Holly L Peay1, Hadar Scharff2, Aad Tibben3, Benjamin Wilfond4, Janice Bowie5, Joanna Johnson2, Kanneboyina Nagaraju6, Diana Escolar7, Jonathan Piacentino2, Barbara B Biesecker8. 1. Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy, Hackensack, NJ, USA; Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands. Electronic address: hpeay@rti.org. 2. Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy, Hackensack, NJ, USA. 3. Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands. 4. Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA. 5. Department of Health, Behavior & Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. 6. Children's National Medical Center, Washington DC, USA. 7. Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, MD, USA. 8. Social and Behavioral Research Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This interview study explored clinicians' perspectives and parents' decision making about children's participation in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) clinical trials. METHODS: Data from semi-structured interviews conducted with clinicians and parents in U.S. or Canada were assessed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Eleven clinicians involved in ten trials and fifteen parents involved in six trials were interviewed. Parents described benefit-risk assessments using information from advocacy, peers, professionals, and sponsors. Strong influence was attributed to the progressive nature of DMD. Most expected direct benefit. Few considered the possibility of trial failure. Most made decisions to participate before the informed consent (IC) process, but none-the-less perceived informed choice with little to lose for potential gain. Clinicians described more influence on parental decisions than attributed by parents. Clinicians felt responsible to facilitate IC while maintaining hope. Both clinicians and parents reported criticisms about the IC process and regulatory barriers. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of parents described undertaking benefit-risk assessments that led to informed choices that offered psychological and potential disease benefits. Parents' high expectations influenced their decisions while also reflecting optimism. Clinicians felt challenged in balancing parents' expectations and likely outcomes. Prognosis-related pressures coupled with decision making prior to IC suggest an obligation to ensure educational materials are understandable and accurate, and to consider an expanded notion of IC timeframes. Anticipatory guidance about potential trial failure might facilitate parents' deliberations while aiding clinicians in moderating overly-optimistic motivations. Regulators and industry should appreciate special challenges in progressive disorders, where doing nothing was equated with doing harm.
OBJECTIVE: This interview study explored clinicians' perspectives and parents' decision making about children's participation in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) clinical trials. METHODS: Data from semi-structured interviews conducted with clinicians and parents in U.S. or Canada were assessed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Eleven clinicians involved in ten trials and fifteen parents involved in six trials were interviewed. Parents described benefit-risk assessments using information from advocacy, peers, professionals, and sponsors. Strong influence was attributed to the progressive nature of DMD. Most expected direct benefit. Few considered the possibility of trial failure. Most made decisions to participate before the informed consent (IC) process, but none-the-less perceived informed choice with little to lose for potential gain. Clinicians described more influence on parental decisions than attributed by parents. Clinicians felt responsible to facilitate IC while maintaining hope. Both clinicians and parents reported criticisms about the IC process and regulatory barriers. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of parents described undertaking benefit-risk assessments that led to informed choices that offered psychological and potential disease benefits. Parents' high expectations influenced their decisions while also reflecting optimism. Clinicians felt challenged in balancing parents' expectations and likely outcomes. Prognosis-related pressures coupled with decision making prior to IC suggest an obligation to ensure educational materials are understandable and accurate, and to consider an expanded notion of IC timeframes. Anticipatory guidance about potential trial failure might facilitate parents' deliberations while aiding clinicians in moderating overly-optimistic motivations. Regulators and industry should appreciate special challenges in progressive disorders, where doing nothing was equated with doing harm.
Authors: Michelle Eagle; Simon V Baudouin; Colin Chandler; David R Giddings; Robert Bullock; Kate Bushby Journal: Neuromuscul Disord Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 4.296
Authors: Katharine Bushby; Richard Finkel; David J Birnkrant; Laura E Case; Paula R Clemens; Linda Cripe; Ajay Kaul; Kathi Kinnett; Craig McDonald; Shree Pandya; James Poysky; Frederic Shapiro; Jean Tomezsko; Carolyn Constantin Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2009-11-27 Impact factor: 44.182
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
Authors: Sean Grant; Glen S Hazlewood; Holly L Peay; Ann Lucas; Ian Coulter; Arlene Fink; Dmitry Khodyakov Journal: Patient Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 3.883
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
Authors: Holly Landrum Peay; Ryan Fischer; Janice P Tzeng; Sharon E Hesterlee; Carl Morris; Amy Strong Martin; Colin Rensch; Edward Smith; Valeria Ricotti; Katherine Beaverson; Hannah Wand; Carol Mansfield Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ryan S Paquin; Ryan Fischer; Carol Mansfield; Brennan Mange; Katherine Beaverson; Annie Ganot; Amy Strong Martin; Carl Morris; Colin Rensch; Valeria Ricotti; Leo J Russo; Alesia Sadosky; Edward C Smith; Holly L Peay Journal: Orphanet J Rare Dis Date: 2019-05-09 Impact factor: 4.123
Authors: Katie L Lewis; Alexis R Heidlebaugh; Sandra Epps; Paul K J Han; Kristen P Fishler; William M P Klein; Ilana M Miller; David Ng; Charlotte Hepler; Barbara B Biesecker; Leslie G Biesecker Journal: Genet Med Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Hae Lin Cho; Scott Y H Kim; Courtney Fitzhugh; Matthew Hsieh; John Tisdale; Christine Grady Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2020-03-19 Impact factor: 5.742