Balancing benefits and burdens: a systematic review on ethical and social dimensions of gene and cell therapies for hereditary blood diseases.

IF 3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS BMC Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2025-03-14 DOI:10.1186/s12910-025-01188-3
L C van Hooff, E-M Merz, A S Kidane Gebremeskel, J A de Jong, G L Burchell, J E Lunshof
{"title":"Balancing benefits and burdens: a systematic review on ethical and social dimensions of gene and cell therapies for hereditary blood diseases.","authors":"L C van Hooff, E-M Merz, A S Kidane Gebremeskel, J A de Jong, G L Burchell, J E Lunshof","doi":"10.1186/s12910-025-01188-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sickle cell disease (SCD) and Diamond-Blackfan anemia syndrome (DBAS) are two hereditary blood diseases that present significant challenges to patients, their caregivers, and the healthcare system. Both conditions cause severe health complications and have limited treatment options, leaving many individuals without access to curative therapies like hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Recent advancements in gene and cell therapies offer the potential for a new curative option, marking a pivotal shift in the management of these debilitating diseases. However, the implementation of these therapies necessitates a nuanced understanding of the ethical and social implications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this mixed methods systematic review, we explore the responsible development and implementation of gene and cell therapies for SCD and DBAS and aim to sketch a path toward ethically and socially sound implementation. Drawing upon principles of Responsible Research & Innovation and the 4A framework of availability, accessibility, acceptability, and affordability, we thematically analyze existing research to illuminate the ethical and social dimensions of these therapies. Following established PRISMA and JBI Manual guidelines, a search across multiple databases yielded 51 peer-reviewed studies with publication dates ranging from 1991 to 2023.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our thematic analysis shows that the theme of acceptability is heavily shaped by interactions between patients, caregivers, healthcare professionals and researchers, influencing treatment decisions and shaping the development of curative gene and cell therapies. Despite the generally positive perspective on these therapies, factors like the limited treatment options, financial constraints, healthcare professional attitudes, and (historical) mistrust can impede stakeholder decision-making. While acceptability focuses on individual decisions, the themes of availability, accessibility, and affordability are interconnected and primarily driven by healthcare systems, where high research and development costs, commercialization and a lack of transparency challenge equitable access to these therapies. This diminishes the acceptability for patients, revealing a complex interdependence of the themes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings suggest the need for improved communication strategies in clinical practice to facilitate informed decision-making for patients and caregivers. Policy development should focus on addressing pricing disparities and promoting international collaboration to ensure equitable access to therapies. This review has been pre-registered in PROSPERO under registration number CRD42023474305.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"26 1","pages":"36"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01188-3","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Sickle cell disease (SCD) and Diamond-Blackfan anemia syndrome (DBAS) are two hereditary blood diseases that present significant challenges to patients, their caregivers, and the healthcare system. Both conditions cause severe health complications and have limited treatment options, leaving many individuals without access to curative therapies like hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Recent advancements in gene and cell therapies offer the potential for a new curative option, marking a pivotal shift in the management of these debilitating diseases. However, the implementation of these therapies necessitates a nuanced understanding of the ethical and social implications.

Methods: In this mixed methods systematic review, we explore the responsible development and implementation of gene and cell therapies for SCD and DBAS and aim to sketch a path toward ethically and socially sound implementation. Drawing upon principles of Responsible Research & Innovation and the 4A framework of availability, accessibility, acceptability, and affordability, we thematically analyze existing research to illuminate the ethical and social dimensions of these therapies. Following established PRISMA and JBI Manual guidelines, a search across multiple databases yielded 51 peer-reviewed studies with publication dates ranging from 1991 to 2023.

Results: Our thematic analysis shows that the theme of acceptability is heavily shaped by interactions between patients, caregivers, healthcare professionals and researchers, influencing treatment decisions and shaping the development of curative gene and cell therapies. Despite the generally positive perspective on these therapies, factors like the limited treatment options, financial constraints, healthcare professional attitudes, and (historical) mistrust can impede stakeholder decision-making. While acceptability focuses on individual decisions, the themes of availability, accessibility, and affordability are interconnected and primarily driven by healthcare systems, where high research and development costs, commercialization and a lack of transparency challenge equitable access to these therapies. This diminishes the acceptability for patients, revealing a complex interdependence of the themes.

Conclusions: The findings suggest the need for improved communication strategies in clinical practice to facilitate informed decision-making for patients and caregivers. Policy development should focus on addressing pricing disparities and promoting international collaboration to ensure equitable access to therapies. This review has been pre-registered in PROSPERO under registration number CRD42023474305.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
期刊最新文献
A scoping review of human genetic resources management policies and databases in high- and middle-low-income countries. Balancing benefits and burdens: a systematic review on ethical and social dimensions of gene and cell therapies for hereditary blood diseases. Development and psychometric properties of the nursing ethical decision-making ability scale. "No, it is not a breach of my oath because it is beyond my control; I use the policies that are in place." Ethical challenges faced by healthcare workers in the provision of healthcare to cross-border migrants in Botswana. Evaluation of the surgical informed consent for elective and emergency surgeries in obstetrics and gynaecology in Saudi Arabia.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1