Advertisement

Pharmaceutical Medicine

, Volume 31, Issue 5, pp 329–337 | Cite as

Preferences for Receiving Results from a Rare Disease Clinical Trial: A Survey of Subjects with Friedreich’s Ataxia and their Parents

  • Vincent AmelotEmail author
  • Catherine Bungener
  • Sophie Guilmin-Crepon
  • Julien Schroedt
  • Corinne Alberti
  • Isabelle Husson
Original Research Article
  • 86 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Ethics committees today recommend making the overall results of clinical trials available to the participants of therapeutic trials, and many guidelines have been developed for both general and specific situations. People with rare diseases are known to have expectations of the medical follow-up that may differ from people with non-rare diseases.

Objectives

This study was designed to better understand how participants in a rare disease clinical trial and their parents expect to be informed of the results.

Methods

Patients with Friedreich’s ataxia, a rare neurodegenerative disease that affects gait and balance, who were involved in a previous randomized controlled trial (ACTFRIE) that took place between December 2008 and April 2013, and their parents, were contacted by email. They were asked to answer a survey questionnaire about their expectations concerning the announcement of results for the whole trial and for individual patients, their opinion about scientific publications, and their willingness to participate in another clinical trial in the future.

Results

In total, 28 patients and 35 parents of patients (100%) said they would like to be informed of the whole trial research results. Patients preferred to be informed via a personal email (65.4% “very favorable” and 15.4% “favorable”), and parents preferred via email and face-to-face interview (55.9% “very favorable” and 11.5% “favorable”). Most, but not all, respondents wanted to know their allocation group. A large proportion were interested in scientific articles.

Conclusion

Similar to findings with other diseases, respondents in this study preferred to be advised of results for the whole study and of their allocation group. Respondents considered scientific literature to be a source of information, which could be further investigated and addressed in future studies.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the AFAF (French Friedreich’s Ataxia Association) for their support. The AFAF contributed financially to this research.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

This research is considered an ancillary study of ACTFRIE and was approved by the ethics committee of the Robert Debré hospital [CEERB-RD advice n°2013/96(2)]. All participants (patients and parents) provided informed consent (signed by the patient themselves or by the parents).

Funding

This research was funded by the AFAF.

Conflicts of interest

VA, CB, SG-C, JS, CA, and IH have no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

40290_2017_201_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (939 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 938 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Dinnett EM, Mungall MM, Kent JA, Ronald ES, McIntyre KE, Anderson E, et al. Unblinding of trial participants to their treatment allocation: lessons from the Prospective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk (PROSPER). Clin Trials. 2005;2:254–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miller FA, Christensen R, Giacomini M, Robert JS. Duty to disclose what? Querying the putative obligation to return research results to participants. J Med Ethics. 2008;34:210–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    MacNeil SD, Fernandez CV. Attitudes of research ethics board chairs towards disclosure of research results to participants: results of a national survey. J Med Ethics. 2007;33:549–53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ministère de la Santé et des Solidarités. Code de la santé publique. L1122-1. Sect. Chapitre II: Information de la personne qui se prête à une recherche impliquant la personne humaine et recueil de son consentement May 16, 2016. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do;jsessionid=3930D09EE1D275059E733436A8A59A14.tpdila22v_1?idSectionTA=LEGISCTA000025457449&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006072665&dateTexte=20170329. Accessed 24 Apr 2017.
  5. 5.
    Multi-Regional Clinical Trials of Harvard and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. MRCT return of results Toolkit. 2015. Report No.: Version 2.0. http://mrctcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2015-10-02-MRCT-ROR-Toolkit-Version-2.0-2.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2017.
  6. 6.
    Fernandez CV, Ruccione K, Wells RJ, Long JB, Pelletier W, Hooke MC, et al. Recommendations for the return of research results to study participants and guardians: a report from the children’s oncology group. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:4573–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fernandez CV, Gao J, Strahlendorf C, Moghrabi A, Pentz RD, Barfield RC, et al. Providing research results to participants: attitudes and needs of adolescents and parents of children with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:878–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Senecal K, Rahimzadeh V, Knoppers BM, Fernandez CV, Avard D, Sinnett D, et al. Statement of principles on the return of research results and incidental findings in paediatric research: a multi-site consultative process. Genome. 2015;58:541–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fernandez CV, Bouffet E, Malkin D, Jabado N, O’Connell C, Avard D, et al. Attitudes of parents toward the return of targeted and incidental genomic research findings in children. Genet Med. 2014;16:633–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eurordis. EURORDIS - Les maladies rares. 2017. http://www.eurordis.org/fr/content/qu%E2%80%99est-ce-qu%E2%80%99une-maladie-rare. Accessed 26 Mar 2017.
  11. 11.
    Kole A, Faurisson F. The voice of 12,000 patients. experiences and expectations of rare disease patients on diagnosis and care in europe. EURORDIS—Rare Diseases Eu; 2009. http://www.eurordis.org/IMG/pdf/voice_12000_patients/EURORDISCARE_FULLBOOKr.pdf. Accessed 26 Mar 2017.
  12. 12.
    Delisle VC, Gumuchian ST, Rice DB, Levis AW, Kloda LA, Körner A, et al. Perceived benefits and factors that influence the ability to establish and maintain patient support groups in rare diseases: a scoping review. Patient. 2017;10:283–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garrino L, Picco E, Finiguerra I, Rossi D, Simone P, Roccatello D. Living with and treating rare diseases: experiences of patients and professional health care providers. Qual Health Res. 2015;25:636–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kesselheim AS, McGraw S, Thompson L, O’Keefe K, Gagne JJ. Development and use of new therapeutics for rare diseases: views from patients, caregivers, and advocates. Patient. 2015;8:75–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Budych K, Helms TM, Schultz C. How do patients with rare diseases experience the medical encounter? Exploring role behavior and its impact on patient–physician interaction. Health Policy. 2012;105:154–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Forsythe LP, Szydlowski V, Murad MH, Ip S, Wang Z, Elraiyah TA, et al. A systematic review of approaches for engaging patients for research on rare diseases. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29:788–800.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bell SA, Tudur Smith C. A comparison of interventional clinical trials in rare versus non-rare diseases: an analysis of ClinicalTrials. gov. Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 2014;9:170.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bendixen RM, Morgenroth LP, Clinard KL. Engaging participants in rare disease research: a qualitative study of duchenne muscular dystrophy. Clin Ther; 2016. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0149291816302211. Accessed 2 May 2016.
  19. 19.
    Mizoguchi H, Yamanaka T, Kano S. Research and drug development activities in rare diseases: differences between Japan and Europe regarding influence of prevalence. Drug Discov Today. 2016;21:1681–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gargiulo M, Herson A, Michon CC, Hogrel JY, Doppler V, Laloui K, et al. Attitudes and expectations of patients with neuromuscular diseases about their participation in a clinical trial. Rev Neurol (Paris). 2013;169:670–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Garralda ME, Kinali M, Cirak S, Bushby K, Guglieri M, Straub V, et al. Emotional impact of a paediatric exon-skipping therapy trial. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2011;53:1157–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shalowitz DI, Miller FG. Disclosing individual results of clinical research: implications of respect for participants. JAMA. 2005;294:737–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shalowitz DI, Miller FG. Communicating the results of clinical research to participants: attitudes, practices, and future directions. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Elzinga KE, Khan OF, Tang AR, Fernandez CV, Elzinga CL, Heng DY, et al. Adult patient perspectives on clinical trial result reporting: a survey of cancer patients. Clin Trials. 2016;13:574–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brealey S, Andronis L, Dennis L, Atwell C, Bryan S, Coulton S, et al. Participants’ preference for type of leaflet used to feed back the results of a randomised trial: a survey. Trials. 2010;11:116.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cox K, Moghaddam N, Bird L, Elkan R. Feedback of trial results to participants: a survey of clinicians’ and patients’ attitudes and experiences. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2011;15:124–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Johnson L, Barrett-Lee P, Ellis P, Bliss JM. How do patients want to learn of results of clinical trials? A survey of 1431 breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 2008;98:34–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Partridge AH, Wolff AC, Marcom PK, Kaufman PA, Zhang L, Gelman R, et al. The impact of sharing results of a randomized breast cancer clinical trial with study participants. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;115:123–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tajima S, Akaishi A, Miyamoto T, Katashima R, Nakai K, Mitsui T, et al. Participant preferences for the provision of registration trials results. J Clin Med Res. 2013;5:401–6.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sarradon-Eck A, Sakoyan J, Desclaux A, Mancini J, Genre D, Julian-Reynier C. “They should take time”: disclosure of clinical trial results as part of a social relationship. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75:873–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bollinger JM, Scott J, Dvoskin R, Kaufman D. Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: findings from a qualitative focus group study. Genet Med. 2012;14:451–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Burke W, Evans BJ, Jarvik GP. Return of results: ethical and legal distinctions between research and clinical care. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2014;166:105–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dinnett EM, Mungall MMB, Gordon C, Ronald ES, Gaw A. Offering results to research participants. BMJ. 2006;332:549–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tudur Smith C, Williamson PR, Beresford MW. Methodology of clinical trials for rare diseases. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2014;28:247–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fernandez CV, Kodish E, Weijer C. Informing study participants of research results: an ethical imperative. IRB Ethics Hum Res. 2003;25:12–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Le Dieusaert J. web et l’ataxie de Friedreich. Carnet PSY. 2007;121:30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Raghavendra P, Newman L, Grace E, Wood D. “I could never do that before”: effectiveness of a tailored Internet support intervention to increase the social participation of youth with disabilities: facilitating social participation using the Internet. Child Care Health Dev. 2013;39:552–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gargiulo M, Salvador M. Vivre avec une maladie génétique. Paris: A. Michel; 2009.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Psychopathology and Health Processes-EA 4057University Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris CitéParisFrance
  2. 2.Pediatric Neurology DepartmentRobert Debré Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP)ParisFrance
  3. 3.INSERM UMR-S1123 and CIC-EC1426, ECEVE, Sorbonne Paris CitéParisFrance
  4. 4.Unit of Clinical EpidemiologyRobert-Debré Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Univ. Paris DiderotParisFrance

Personalised recommendations