Patients' and caregivers' maximum acceptable risk of death for non-curative gene therapy to treat Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

BACKGROUND: Gene therapy offers an etiologically targeted treatment for genetic disorders. Little is known about the acceptance of mortality risk among patients with progressive, fatal conditions. We assessed patients' and caregivers' maximum acceptable risk (MAR) of mortality for gene therapy when used to treat Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). METHODS: The threshold technique was used to assess tolerance for mortality risks using a hypothetical vignette. Gene therapy was described as non-curative and resulting in a slowing of progression and with a 10-year benefit duration. MAR was analyzed using interval regression for gene therapy initiated "now"; in the last year of walking well; in the last year of being able to bring arms to mouth; and in newborns (for caregivers only). RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-five caregivers and 35 patients reported the greatest MAR for gene therapy initiated in last year of being able to lift arms (mean MAR 6.3%), followed by last year of walking well (mean MAR 4.4%), when used "now" (mean MAR 3.5%), and when used in the newborn period (mean MAR 2.1%, caregivers only). About 35% would accept ≥200/2000 risk in the last year of being able to lift arms. Non-ambulatory status predicted accepting 1.8 additional points in MAR "now" compared with ambulatory status (p = 0.010). Respondent type (caregiver or patient) did not predict MAR. CONCLUSION: In this first quantitative study to assess MAR associated with first-generation DMD gene therapy, we find relatively high tolerance for mortality risk in response to a non-curative treatment scenario. Risk tolerance increased with disease progression. Patients and caregivers did not have significantly different MAR. These results have implications for protocol development and shared decision making.

How will new genetic technologies, such as gene editing, change reproductive decision-making? Views of high-risk couples.

Couples at increased risk of having offspring with a specific genetic disorder who want to avoid having an affected child have several reproductive options including prenatal diagnosis (PND) and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT). In the future, non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD), germline gene editing (GGE) and somatic gene editing (SGE) might become available. This study explores if, and how, availability of new genetic technologies, including NIPD, GGE, SGE, would change reproductive decision-making of high-risk couples. In 2018, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 genetically at-risk couples. Couples previously had received genetic counselling for PND and PGT, and in most cases opted for (one of) these techniques, at one Dutch Clinical Genetics Center between 2013 and 2017. Considerations participants mentioned regarding the hypothetical use of NIPD, GGE and SGE, seem similar to considerations regarding PND and PGT and are reflected in underlying concepts. These include safety and burden for mother and child, and moral considerations. Couples generally favoured NIPD over PND as this would be safe and enables earlier diagnosis. Increased opportunities of having a 'healthy' embryo and less embryo disposal were considerations in favour of GGE. Some regarded GGE as unsafe and feared slippery slope scenarios. Couples were least favourable towards SGE compared to choosing for a genetic reproductive technology, because of the perceived burden for the affected offspring. With the possibly growing number of technological options, understanding high risk couples' perspectives can assist in navigating the reproductive decision-making process. Counsellors should be prepared to counsel on more and complex reproductive options.

Parent perceptions, beliefs, and fears around genetic treatments and cures for children with Angelman syndrome.

Genetic therapies have shown recent promise in alleviating some of the cognitive issues associated with some genetic disorders; however, these therapies may come with significant health and socio-ethical concerns, particularly when they involve child participants. Little is known about what parents of children with genetic disorders think about genetic therapies, or about their knowledge of how genetic-based therapy might treat their child's symptoms. Forty-two parents of children with Angelman syndrome (AS) and 27 parents of a mixed etiology comparison group completed an online survey reporting on their perceptions of, and priorities for, genetic therapy. Almost all parents of children with AS (95%) and the comparison group (89%) agreed that treatments aiming to reduce symptoms associated with their child's syndrome were positive. However, significantly more parents of children with AS (95%) than the comparison group (56%) felt that genetic treatment trials aiming to "cure" their child should be a research priority. AS parent priorities for the focus of clinical trials were neurology/seizures, communication skills, and motor skills/mobility. For the comparison group, the priorities were IQ, immune response, and expressive speech. Parents of both groups did not want treatments to change their child's personality or their happiness. Global assumptions cannot be made about targets for therapy between syndromes, about parental understanding of genetics, or about research evidence across syndromes. This study highlights the need for true family and patient engagement in all stages of the research design and treatment evaluation.

Public Acceptability of Gene Therapy and Gene Editing for Human Use: A Systematic Review.

Gene therapy and gene editing technologies are complex and it can be difficult for the public to understand their possible benefits or side effects. However, patient and public support is critical for the successful adoption of any new technology. Given the recent advances in gene therapy and gene editing, their potential clinical benefits, and the significant attention that has been given to the first-known successful attempt at permanent and heritable changes to the human genome, a systematic review was performed to assess beliefs and attitudes toward gene therapy and gene editing for human use, and to highlight the factors that influence acceptability. A systematic search following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was undertaken in April 2018 to identify articles examining opinions and attitudes regarding the acceptability of gene therapy and gene editing. Overall, 1,561 records were retrieved from 4 databases (Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science). Duplicates were removed, and titles and abstracts independently screened, leaving 86 full-text articles assessed for eligibility. Following full-text review, 33 were included, with 5 articles added after forward/backward searching. An additional three articles were added following an updated search in March 2019 (total n = 41). Findings from the studies were integrated according to common themes: the impact of demographics; risks versus benefits of success; treatment specifics (e.g., medical vs. other reasons; disease severity and status; somatic vs. germ line; and mode of delivery); moral or ethical issues; and changes with time. In general, perceptions were positive, particularly for medical reasons and fatal diseases, but were also influenced by perceived risk. Somatic therapies had higher levels of acceptability than germ line therapies. While available in various forms, limitations exist in the measurement of perceptions of gene therapy and gene editing. Treatment acceptability is essential for future clinical trials, so it is important for scientists and clinicians to be clear about the risks and benefits of these technologies, and how these are communicated to the public, while encouraging education about genetic therapies to a broad range of individuals.

Participant perspectives on a phase I/II ocular gene therapy trial (NCT02077361).

Background: To learn from the experiences of potential clinical trial participants, participants in a Phase 1 ocular gene therapy trial, and their partners to improve communications and trial conduct. Materials and methods: Primary and secondary qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews of potential participants (n = 20), clinical trial participants (n = 2) and their partners (n = 2) in a gene therapy clinical trial for choroideremia (NCT02077361). Analysis included: 1) thematic analysis of transcribed entrance and exit semi-structured interviews with trial participants and their partners; and 2) secondary qualitative analysis of interviews with potential trial participants, conducted prior to the initiation of the clinical trial. Results: Participants and partners who had received information during the consent process had a better understanding of the risks and benefits of participation in a Phase 1 gene therapy clinical trial than potential trial participants. However, participants and partners reported deficiencies in communication throughout the trial. Results highlight additional opportunities for trial staff to reinforce initial information about the trial, communicate logistical information and individual outcome data, and express appreciation for participation. Conclusions: Our study enabled clinical trial participants to describe their experiences in a clinical trial for a novel gene therapy. We provide practical recommendations to future clinical trial staff on communications and conduct participant perspectives. Communications strategies should address changing information needs over the course of the trial, express appreciation for participation and enable feedback from participants and their supporting family members, friends, or caregivers.

IGNITE network: Response of patients to genomic medicine interventions.

BACKGROUND: The IGNITE network funds six genomic medicine projects. Though interventions varied, we hypothesized that synergies across projects could be leveraged to better understand the participant experiences with genomic medicine interventions. Therefore, we performed cross-network analyses to identify associations between participant demographics and attitudes toward the intervention (attitude), plan to share results (share), and quality of life (QOL). METHODS: Data collection for demographics, attitude, share, and QOL surveys were standardized across projects. Recruitment and survey administration varied by each project's protocol. RESULTS: Participants (N = 6,817) were 67.2% (N = 4,584) female, and 37.4% (N = 3,544) were minority. Mean age = 54.0 (sd 14.a). Younger participants were as follows: (1) more positive in attitude pre-intervention (1.15-fold decrease/10-year age increase (OR)) and more negative after (1.14-fold increase OR); (2) higher in QOL pre-intervention (1.07-fold increase OR) and postintervention; (3) more likely to share results (1.12-fold increase OR). Race was significant when sharing results (white participants increased OR = 1.88), but not for change in QOL pre-postintervention or attitude. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate the feasibility of this approach and identified a few key themes which are as follows: age was consistently significant across the three outcomes, whereas race had less of an impact than expected. However, these are only associations and thus warrant further study.

Perspectives on Spinraza (Nusinersen) Treatment Study: Views of Individuals and Parents of Children Diagnosed with Spinal Muscular Atrophy.

BACKGROUND: Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a genetic disorder characterized by muscle loss. In December 2016 the FDA approved the first and only treatment drug for SMA: Spinraza (nusinersen). Despite excitement and optimism, there are no published data on the perceptions of individuals with SMA and their families about the benefits, risks, and challenges associated with treatment. OBJECTIVE: This qualitative interview study sought to characterize the perspectives of patients/families with SMA who did not want, or were unsure about, receiving this new innovative treatment for a previously untreatable and often fatal condition. METHODS: Individuals and families were recruited via advertisements on Facebook groups related to SMA and through the Stanford Neuromuscular Contact Registry. Participants completed a demographic questionnaire and participated in a semi-structured interview via voice conferencing. Interview questions focused on: 1) experiences with SMA, 2) opinions about Spinraza treatment, and 3) factors considered in decisions regarding treatment. RESULTS: Thirteen people were interviewed: ten adults with SMA (ages 27-48, nine with Type II) and three parents of minor children with SMA (one each of Types I, II and III). Qualitative content analysis identified a range of opinions about Spinraza treatment: five were uninterested (2 adults, 3 parents), four adults were still deciding whether to pursue treatment, three adults were interested or in the process of pursuing treatment, and one adult was currently receiving the drug after overcoming significant reluctance. Participants described several key factors influencing their treatment decisions, including: concerns about risk factors and side effects, high cost, insurance coverage, time involvement, and lack of data about efficacy. Participants reported learning about most of these factors through parent/patient testimonials on SMA-specific social media groups. CONCLUSIONS: Participants reported basing decisions about pursuing Spinraza on a variety of practical and value-based considerations. They described carefully weighing the perceived potential benefits and risks of treatment through the lens of their current quality of life and prognosis. These findings suggest that providers should be aware that some patients and parents, especially those with Types II-IV, may approach treatment decisions differently than parents of children with SMA I. Informed treatment decisions can be supported through: 1) the collection and dissemination of better data on Spinraza treatment in these populations; 2) clear communication about risks, side effects and eligibility; 3) improved access to payment and treatment facilities; and 4) facilitation of discussions between providers and patients/families about identity and disability in the context of goals of care and other life and support challenges.

Beliefs about Genetically Targeted Care in African Americans.

We examined beliefs about genetically targeted care (GTC) among African American men and women in a hospital-based sample and identified sociodemographic, cultural, and clinical factors having significant independent associations with these beliefs. Specifically, beliefs about GTC were evaluated after respondents were randomly primed with a racial or non-racial cue about race and genetics. Despite priming with a racial or non-racial cue, many respondents had positive beliefs about GTC. But, 49% believed that GTC would limit access to medical treatment, 46% believed that people will not trust GTC, and 20% believed that people like them would not benefit from GTC. Racial and non-racial priming did not have significant associations with negative beliefs about GTC. However, cultural beliefs related to temporal orientation were associated significantly with believing that genetically targeted care will limit access to medical treatment. Greater levels of future temporal orientation were associated with a reduced likelihood of endorsing this belief (OR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.49, 1.01, p = 0.05). Respondents who had a chronic medical condition had an almost three-fold greater likelihood of believing that they would not benefit from GTC (OR = 2.90, 95% CI = 1.00, 8.37, p = 0.05). Greater exposure to information about genetic testing for chronic conditions was also associated with a reduced likelihood of believing that they would not benefit from GTC (OR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.64, 0.91, p = 0.02). African Americans have diverse beliefs about GTC that should be considered as genetic and genomic services are offered.

New treatments for serious conditions: ethical implications.

Approval of Spinraza (nusinersen) for treatment of spinal muscular atrophy prompts consideration of a number of ethical issues that arise whenever a new treatment is proposed for a serious condition, especially one that is rare and can devastatingly affect children. Patients, families, clinicians, researchers, institutions and policymakers all must take account of the ways that newly available treatments affect informed and shared decision-making about therapeutic and research options. The issues to consider include: addressing what is still uncertain and unknown; the possibility that potential benefits will be exaggerated and potential harms underemphasized in the media, by advocacy organizations, and in consent forms and processes; the high cost of many novel drugs and biologics; the effects of including conditions of variable phenotype in state-mandated newborn screening panels; and how new treatments can change the standard of care, altering what is and is not known about a disorder and posing challenges for decision-making at both individual and policy levels. The good news that Spinraza brings thus requires additional attention to its ethical and policy implications, to improve counseling and shared decision-making about treatment and research options for patients and all involved in their care.

'Well, It's the Risk of the Unknown Right?': A Qualitative Study of Perceived Risks and Benefits of HIV Cure Research in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Biomedical research towards an HIV cure is advancing in the United States and elsewhere, yet little is known about perceptions of risks and benefits among potential study participants and other stakeholders. We conducted a qualitative study to explore perceived risks and benefits of investigational HIV cure research among people living with HIV (PLWHIV), biomedical HIV cure researchers, policy-makers and bioethicists. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative research study using in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of PLWHIV, biomedical HIV cure researchers, policy-makers and bioethicists in 2015-2016. We analysed interview transcripts using thematic analysis anchored in grounded theory. RESULTS: We conducted and analyzed 36 key informant interviews. Qualitative analysis revealed four main findings. 1) Potential HIV cure study volunteers noted needing more information and education about the potential risks of HIV cure research. 2) Biomedical HIV cure researchers, policy-makers and bioethicists showed less awareness of social and financial risks of HIV cure research than PLWHIV. 3) Most respondents across the different categories of informants identified some risks that were too great to be acceptable in HIV cure research, although a subset of PLWHIV did not place an upper limit on acceptable risk. 4) PLWHIV showed a better awareness of potential psychological benefits of participating in HIV cure research than other groups of stakeholders. CONCLUSION: Our research suggests that PLWHIV have a variable understanding of the individual risks, sometimes substantial, associated with participating in biomedical HIV cure research studies. Community engagement and increased research literacy may help improve community understanding. Intensive informed consent procedures will be necessary for ethical study implementation. The current state of HIV cure research offers greater potential benefits to society than to participants. There is likely to be disagreement among regulators, researchers, clinicians, and potential participants about what constitutes acceptable risk for HIV cure studies.

[The Washington summit: orange light for genome editing?]. / Sommet de Washington: feu orange pour la thérapie germinale? - Chroniques génomiques.

The summit organised in early December 2015 considered in depth the various issues (technical, scientific, societal and ethical) raised by the prospect of genome editing using the extremely effective CRISPR system. Germline editing (for therapeutic or "enhancement" purposes) was stated to be irresponsible under current conditions, but the possibility that this could be considered in the future was not excluded; a mechanism for monitoring progress and possibly revising recommendations was proposed.

Expectations and beliefs in science communication: Learning from three European gene therapy discussions of the early 1990s.

There is widespread agreement that the potential of gene therapy was oversold in the early 1990s. This study, however, comparing written material from the British, Danish and German gene therapy discourses of the period finds significant differences: Over-optimism was not equally strong everywhere; gene therapy was not universally hyped. Against that background, attention is directed towards another area of variation in the material: different basic assumptions about science and scientists. Exploring such culturally rooted assumptions and beliefs and their possible significance to science communication practices, it is argued that deep beliefs may constitute drivers of hype that are particularly difficult to deal with. To participants in science communication, the discouragement of hype, viewed as a practical-ethical challenge, can be seen as a learning exercise that includes critical attention to internalised beliefs.

Perceptions and understanding of genetics and genetic eye disease and attitudes to genetic testing and gene therapy in a primary eye care setting.

BACKGROUND: Genetic eye pathology represents a significant percentage of the causes of blindness in industrialized countries. This study explores the level of understanding and perceptions of genetics and inherited eye diseases and the attitudes to genetic testing and gene therapy. METHODS: The study was conducted in two parts. Participant groups included were: undergraduate students of optometry, primary eye care professionals and members of the general public. A preliminary study aimed to understand perceptions and to explore the level of knowledge about genetics in general, eye genetics and gene therapy. A second survey was designed to explore attitudes to genetic testing and gene therapy. RESULTS: The majority of participants (82%) perceived genetics as an important science. However, none of them showed a high level of understanding of genetics and inherited eye diseases. Undergraduate students and primary eye care professionals were better informed about inherited eye diseases than the general public (p = 0.001). The majority (80%) across all three groups had a positive attitude to genetic testing and gene therapy. There was a lack of knowledge about the genetic services available among all groups of participants. CONCLUSION: This calls for serious thinking about the level of dissemination of information about genetics and inherited eye diseases. It shows a broadly supportive attitude to genomic medicine among the public. Improving public awareness and education in inherited eye diseases can improve the utility of genetic testing and therapy.

Identificación de genes clave implicados en el síndrome de Down mediante terapia génica / Identification of key genes involved in Down syndrome pathogenesis by gene therapy

La terapia génica nos ofrece la posibilidad de manipular los virus para convertir un agente infeccioso en un vehículo que transporta en su genoma secuencias de DNA con potencial terapéutico. En este trabajo hemos aprovechado la metodología que nos proporciona la terapia génica para desarrollar vectores virales derivados de virus adenoasociados y lentivirus con el objetivo de identificar genes clave (proteínas o microRNA [miRNA]) implicados en las alteraciones cognitivas presentes en el síndrome de Down (SD). Hemos demostrado que en un contexto de trisomía, como es el modelo de ratón Ts65Dn, la normalización de la expresión de Dyrk1A a través de la administración de los virus adenoasociados AAV2/1-shDyrk1A contribuye a restablecer la regulación de moléculas clave en los procesos de memoria y aprendizaje. Ello permite una atenuación de los defectos en plasticidad sináptica y facilita el desarrollo de una estrategia de aprendizaje visuoespacial más eficiente. Estos estudios refuerzan el papel destacado de Dyrk1A en los procesos cognitivos. Por otro lado, la estrategia de control de la expresión de miRNA desarrollada mediante los lentivirus Lv-anti-miR155-802 nos permite proponer a MeCP2 como un gen cuya desregulación en el síndrome de Down puede tener un papel clave en el deterioro cognitivo (AU)

Viruses have evolved ways of encapsulating and delivering their genes into human cells. Gene therapy takes advantage of this capability to manipulate the viral genome and convert an infectious agent into an efficient vector that delivers therapeutic genes. In the current work we have applied gene therapy approaches based on adeno-associated virus and lentivirus delivery to identify candidate genes (protein-coding or miRNAs) involved in the cognitive deficits in Down Syndrome. We show that the hippocampal injection of the adeno-associated virus AAV2/1-shDyrk1A normalized Dyrk1A expression in the trisomic Ts65Dn mice. As a consequence the regulation of key molecular players in memory and learning processes was rescued and mice showed an attenuation of synaptic plasticity defects and improved efficacy in learning strategies. All together these results reinforce the role of Dyrk1A in cognition. On the other hand, with the lentiviral strategydeveloped to specifically inhibit miR-155 and miR-802 (Lv-anti-miR155/802), we were able to show a tight control of the miRNAs target Mecp2 suggesting that the downregulation of MeCP2 in Down syndromecould be a contributing factor to the cognitive defects (AU)

Una ‘curación’ para el síndrome de Down: ¿qué desean los padres? / No disponible

Los recientes avances en la genética molecular brindan la posibilidad de llegar a disponer de una terapéutica o una ‘curación’ para el síndrome de Down. Pero no disponemos de datos sobre cómo perciben los padres de niños con síndrome de Down la posibilidad de suavizar manifestaciones específicas, como es la discapacidad intelectual, o de curar por completo el síndrome. Para explorar estos temas, distribuimos un cuestionario a miembros de la Lower Mainlands Down Syndrome Society en British Columbia, Canadá. Los cuestionarios fueron completados por 101 padres (tasa de respuesta: 41%). La mayoría (61%) vieron positivamente la posibilidad de revertir la discapacidad intelectual en el síndrome de Down, pero sólo el 41% dijeron que ‘curarían’ a su hijo si fuera posible. El 27% dijeron que no ‘curarían’, y el 32% no estaba seguro si lo harían. La motivación más frecuentemente citada para optar por una ‘curación’ fue la de aumentar la independencia del hijo. Sin embargo, la actitudes de los padres hacia una ‘curación’ del síndrome de Down fueron complejas, afectadas por temas éticos, por los valores percibidos en la sociedad y por factores pragmáticos como fueron la edad del individuo y el peso de la carga de la atención a largo plazo. Estos resultados ponen de manifiesto la importancia de explorar cuestiones filosóficas y éticas, en paralelo con la investigación científica que está avanzando tan rápidamente

No disponible

Emotional impact of genetic trials in progressive paediatric disorders: a dose-ranging exon-skipping trial in Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

BACKGROUND: Gene-modifying trials offer hope for improvement in chronic paediatric disorders, but they may also lead to disappointment and have an adverse emotional effect on families. This study aimed to examine emotional impact on participants in a paediatric exon-skipping trial. METHODS: Nineteen male children with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), and their parents, taking part in a dose-ranging study of an i.v. administered morpholino splice-switching oligomer (which can restore the reading frame in DMD and induce dystrophin expression) underwent a psychosocial/psychiatric examination at trial entry. Emotional impact was assessed at trial completion using questionnaires. RESULTS: The mean child age was 8.9 years (SD 2.1); 13(68%) were attending mainstream school. Most families were well adjusted psychosocially at trial entry. Post-trial median child emotional impact scores were 5/10 (n= 18), but impact was rated as positive by 6/14 (42%), neutral/mixed by 5 (35%) and negative by 3 (21%). Median post-trial psychosocial/psychiatric change scores in children and parents were minimal. Actual post-trial negative impact was statistically significantly associated with higher expected impact at trial entry, at which time the families of the three children displaying actual negative impact reported higher family stress levels in combination with a variety of other psychosocial risks factors. CONCLUSIONS: In carefully selected families with low levels of psychosocial stress/distress at trial entry, and with good support from paediatric research units (including psychiatric input when required), genetic trials in progressive disorders such as DMD can have a predominantly positive or neutral emotional impact. Nevertheless, negative impact is reported by a minority of families and possible psychosocial predictors deserving further scrutiny have been identified.

Gene doping: gene delivery for olympic victory.

With one recently recommended gene therapy in Europe and a number of other gene therapy treatments now proving effective in clinical trials it is feasible that the same technologies will soon be adopted in the world of sport by unscrupulous athletes and their trainers in so called 'gene doping'. In this article an overview of the successful gene therapy clinical trials is provided and the potential targets for gene doping are highlighted. Depending on whether a doping gene product is secreted from the engineered cells or is retained locally to, or inside engineered cells will, to some extent, determine the likelihood of detection. It is clear that effective gene delivery technologies now exist and it is important that detection and prevention plans are in place.