

Authors:  M Angrist; L Jamal
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2014-09-06       Impact factor: 4.438

5.  Parent and Child Perceptions of the Benefits of Research Participation.

Authors:  Victoria A Miller; Chris Feudtner
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug

6.  An Evidence-Based, Community-Engaged Approach to Develop an Interactive Deliberation Tool for Pediatric Neuromuscular Trials.

Authors:  Rebecca R Moultrie; Megan A Lewis; Ryan S Paquin; Ann Lucas; Jill Jarecki; Holly L Peay
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-12-20       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Prioritizing Parental Worry Associated with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Using Best-Worst Scaling.

Authors:  Holly Landrum Peay; I L Hollin; J F P Bridges
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-08-21       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  "Watching time tick by…": Decision making for Duchenne muscular dystrophy trials.

Authors:  Holly L Peay; Hadar Scharff; Aad Tibben; Benjamin Wilfond; Janice Bowie; Joanna Johnson; Kanneboyina Nagaraju; Diana Escolar; Jonathan Piacentino; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2015-11-09       Impact factor: 2.226

9.  Rationale for participation in venous leg ulcer clinical research: Patient interview study.

Authors:  Carolina D Weller; Catelyn Richards; Louise Turnour; Victoria Team
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2020-07-13       Impact factor: 3.315

10.  Barriers and facilitators to clinical trial participation among parents of children with pediatric neuromuscular disorders.

Authors:  Holly L Peay; Barbara B Biesecker; Benjamin S Wilfond; Jill Jarecki; Kendall L Umstead; Diana M Escolar; Aad Tibben
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2018-02-23       Impact factor: 2.486

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.