Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32794073›Full record

ArticleThe patient2020

Beliefs and Values About Gene Therapy and In-Utero Gene Editing in Patients with Hemophilia and Their Relatives.

Tania C Vasquez-Loarte, Tiffany Lin Lucas, Julie Harris-Wai, Deborah J Bowen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Tania C Vasquez-LoartePublic Health Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Tiffany Lin LucasDivision of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, University of California San Francisco, 550 16th Street Box 0434, San Francisco, CA, USA. Tiffany.Lucas@ucsf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0676-2626
Julie Harris-WaiInstitute for Health and Aging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Deborah J BowenPublic Health Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimHemophilia is an inherited disease for which current treatment is noncurative. While gene therapy and gene editing are being researched, we do not know how the hemophilia community perceives them. Herein, we explore the beliefs and values regarding these new therapies in patients with hemophilia and their relatives.

methodsThis qualitative study used phone-based semi-structured interviews on 21 adult English-speaking patients with hemophilia A or B and their parents across the United States during March to July 2019. The study was advertised through different chapters of the Hemophilia Foundation. The interview guide included questions about participants' prior experience with hemophilia, and included two case scenarios about the use of gene therapy and in utero gene editing, after which participants were asked about their opinions, beliefs, and values on each scenario. We used a grounded theory approach and identified the main themes using an inductive process.

resultsWe interviewed 21 participants-12 patients and 9 mothers. Most of them had or were related to a patient with severe disease. The main themes discussed were related to efficacy, safety and financial concerns and insurance coverage for both gene therapy and in utero gene editing. Patients and their parents had expected outcomes in terms of durability of therapy and impact on emotional health and lifestyle changes in the long term. Gene therapy was more accepted among patients with severe and uncontrolled disease. In-utero gene editing was not completely accepted because of safety and ethical issues.

conclusionPatients with severe hemophilia perceive gene therapy as a potential cure, while gene editing was more controversial. Patients still have questions that remain to be answered regarding safety and efficacy that should be assessed with long-term follow up studies.

Indexed as

Gene EditingGenetic TherapyHemophilia APatient ParticipationAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleFetusHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPregnancyQualitative Research

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.