Preferences for genetic interventions for SCA and Huntington's disease: results of a discrete choice experiment among patients.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 GENETICS & HEREDITY
Nienke J H van Os, Mayke Oosterloo, Janneke P C Grutters, Brigitte A B Essers, Bart P C van de Warrenburg
{"title":"Preferences for genetic interventions for SCA and Huntington's disease: results of a discrete choice experiment among patients.","authors":"Nienke J H van Os, Mayke Oosterloo, Janneke P C Grutters, Brigitte A B Essers, Bart P C van de Warrenburg","doi":"10.1186/s13023-024-03408-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although genetic interventions are on the horizon for some polyglutamine expansion diseases, such as subtypes of spinocerebellar ataxia (SCA) and Huntington's disease (HD), the patients' preferences regarding these new therapies are unclear. This study aims to get insight into what extent different characteristics of genetic interventions affect the preferences of patients with SCA and HD with regard to these interventions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Manifest and premanifest patients with SCA or HD were recruited online by platforms of patient associations. The respondents conducted a questionnaire that included a discrete choice experiment (DCE). The experimental design included 24 choice sets, but these were divided into three blocks of eight to reduce the number of tasks per respondent. Each choice set included two alternative treatments and consisted of four attributes (mode and frequency of administration, chance of a beneficial effect, risks, and follow-up), each with three or four different levels. The forced choice-elicitation format was used. Data were analyzed by using a multinominal logistic regression model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Responses of 216 participants were collected. The mode and frequency of administration of a genetic intervention, as well as the chance of a beneficial effect both influence the choice for a genetic intervention. Respondents less prefer repeated lumbar punctures compared to a single operation. As expected, a higher beneficial effect of treatment was preferred. Risks and follow-up did not influence the choice for a genetic intervention.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results can be used for the design and implementation of future genetic interventional trials as well as of patient-centered care pathways for rare movement disorders such as SCA and HD.</p>","PeriodicalId":19651,"journal":{"name":"Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11514962/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-024-03408-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Although genetic interventions are on the horizon for some polyglutamine expansion diseases, such as subtypes of spinocerebellar ataxia (SCA) and Huntington's disease (HD), the patients' preferences regarding these new therapies are unclear. This study aims to get insight into what extent different characteristics of genetic interventions affect the preferences of patients with SCA and HD with regard to these interventions.

Methods: Manifest and premanifest patients with SCA or HD were recruited online by platforms of patient associations. The respondents conducted a questionnaire that included a discrete choice experiment (DCE). The experimental design included 24 choice sets, but these were divided into three blocks of eight to reduce the number of tasks per respondent. Each choice set included two alternative treatments and consisted of four attributes (mode and frequency of administration, chance of a beneficial effect, risks, and follow-up), each with three or four different levels. The forced choice-elicitation format was used. Data were analyzed by using a multinominal logistic regression model.

Results: Responses of 216 participants were collected. The mode and frequency of administration of a genetic intervention, as well as the chance of a beneficial effect both influence the choice for a genetic intervention. Respondents less prefer repeated lumbar punctures compared to a single operation. As expected, a higher beneficial effect of treatment was preferred. Risks and follow-up did not influence the choice for a genetic intervention.

Conclusions: The results can be used for the design and implementation of future genetic interventional trials as well as of patient-centered care pathways for rare movement disorders such as SCA and HD.

对自闭症和亨廷顿氏病基因干预的偏好:患者离散选择实验的结果。
背景:尽管针对一些多聚谷氨酰胺扩增疾病(如脊髓小脑共济失调症(SCA)和亨廷顿氏病(HD)的亚型)的基因干预措施即将问世,但患者对这些新疗法的偏好尚不明确。本研究旨在深入了解遗传干预的不同特征在多大程度上影响了 SCA 和 HD 患者对这些干预的偏好:方法:通过患者协会平台在线招募已显现和显现前的 SCA 或 HD 患者。受访者进行了包括离散选择实验(DCE)在内的问卷调查。实验设计包括 24 个选择集,但这些选择集被分为三组,每组 8 个,以减少每个受访者的任务数量。每个选择集包括两个备选治疗方案,由四个属性(给药方式和频率、获益几率、风险和随访)组成,每个属性有三或四个不同的等级。采用的是强迫选择诱导形式。数据采用多项式逻辑回归模型进行分析:结果:共收集到 216 名参与者的回答。基因干预的施用方式和频率以及产生有益效果的几率都会影响对基因干预的选择。与单次操作相比,受访者更倾向于重复腰椎穿刺。不出所料,受访者更倾向于选择有益效果更高的治疗方法。风险和随访并不影响基因干预的选择:研究结果可用于设计和实施未来的遗传干预试验,以及针对罕见运动障碍(如SCA和HD)的以患者为中心的护理路径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
8.10%
发文量
418
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that encompasses all aspects of rare diseases and orphan drugs. The journal publishes high-quality reviews on specific rare diseases. In addition, the journal may consider articles on clinical trial outcome reports, either positive or negative, and articles on public health issues in the field of rare diseases and orphan drugs. The journal does not accept case reports.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信