MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4417016887 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-4378

Provider practices and preparedness for gene therapy in pediatric sickle cell disease: A national survey of pediatric hematologists

2025· article· en· W4417016887 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cécile Karsenty, Titilope Fasipe, Venée N. Tubman, Anil George, Khaled Yassine, Allistair Abraham, John Horan, Helen E. Heslop, Alexander Ngwube

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueVirus-based gene therapy research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPreparednessHematologyReferralInterimTransplantationSickle cell anemiaClinical trialHematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a severe, life-limiting genetic disorder affecting over 100,000 individuals in the U.S. While allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation from an HLA-matched donor remains the only established cure, most patients lack a suitable donor. In 2023, the FDA approved two autologous gene therapies for patients ≥12 years old with recurrent vaso-occlusive crises (VOCs): lovotibeglogene autotemcel (Bluebird Bio) and exagamglogene autotemcel (Vertex/CRISPR Therapeutics). Despite their promise, integration into routine care remains challenging due to strict trial criteria and limited implementation guidance. We sought to assess provider knowledge, referral patterns, and comfort discussing gene therapy (GT) to guide equitable adoption across pediatric SCD practices. Method: We distributed a 35-question REDCap survey to pediatric hematology providers in North America. Eligible participants were board-eligible/certified pediatric hematologists who care for individuals with SCD. The study was approved by the IRB of Baylor College of Medicine. This interim analysis includes responses collected from June 6 to July 24, 2025. Stratified analyses based on provider practice type, clinical experience, and SCD center volume were conducted using two-sided t-tests. Results: In addition to posting the survey link on the American Society of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology (ASPHO) Hemoglobinopathy Special Interest Group discussion board and ASPHO Clinical Forum, we distributed email invitations to approximately 500 pediatric hematology/oncology providers identified through pediatric hematology directories. A total of 102 providers who met inclusion criteria completed the survey, yielding a response rate of ~20%. We captured a representative sample of pediatric hematologists caring for individuals with SCD and pediatric SCD centers across the United States and Canada. Practice types included general hematology/oncology (38.3%), SCD-focused (47.1%), and HSCT-focused (14.7%). Clinical experience ranged from <10 years (31.4%) to >20 years (29.4%). Practice sizes ranged from centers caring for <100 (22.5%), 100–400 (36.3%), and >400 (41.2%) individuals with SCD. Most providers (91.6%) reported they would likely discuss GT with patients lacking a matched donor who either had recurrent VOCs or expressed interest. However, only 40% were likely to discuss GT in the absence of VOCs. Stratification revealed that SCD-focused providers were significantly less likely than generalists to recommend GT for patients with prior SCD related neurological complications including: prior stroke (44.8% vs. 69.2%, p=0.028); CNS vasculopathy (39.6% vs. 69.2%, p=0.005); abnormal TCD (60.4% vs. 74.4%, p=0.1). Comfort with gene therapy-related discussions also varied significantly. SCD focused hematologists reported significantly greater comfort with GT counseling including: initiating conversations (100% vs. 76.9%, p=0.002); differentiating products (97.9% vs. 30.8%, p<0.001); discussing risks/benefits (97.9% vs. 51.3%, p<0.001). Physicians were also asked whether, based on currently available information, they would be inclined to recommend one gene therapy product over another when referring patients. Among respondents, 26.7% of HSCT-focused providers indicated they would make such a recommendation, compared to 12.5% of SCD-focused providers and 7.7% of general hematology/oncology providers. Notably, all who expressed a preference favored exagamglogene autotemcel over lovotibeglogene autotemcel, citing concerns about insertional mutagenesis and secondary malignancies, a preference for gene-editing approaches, and considerations related to cost. Conclusions: This national survey highlights substantial variability in gene therapy referral practices for pediatric sickle cell disease, particularly in cases involving neurologic complications and across different provider types. While hematologists with a SCD-focused practice reported greater comfort with GT counseling, they were less likely to recommend GT in certain high-risk scenarios. These findings emphasize the urgent need for standardized, evidence-based guidelines and targeted provider education to ensure equitable access and appropriate integration of GT into pediatric SCD care.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,021
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,042

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,037
Tête enseignante GPT0,350
Écart entre enseignants0,312 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetVirus-based gene therapy research→Travaux en français237 207→