ArticleCirculation. Genomic and precision medicine2024
Patient Perceptions of Emerging Gene Therapies for Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy.
Article in Circulation. Genomic and precision medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNo disease-specific therapy currently exists for arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC), a progressive cardiogenetic condition conferring elevated risk for ventricular arrhythmias, heart failure, and sudden cardiac death. Emerging gene therapies have the potential to fill this gap. However, little is known about how adults with ARVC, or any other inherited cardiomyopathy or arrhythmia syndrome, appraise the risks and benefits of gene therapy research and which considerations may influence their decisions about clinical trial participation.
methodsTwenty adults with clinically diagnosed and gene-positive ARVC participated in semi-structured interviews that explored perceptions of gene therapy and hypothetical decision-making for gene therapy clinical trial participation. Interview transcripts were qualitatively coded and analyzed.
resultsParticipants expressed enthusiasm for gene therapy with varied levels of personal interest in trial participation. Although clinical severity appeared to be associated with an elevated interest in early trial participation, participants anticipated weighing both personal and trial-specific factors including life stage, trial stage, risks, benefits, participation burden, study leadership, and anticipated cost of future gene therapy. Adaptation to living with ARVC and involvement in the ARVC patient community were also relevant to decision-making about trial participation. Potential ethical concerns included unquestioning trust in clinical teams collaborating on industry-led trials and vulnerability of those recently diagnosed or with high perceived severity of ARVC symptoms.
conclusionsSeveral characteristics of the individual and trial warrant consideration during the informed consent process. Insights from this study may affect trial planning and communication with participants who have inherited cardiac conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.