A scoping review of patient and public perspectives on cell and gene therapies

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

• 1. Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 of the European parliament and of the council of 13 November 2007 on advanced therapy medicinal products and amending directive 2001/83/EC and regulation (EC) No 726/2004. European Parliment. Strasbourg, France. (2007).
  Google Scholar
• 2. Directive 2001/83/EC of the european parliament and of the council of 6 November 2001 on the community code relating to medicinal products for human use. European Parliment. Strasbourg, France (2001).
  Google Scholar
• 3. Zheng XH, Zhang XY, Dong QQ, Chen F, Yang SB, Li WB. Efficacy and safety of chimeric antigen receptor-T cells in the treatment of B cell lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chin. Med. J. (Engl.) 133(1), 74–85 (2020).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 4. Muller P, Lemcke H, David R. Stem cell therapy in heart diseases – cell types, mechanisms and improvement strategies. Cell Physiol. Biochem. 48(6), 2607–2655 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 5. Dothel G, Raschi E, Rimondini R, De Ponti F. Mesenchymal stromal cell-based therapy: regulatory and translational aspects in gastroenterology. World J. Gastroenterol. 22(41), 9057–9068 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 6. Alessandrini M, Preynat-Seauve O, De Bruin K, Pepper MS. Stem cell therapy for neurological disorders. S. Afr. Med. J. 109(8b), 70–77 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 7. Ziccardi L, Cordeddu V, Gaddini L et al. Gene therapy in retinal dystrophies. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 20(22), 5722 (2019).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 8. Elverum K, Whitman M. Delivering cellular and gene therapies to patients: solutions for realizing the potential of the next generation of medicine. Gene Ther. 27, 537–544 (2019). •• Provides a helpful introduction on the topic of cell and gene therapies and some of them challenges for enabling patients to benefit from these.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 9. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, Mcarthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 18(1), 143 (2018). • A helpful clarification of the differences between systematic and scoping review approaches and the role of each of these.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 10. Lloyd-Williams H, Hughes DA. A systematic review of economic evaluations of advanced therapy medicinal products. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 87(6), 2428–2443 (2020).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 11. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339, b2700 (2009).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 12. Kim YS, Chung DI, Choi H et al. Fantasies about stem cell therapy in chronic ischemic stroke patients. Stem Cells Dev. 22(1), 31–36 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 13. Aked J, Delavaran H, Lindvall O, Norrving B, Kokaia Z, Lindgren A. Attitudes to stem cell therapy among ischemic stroke survivors in the lund stroke recovery study. Stem Cells Dev. 26(8), 566–572 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 14. Jacob KJ, Kwon BK, Lo C, Snyder J, Illes J. Perspectives on strategies and challenges in the conversation about stem cells for spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 53(11), 811–815 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 15. Nelles M, Stieger K, Preising MN, Kruse J, Lorenz B. Shared decision-making, control preferences and psychological well-being in patients with RPE65 deficiency awaiting experimental gene therapy. Ophthalmic Res. 54(2), 96–102 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 16. Strong H, Mitchell M, Goldstein-Leever A et al. Patient perspectives on gene transfer therapy for sickle cell disease. Erratum appears in Adv Ther. 2017 Aug 2; PMID: 28770518. Adv. Ther. 34(8), 2007–2021 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 17. Wright B, Emmanuel A, Athanasakos E et al. Women's views on autologous cell-based therapy for post-obstetric incontinence. Regen. Med. 11(2), 169–180 (2016).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 18. Jannetta EE, Cochrane SC, Morris PG, Dewar MH, Innes JA. A qualitative study of cystic fibrosis (CF) patients’ expectations of gene therapy. J. Cyst. Fibros. 1, S101 (2010).
  Google Scholar
• 19. Hodges RJ, Bardien N, Wallace E. Acceptability of stem cell therapy by pregnant women. Birth (Berkeley, Calif.) 39(2), 91–97 (2012).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 20. Clover AJ, O'Neill BL, Kumar AH. Analysis of attitudes toward the source of progenitor cells in tissue-engineered products for use in burns compared with other disease states. Wound Repair Regen. 20(3), 311–316 (2012).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 21. King WD, Wyatt GE, Liu H, Williams JK, Dinardo AD, Mitsuyasu RT. Pilot assessment of HIV gene therapy-hematopoietic stem cell clinical trial acceptability among minority patients and their advisors. J. Natl Med. Assoc. 102(12), 1123–1128 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 22. Nelissen S, Van Den Bulck J, Lemal M, Beullens K. Stem cell research: the role of information seeking and scanning. Health Info. Libr. J. 33(4), 269–282 (2016).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 23. Cunningham NA, Abhyankar P, Cowie J, Galinsky J, Methven K. Regenerative medicine: stroke survivor and carer views and motivations towards a proposed stem cell clinical trial using placebo neurosurgery. Health Expect. 21(1), 367–378 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 24. Peay H, Fischer R, Beaverson K et al. Parent and adult patient attitudes about gene therapy as a therapeutic option for duchenne muscular dystrophy. Value Health 21(Suppl. 1), S256 (2018).
  Google Scholar
• 25. Eijkholt M, Kwon BK, Mizgalewicz A, Illes J. Decision-making in stem cell trials for spinal cord injury: the role of networks and peers. Regen. Med. 7(4), 513–522 (2012).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 26. Chung SJ, Koh SB, Ju Y-S, Kim JW. Nationwide survey of patient knowledge and attitudes towards human experimentation using stem cells or bee venom acupuncture for Parkinson's disease. JMD 7(2), 84–91 (2014).
  Google Scholar
• 27. Einsiedel E, Premji S, Geransar R, Orton NC, Thavaratnam T, Bennett LK. Diversity in public views toward stem cell sources and policies. Stem Cell Rev. 5(2), 102–107 (2009).
  Google Scholar
• 28. Benjaminy S, Macdonald I, Bubela T. “Is a cure in my sight?” Multi-stakeholder perspectives on Phase I choroideremia gene transfer clinical trials. Genet. Med. 16(5), 379–385 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 29. Tanner C, Petersen A, Munsie M. ‘No one here's helping me, what do you do?’: addressing patient need for support and advice about stem cell treatments. Regen. Med. 12(7), 791–801 (2017).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 30. Rachul C, Caulfield T. Gordie Howe's stem cell ‘Miracle’: a qualitative analysis of news coverage and readers' comments in newspapers and sports websites. Stem Cell Rev. Rep. 11(5), 667–675 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 31. Allum N, Allansdottir A, Gaskell G et al. Religion and the public ethics of stem-cell research: attitudes in Europe, Canada and the United States. PLoS ONE 12(4), e0176274 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 32. Dasgupta I, Bollinger J, Mathews DJ, Neumann NM, Rattani A, Sugarman J. Patients' attitudes toward the donation of biological materials for the derivation of induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 14(1), 9–12 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 33. King E, Lyall C. What's in a name: are cultured red blood cells ‘natural’? Sociol. Health Illn. 40(4), 687–701 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 34. Nisbet MC, Becker AB. Public opinion about stem cell research, 2002 to 2010. Public Opin. Q. 78(4), 1003–1022 (2014).
  Google Scholar
• 35. Robillard JM, Roskams-Edris D, Kuzeljevic B, Illes J. Prevailing public perceptions of the ethics of gene therapy. Hum. Gene Ther. 25(8), 740–746 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 36. Robillard JM, Whiteley L, Johnson TW, Lim J, Wasserman WW, Illes J. Utilizing social media to study information-seeking and ethical issues in gene therapy. J. Med. Internet Res. 15(3), e44 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 37. Sipp D. Identity and ownership issues in the regulation of autologous cells. Regen. Med. 12(7), 827–838 (2017).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 38. Stewart CJ, Miller C, Mcpherson C et al. Patient's attitude towards the donation and use of adipose tissue and adipose derived stem cells for research. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 68(4), 588–589 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 39. Hudson J, Orviska M. European attitudes to gene therapy and pharmacogenetics. Drug Discov. Today 16(19–20), 843–847 (2011).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 40. Evans MD, Kelley J. US attitudes toward human embryonic stem cell research. Nat. Biotechnol. 29(6), 484–488 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 41. Blendon RJ, Gorski MT, Benson JM. The public and the gene-editing revolution. N. Engl. J. Med. 374(15), 1406–1411 (2016). • A good introductory discussion on public views around the use of gene therapy.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 42. Wang JH, Wang R, Lee JH et al. Public attitudes toward gene therapy in China. Mol. Ther. Methods Clin. Dev. 6, 40–42 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 43. Shineha R, Inoue Y, Ikka T, Kishimoto A, Yashiro Y. A comparative analysis of attitudes on communication toward stem cell research and regenerative medicine between the public and the scientific community. Stem Cells Transl. Med. 7(2), 251–257 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 44. Horch JD, Carr ECJ, Harasym P, Burnett L, Biernaskie J, Gabriel V. Firefighter willingness to participate in a stem cell clinical trial for burns: a mixed methods study. Burns 42(8), 1740–1750 (2016).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 45. Bubela T, Li MD, Hafez M, Bieber M, Atkins H. Is belief larger than fact: expectations, optimism and reality for translational stem cell research. BMC Med. 10, 133 (2012).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 46. Vicsek L, Gergely J. Media presentation and public understanding of stem cells and stem cell research in Hungary. New Genet. Soc. 30(1), 1–26 (2011).
  Google Scholar
• 47. Blendon RJ, Kim MK, Benson JM. The public, political parties, and stem-cell research. N. Engl. J. Med. 365(20), 1853–1856 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 48. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol. Assess. 5(5), 1–186 (2001).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 49. Bourke SM, Plumpton CO, Hughes DA. Societal preferences for funding orphan drugs in the United Kingdom: an application of person trade-off and discrete choice experiment methods. Value Health 21(5), 538–546 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar