Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Jul 18;19(7):e0307567. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307567

Clinician’s perspectives on gene therapy for Alzheimer’s disease: A qualitative study

Lilly Kelemen 1, Ishika Gupta 1, Zollie Yavarow 1, Samantha I Smith 2, Kim G Johnson 3, Nathan A Boucher 2,4,*
Editor: Stephen D Ginsberg5
PMCID: PMC11257239  PMID: 39024352

Abstract

Introduction

We aimed to understand clinician views regarding gene therapy as a future treatment for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and potential barriers and facilitators to its use.

Methods

We interviewed ten clinicians who treat patients with AD. Clinicians helped design a semi-structured interview including the following domains: establishing understanding, cost/access, quality of life, and religion/spirituality. Transcripts were analyzed by a coding team using descriptive content analysis with inductive approach.

Results

Clinicians identified three main areas of concern: 1) potential clinician and patient understanding of gene therapy and Alzheimer’s disease 2) consideration of inequity (i.e., care access, disease awareness along with education level, family support, trust in care systems); and 3) considerations in decision-making (i.e., religious/spiritual beliefs and method of treatment delivery as a decision-making tools).

Discussion and conclusion

Findings highlight areas for knowledge-building for patients and clinicians alike. Clinicians must be aware of patient/family educational needs and gaps in their own clinical knowledge before engaging patients/families with new technology. Allowing time for questions is crucial to building rapport and trust.

Introduction

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease causing cognitive decline and functional loss which presents challenges foremost for patients and their families, but also for society and for the health care system [1]. An estimated 6.2 million people are living with Alzheimer’s disease in the United States. That number is expected to increase to a staggering 14 million by 2060 [2].

While reported deaths from heart disease, stroke, and HIV decreased from 2000 to 2019, deaths caused by AD increased more than 145%. The COVID-19 pandemic may have contributed to an even larger increase in AD deaths from 2019 to 2022 [2]. AD pathology is diagnosed by the A,T,N classification system developed and revised by the NIA-AA [3]. To fulfill criteria for pathologic pre-clinical AD, there must be the presence of β-amyloid plaques (A), +/- neurofibrillary tau deposits (T) and +/- neurodegeneration (N). Because amyloid plaques build up slowly, it can take years before symptoms become recognizable leading to a clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease.

There are few effective treatment options for neurodegenerative diseases such as AD. Traditional treatments for AD focus on treating symptoms as opposed to reversing disease progression [4]. Drugs with disease-modifying potential that reduce amyloid-beta plaques in the brain of patients with Alzheimer’s disease have recently received FDA approval (Aducanumab accelerated approval in June 2021; Lecanemab accelerated approval in January 2023 and traditional approval in July 2023) [5, 6]. However, their effectiveness is also limited and they are not a cure. Removal of amyloid from the brain by lecanemab slows progression of cognitive decline by 27% over 18 months but does not halt progression of cognitive decline.

Therefore, as rates of AD and AD-related deaths increase in the population with devastating consequences, there is high demand from patients, caregivers, and patient advocates for effective disease-modifying therapies. Gene therapy is an emerging disease-modifying therapy with interesting potential in many disease states. In November 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first cell-based gene therapies, Casgevy and Lyfgenia, to treat sickle cell disease [7]. These approvals mark an exciting advancement to expand the possible treatment options for patients living with life-altering diseases. Researchers are working to develop similar gene therapy treatments to alter the underlying genetic mechanisms of Alzheimer’s disease and decrease genetic risk rather than treat symptoms as they appear.

There are several known genetic mechanisms involved with AD that present potential targets for gene therapy including the Amyloid Precursor Protein (APP), Presenilin 1 (PS1) and Presenilin 2 (PS2) mutations which result in autosomal dominant inheritance of early onset AD and the apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) allele, a genetic risk factor which increases genetic risk for late onset AD, also known as LOAD [8]. The ε4 isoform of the apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene imparts increased genetic risk for AD and has been linked with varying degrees of amyloid build up in the brain [9]. Every individual carries two alleles of the APOE gene, either an of three possibε2, ε3, and ε4, with the most common allele being ε3. Therefore, there are six possible APOE genotypes including ε2/ε2, ε2/ε3, ε3/ε3, ε2/ε4 ε3/ε4 ε4/ε4. While the rare ε2 allele may actually decrease risk of developing AD later in life, carrying the ε4 allele is the strongest genetic risk factor in developing LOAD [10]. Carrying one copy of APOE-4 increases risk of developing AD about twofold, yet having two copies increases the risk up to twelvefold. Therefore, APOE4 represents a potential therapeutic target for gene therapy in Alzheimer’s disease that could affect a large number of people in the population [11]. In fact there is currently a trial using APOE as a gene therapy target [12].

The potential for disparities of care in the process of how clinicians educate AD patients and their families about complex new treatments and engage in joint clinical decision-making cannot be understated. Lower education levels, higher rates of poverty, and greater exposure to adversity and discrimination are all risk factors that increase the likelihood of dementia [2] and create disparities in dementia diagnosis and treatment that are well documented. American racial minority groups are often diagnosed at a later stage of disease than White Americans [13] and it is well known that Black Americans are less likely to be prescribed or use a cognitive medication for dementia than White Americans. Disparities in AD rates are further complicated by a significant underrepresentation of Black Americans in AD research studies, partly explained by general distrust of the American healthcare system due to its history of abuse of racial minority patients [14, 15].

Patient and caregiver perceptions of treatment options are important. There is previous research detailing caregivers and patients’ perception of nonpharmacological interventions in adults with AD; however, research exploring how patients and caregivers understand gene therapy as an emerging treatment for AD is lacking [16]. Therefore, the role of the clinician may be an important factor in patient and caregiver understanding of gene therapy.

This study explores clinicians’ views on gene therapy for AD, specifically targeting the APOE4 allele, a treatment modality currently in clinical trials. In this study, wee took a high-level approach, seeking to understand how clinician’s themselves perceive this particular AD gene therapy and their understanding of the possibilities of gene therapy, both factors which affect their ability to educate patients. We hypothesize that more thorough knowledge of barriers and facilitators to patient and clinician understanding of gene therapy could lead to better informed medical decision-making that is shared between both clinician and patient [17].

Methods

This exploratory study is formative work to optimize how emerging gene therapy technologies are introduced to both medical care providers as well as healthcare consumers. We conducted semi-structured interviews with academic center clinicians who would guide patients through decisions regarding gene therapy for Alzheimer’s disease. The [redacted] IRB reviewed and approved this research study and the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) was completed.

Participants

To recruit clinicians, we collaborated with department heads who suggested clinicians appropriate for the study across disciplines, who work with patients in the setting of Alzheimer’s disease treatment. Inclusion criteria included experience as a healthcare provider advising and treating those living with dementia. Participants completed a phone screening to confirm they met study inclusion criteria and were then scheduled for a virtual video interview following an explanation of the study and verbal consent to participate. No monetary compensation was provided. All approached clinicians consented and completed the interview following provision of study information and the opportunity to ask questions.

Measurements

The multidisciplinary research team created a semi-structured interview guide (see Supplement) complete with open-ended interview questions and probes. Three clinicians with social work and neurology expertise, knowledge of Alzheimer’s disease, and knowledge of research methods in our health system reviewed the guide and helped the team identify domains of interest to our health system. NAB piloted the interview guide with two clinicians to improve understanding and word clarity. We incorporated feedback from both engagements.

Participants were first asked about their current level of understanding of gene therapy. Interviewers then followed this initial question by defining gene therapy for each participant with the same standard definition: “Gene therapy is an experimental technique that uses genes—a unit of heredity written in our DNA—to treat or prevent disease. In the future, this technique may allow health care providers to treat a disorder, such as Alzheimer’s disease by adding or changing a gene in a patient’s cells.”

Along with demographic questions, domains queried in the interview guide included: cost, access, and quality [18]–predominant tensions driving healthcare delivery––as well as potential patient and clinician concerns around establishing understanding of gene therapy as a treatment. Additionally, we asked about the role of religion and spirituality, as our interview guide reviewers indicated these as important considerations in patients’ health decision making locally. Audio recorded interviews were between one trained interviewer (either LK or IG) and one enrolled clinician, without observers. Interviewers were undergraduate students and trained by NAB, an experienced interviewer. The resulting auto transcription was checked for accuracy by the interviewer immediately following the interview.

Analysis

When further observations and analysis were no longer generating new or discrete themes, the study team stopped interviews and recruitment [19, 20]. Two coders conducted a descriptive content analysis with an inductive approach using larger team meetings to help develop the codebook [21]. Coders IG, LK, and SS used NVivo 12 Pro (QSR International Pty Ltd. 2018) to manage data and develop codes to segment participant interview data into conceptual categories (e.g., incorporating text describing similar concepts).

We identified content-driven codes and applied them to the text for each of the conceptual categories (e.g., potential themes related to patient or provider education). Coders selected three interview transcripts, and two coders separately identified themes. After reconciling emergent themes and revising the codebook as a larger team, two coders separately coded the next three interviews. The team discussed the application of coding for those three interviews. Confirmation coding was used thereafter (coded by one, confirmed or disputed by the second). Coding disagreements were resolved through meetings with the larger research team. SS and IG then completed coding on all transcripts. We examined code frequencies across transcripts to identify salient factors for participants. To conclude the analysis, we used direct quotes (when able) and indirect quotes to demonstrate common themes.

Results

We conducted n = 10 (no refusals or drop-outs) in-depth interviews ranging from 20 minutes to approximately 60 minutes with academic center clinicians working with patients living with Alzheimer’s disease. Table 1 shows the characteristics of this clinician sample. Analysis resulted in a focus on three main themes with related subthemes– 1) Understanding of gene therapy and Alzheimer’s disease 2) Consideration of inequity (care access, disease awareness along with education level, family support, trust in care systems); and 3) Considerations in decision-making (religious/spiritual beliefs and method of treatment delivery as a decision-making tools). Illustrative quotes for each subtheme are included.

Table 1. Sample characteristics.

(N = 10)
Gender, N (%)
    Male 3 (30)
    Female 7 (70)
Age (years), N (%)
    30–40 3 (30)
    41–50 1 (10)
    51–60 5 (50)
    61+ 1 (10)
M (SD); range 49.8 (11.14); 33–69
Race
    White 8 (80)
    Latinx 1 (10)
    Asian/Pacific Islander 1 (10)
Highest education level, N (%)
    Master’s Degree 4 (40)
    Doctorate Degree 6 (60)
Clinical discipline, N (%)
    Physician 4 (40)
    Physician Assistant 1 (10)
    Nurse Practitioner 2 (20)
    Principal Investigator/Research/Professor 3 (30)
Years working with dementia populations
    <5 1 (10)
    5–10 4 (40)
    20–30 4 (40)
    30+ 1 (10)
M (SD); range 14.85 (11.6); 1.5–37
Care setting (more than one setting for n = 3)
    Inpatient 3
    Outpatient 8
    Telehealth 2
Open in a new tab

Notes: M = mean SD = standard deviation

Potential gaps in understanding of gene therapy and Alzheimer’s disease

Our clinician interviewees noted that, to provide optimal care to people living with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), healthcare providers should consider patient characteristics. This applies to the patient’s preferences for their own quality of life and the patient’s current level of participation in activities meaningful to them. For example, what is their level of functioning and communication––can they perform activities of daily living, or are they confined to a bed? A provider’s keen awareness of the degree of AD and any concomitant illness (and current medications) also allows the provider to have a global view of their patient’s health and where new treatments may fit. Expectedly, providers expressed a need to know the risks and benefits and the cost of a new treatment before recommending it to a patient.

❖ “… as they continue to progress, and they’ve lost all of their ADLs [activities of daily living], at that point it’s progressed to such a degree that it seems that any further treatment would just be burdensome and so I wouldn’t initiate anything at that point.”

❖ “If it alleviates some symptoms but doesn’t really stop the disease that’s a whole different question as opposed to something that could actually reverse the disease…”

Interviewees also discussed helpful education strategies to target healthcare providers treating people living with AD. These educational resources included research conferences reviewing best practice and new developments in the field, consulting with knowledgeable colleagues with more experience, and looking to institutions within which they practice for guidance on currently approved AD management.

Access to information is important for patients, according to the interviewees, so patients and families can make informed decisions. The education strategies that providers and health systems use to engage patients should be comprehensible and delivered with accessibility in mind. These may take the form of digestible introductions to the topic and resources that can be reviewed over time. When and where those conversations take place––and what type of provider delivers the information––are concerns.

❖ “… TV and newspapers and magazines tend to be very superficial… ‘this is the next cure for this particular disease without recognizing all of the limitations.”

❖ “… there could be, you know, education pamphlets and things like that in waiting rooms, but I think it would be a lot to expect within the time frame of a primary care visit to be able to start to introduce these topics. I do talk often with patients and families about genetic risk factors in the course of my appointment, takes quite a bit of time for people to understand it…”

❖ “… providing education to [patients and caregivers] would be helpful. Sometimes there are some caregivers that like a lot of information… give them the recent research or study that was conducted that they can access themselves online potentially… probably some sort of handout or fact sheet… to the actual studies.”

Patients and families, according to interviewees, should also be informed of the effects of treatment, such as the intended and unintended side effects and the goal of treatment. Patients should clearly understand at what stage the treatment can be applied and when it might not be beneficial. Their healthcare provider best informs this clarity and should involve close family members in the discussion.

❖ “… in what ways would [the treatment] affect other parts of the brain or body, besides the area that it’s targeting or what it’s meant to do.”

❖ “I’d work with the caregivers… we have to look at patients and caregivers as having autonomy, decision-making capacity… and work with them to explain the risk versus the benefits.”

Patients should also have knowledge of how a drug or other intervention is administered as it may have implications for pain or discomfort, time needed for clinic visits, or other effects on lifestyle. Interviewees note patients will have many questions; they will want to know details.

❖ “Is it cumbersome? Is there going to be a lot of follow up bloodwork or imaging? Um, is it painful? What’s the time commitment––is it a one-time infusion or is it a recurring treatment? Is it going to reverse any disease that’s already set in or is it going to prevent to further deterioration? All of that.”

Consideration of inequity

Interviewees were concerned about access to care, specifically access to a high technology intervention like gene therapy, which may require many resources limited to tertiary care centers. Cost, as a barrier to access, was also highlighted as a likely constraint for many patients, presuming that advanced care such as gene therapy would require substantial financial resources.

❖ “In general, people with poor access to healthcare will wait longer before being seen for anything because it’s not, you know, worth the money and the time away from other activities that actually generate money.”

Our clinicians cautioned that patients’ awareness of their disease progression should be assessed in tandem with their level of education to ensure a fair and thoughtful provider-to-patient approach. Health literacy and numeracy would be perennial challenges especially in the context of something as complex as gene therapy.

❖ "It’s difficult because you’ve got such a wide range of levels of knowledge and so many people barely know what DNA is and don’t really have a concept of how you would manipulate DNA in order to accomplish gene therapy."

Family support would be a key consideration when working with patients as most of the care coordination and decision-making happens with family involvement.

❖ “Caregivers play a huge role, oftentimes [if] the patient is cognitively impaired or in the mild dementia category they really just defer to the caregiver to make those decisions, so I think, you know, caregivers… kind of make a decision about whether or not we’re going to do… advanced diagnostic testing, whether or not we’re going to try this medication.”

Trust in healthcare providers and healthcare systems is also a consideration. Interviewees recalled that patients have varying levels of trust, and that people of color may be particularly mistrustful of unfamiliar treatments given a terrible legacy of mistreatment of people of color by the American medical system.

❖ “…there’s a lot of distrust with the healthcare system or providers as well, that would prevent [Black patients] from seeking out care.”

❖ “Highly educated white or Black [people] are more likely to participate in research studies, I think people who have less education are less likely to participate. I think there is a concern that maybe we’re trying to pull something over on them, certainly, you know, Black patients, given the history of… research trials that were exploited.”

Considerations for decision-making

Interviewees discussed common patient considerations for decision-making in treatments for AD. This included the role of spirituality and religion in patients’ lives and its influence on medical decision-making. Additionally, the method of treatment delivery appeared to be another important consideration for decision-making.

Some patients, the interviewees noted, use spirituality or religion as a decision-making tool in the context of illness. While taking into consideration advice from a healthcare provider, they might also temper that understanding or their next step decisions with their understanding of a perceived higher power or religious guidance.

❖ “… common is the: ‘You know, I prayed to God and he told me to do this’ or that ‘Miracles happen, and you know, this is going to help.’ To help the study drug work better, they oftentimes appeal [to] or report that that God is working in their in their court.”

❖ “I would say [religion/spirituality] is not necessarily something that’s discussed out right, but maybe more so when you particularly asked about it, then they’ll open up, and you know, they have no problem sharing it… I’d say more often than not, it doesn’t come up unless you specifically asked.”

❖ “I think a lot of it has to do with… how much control they have over their life and so if they kind of feel like well whatever is gonna happen is gonna happen or God has created the path… I think it depends on like how much perceived kind of control they have over their health, and how much they let their spiritual beliefs or their religion play a role in that.”

❖ “I would say a pretty big role… their religious practices or spirituality sometimes can influence whether they pursue certain treatment recommendations or not.”

The interviewees identified a treatment’s method of delivery as another potential consideration for patients. A treatment requiring multiple visits to a clinic may deter a patient who does not have reliable transportation, for example. The ease and pain level of gene therapy delivery (i.e., pill, infusion, injection) may be an important decision-making factor for the patient and their family caregivers.

❖ “If they’re not able to drive and if this requires something like weekly appointments, they’re going to forego treatment because they just don’t have the ability to go to all the appointments.”

❖ “Is it a pill? Is it an infusion? The burden of administration on the patient would be a consideration… what is their access to getting the treatment easily.

❖ “I would hope, [the treatment is] not a painful option, not too tiresome… I think it has to be a limited burden [so] that it doesn’t tire them out too much [or] hurt too much, [or cause] too much frustration.”

Discussion

We explored the perspectives of clinicians regarding the future of AD gene therapy specifically targeting the APOE4 allele. We chose to focus on gene therapy targeting the APOE4 allele since this therapy is in the clinical trial stage; however, we recognize that attitudes regarding gene therapies to other potential targets including the APP, PS1 and PS2 genes would be a valuable addition to the analysis of attitudes toward gene therapy in AD.

While colleagues work diligently on the biological science of gene therapy, this study posited that many barriers potentially exist to the successful rollout of gene therapy in the practical world of patient care. Initial gene therapy trials will need to assess safety and efficacy in patients who have Alzheimer’s disease, a population of patients with unique symptoms and potentially limited capacity for fully understanding the treatment, which could present barriers. Clinician education is important to the process to fill gaps in their clinical knowledge and therefore, enable them to anticipate patient’s needs. Awareness of barriers upfront may allow early attunement to patient needs. Tailored care approaches may ensure person-centered treatment in a complex Alzheimer’s disease population where neuropsychiatric symptoms and quality of life are major considerations [17, 22].

Our clinician interviewees spoke about patient/family-level considerations for applying new treatments like gene therapy. Accessible information sources like TV and newspapers rarely recognize the limitations of emerging treatments. It has been found that another patient group receiving advanced therapeutics (hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for sickle cell disease) primarily learned about treatments though social media, social networks, the news, and media—precisely the sources our clinicians cited as “superficial,” with patients often not recognizing the limitations of these resources, in their opinion [23]. In an effort to educate patients in an accessible way, it may be helpful for clinicians to recognize the education potential of these media outlets and levy them to build patient knowledge.

Clinicians in our study clearly identified the importance of assessing patient decision-making capacity by better understanding the needs, disease state, and knowledge levels of both the patient and their caregiver. A 2012 study of dementia caregivers identified understanding the individual’s needs, exploring potential options, and assessing their ability to make a choice as key components of the decision-making process [24]. This previous caregiver study confirms that the decision-making considerations highlighted by caregivers largely align with the responses of the healthcare providers in our study.

Inequity was a dominant topic in our study as our interviewees noted potential challenges in patients’ healthcare access, education level, awareness of their disease, existing level of family support, and the perennial issue of trust in healthcare systems. These topics are present in the current literature, including the importance of family involvement, clinician-patient communication, and access to specialty care in dementia contexts [25]. Recent studies in the context of COVID-19––an amplifier of gaps in complex healthcare populations––point to patients’ desire for more evidence-based information to make decisions and the importance of access to different treatment options [26]. Regarding inequities and trust among minority groups, Sloan et. al––studying coordination of dementia care in Black patient populations––noted Black participants expressed difficulty accessing adequate dementia information and care supports [27]. The same study noted a lack of effective communication about dementia symptoms and treatment in Black communities. The clinicians interviewed in this present study built on this idea, explaining that common mistrust of healthcare systems might also be a barrier to medical decision-making.

Consideration of religious and spiritual needs is paramount in our diverse patient populations; many consider these types of beliefs as necessary for enduring a disease process or deriving meaning from a challenging illness [28–31]. Religious faith or spirtuality may be beneficial to facing the challenges of serious illness as patients may draw upon peace, hope, support, and even decision-making guidance from related beliefs [31, 32]. Our interviewees’ opinions aligned with much of the literature on this topic: patients are known to consider a higher power and religious belief in how they approach their healthcare decisions [30].

Limitations include a focus on a specific health system in one area of one state and seeking views of only clinicians as opposed to including opinions of patients or caregivers. We recognize that the sample size of 10 clinicians, while adequate for qualitative research, gives a limited perspective on attitudes towards gene therapy and cannot be generalized to include all clinicians. Geography, payer mix, cultural differences, and political climate will play a role in uptake of any future gene therapy. The purpose of the study was to gather qualitative insights to further exploration of this topic.

It would have been ideal to also explore perspectives of people living with dementia or their family caregivers to impart more sophisticated dimensions on the topic––a possible area for future inquiry. In addition, the study methods assumed only patients with an Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis would receive gene therapy treatment. We recognize that if gene therapy shows efficacy, the goals of future treatment may be to treat people with a copy of the APOE4 allele before symptoms develop. However, we feel it is important for clinicians and patients with Alzheimer’s disease to consider gene therapy as a treatment since any clinical trials will start in a patient population affected with Alzheimer’s disease due to ethical reasons. The first goal of gene therapy studies is to prove that the treatment is safe and it would be unethical to expect people with normal cognition to undertake the risk of a clinical trial to assess safety. If gene therapy is proven safe and clinical trials are expanded, further studies of clinicians’ perspectives in a population of younger and normal cognition patients would be of interest.

Conclusion

Our study adds early and necessary considerations for the application of gene therapy to AD. Indeed, this information is applicable to other AD therapies and other medical applications of gene therapy that may be initially tested for safety in an AD population. Our study shows that clinicians working in this area identify challenges ahead and readily suggest what might be done to mitigate them. Considering equity, family involvement, allowing time for patient/family education, and focusing on trust building and rapport are all facilitators to overcome the identified barriers. Gene therapy, with potential therapeutic expense and burden unlike many other clinical interventions, may require additional focus from clinicians, patients, and families.

When the technology becomes readily available, healthcare practices must find ways to reduce the perceived complexity of gene therapy and amplify its benefits in an understandable way for clinicians, persons living with Alzheimer’s disease and their families. Cogent approaches to rolling out this new type of therapy will need to consider what clinicians and patients alike need to know, while also considering equity in providing care to diverse patient populations.

Supporting information

S1 File. Institutional review board approval.

(PDF)

pone.0307567.s001.pdf (106.9KB, pdf)
S2 File. Provider interview guide.

(DOCX)

pone.0307567.s002.docx (15.9KB, docx)

Data Availability

Regarding data repository filing, this is a qualitative data set and would be of limited reproducible value especially since it would have to be fully anonymized. Additionally, participants did not give consent to data sharing beyond the study team. Contact for IRB questions: campusirb@duke.edu. This is an expert led student project. We appreciate your consideration.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Marešová P., et al. Socio-economic Aspects of Alzheimer’s Disease. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2015;12(9): p. 903–11. doi: 10.2174/156720501209151019111448 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.2021 Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures. Alzheimer’s & Dementia. 2021;17(3): p. 327–406. doi: 10.1002/alz.12328 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Jack C.R. Jr., et al. NIA-AA Research Framework: Toward a biological definition of Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2018;14(4): p. 535–562. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2018.02.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Yiannopoulou K.G. and Papageorgiou S.G. Current and Future Treatments in Alzheimer Disease: An Update. J Cent Nerv Syst Dis. 2020;12: p. 1179573520907397. doi: 10.1177/1179573520907397 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dhillon S. Aducanumab: First Approval. Drugs. 2021;81(12): p. 1437–1443. doi: 10.1007/s40265-021-01569-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Yang A., Kantor B., and Chiba-Falek O. APOE: The New Frontier in the Development of a Therapeutic Target towards Precision Medicine in Late-Onset Alzheimer’s. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(3). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Commissioner, O. of the. FDA Approves First Gene Therapies to Treat Patients with Sickle Cell Disease. FDA. 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Andrade-Guerrero J., et al. Alzheimer’s Disease: An Updated Overview of Its Genetics. International journal of molecular sciences. 2023;24(4), 3754. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Liu C.-C., Kanekiyo T., Xu H., & Bu G. Apolipoprotein E and Alzheimer disease: Risk, mechanisms, and therapy. Nature Reviews. Neurology. 2013;9(2), 106–118. doi: 10.1038/nrneurol.2012.263 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Corder E. H., Saunders A. M., Strittmatter W. J., Schmechel D. E., Gaskell P. C., Small G. W., et al. Gene dose of apolipoprotein E type 4 allele and the risk of Alzheimer’s disease in late onset families. Science. 2023;261(5123), 921–923. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Rosenberg J., Kaplitt M., and Bishnu P.D. AAVrh.10-Mediated APOE2 Central Nervous System Gene Therapy for APOE4-Associated Alzheimer’s Disease. Human Gene Therapy Clinical Developmen. 2018;29(1): p. 24–47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Therapeutics Lexeo. A 52-Week, Multicenter, Phase 1/2 Open-label Study to Evaluate the Safety of LX1001 in Participants With APOE4 Homozygote Alzheimer’s Disease (Clinical Trial Registration NCT03634007). clinicaltrials.gov. 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Chin A.L., Negash S., and Hamilton R. Diversity and Disparity in Dementia: The Impact of Ethnoracial Differences in Alzheimer Disease. Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders. 2011;25(3): p. 187–195 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Howell J.C., et al. Trust thyself: How older black and white adults consider Alzheimer’s disease research participation. Alzheimer’s & Dementia. 2020;16(S6): p. e044858 [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Giebel C., Cations M., Draper B., & Komuravelli A. Ethnic disparities in the uptake of anti-dementia medication in young and late-onset dementia. International psychogeriatrics. 2023;35(7), 381–390. doi: 10.1017/S1041610220000794 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Park J., et al. Perceived Benefits of Using Nonpharmacological Interventions in Older Adults With Alzheimer’s Disease or Dementia With Lewy Bodies. Journal of Gerontological Nursing. 2020;46(1): p. 37–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.van der Flier W.M., et al. Diagnostic dilemmas in Alzheimer’s disease: Room for shared decision making. Alzheimers Dement (N Y). 2017;3(3): p. 301–304. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Fox A. and Poirier R. How Single-payer Stacks Up: Evaluating Different Models of Universal Health Coverage on Cost, Access, and Quality. International Journal of Health Services. 2018;48(3): p. 568–585. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Guest G., Bunce A., and Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field methods. 2006;18(1): p. 59–82. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Saunders B., et al. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity. 2018;52(4): p. 1893–1907. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Thomas D.R. A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative Evaluation Data. American Journal of Evaluation. 200;27(2): p. 237–246. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kim S.K. and Park M. Effectiveness of person-centered care on people with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Interv Aging. 2017;12: p. 381–397. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sinha C.B., et al. Primary caregiver decision‐making in hematopoietic cell transplantation and gene therapy for sickle cell disease. Pediatric Blood & Cancer. 2021;68(1): p. e28749. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wolfs C.A., et al. Rational decision-making about treatment and care in dementia: a contradiction in terms? Patient Education and Counseling. 2012;87(1): p. 43–48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wolff J.L., et al. Emerging topics in dementia care and services. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021;69(7): p. 1763–1773. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bacsu J.R., et al. A scoping review of COVID-19 experiences of people living with dementia. Can J Public Health. 2021;p. 1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sloan D.H., et al. Transcending inequities in dementia care in Black communities: Lessons from the maximizing independence at home care coordination program. Dementia. 2022;21(5): p. 1653–1668. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Mesquita A.C., Chaves É C.L., and Barros G.A.M. Spiritual needs of patients with cancer in palliative care: an integrative review. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care. 2017;11(4): p. 334–340. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Koenig H.G., et al. Hope, Religiosity, and Mental Health in U.S. Veterans and Active Duty Military with PTSD Symptoms. Mil Med. 2019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Boucher N.A. Faith, Family, Filiality, and Fate. J Appl Gerontol. 2017;36(3): p. 351–372. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Boucher N.A., Steinhauser K.E., and Johnson K.S. Older, Seriously Ill Veterans’ Views on the Role of Religion and Spirituality in Health-Care Delivery. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2018;35(7): p. 921–928. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Boucher N.A., Siddiqui E.A., and Koenig H.G. Supporting Muslim Patients During Advanced Illness. Perm J. 2017;21: p. 16–190. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Stephen D Ginsberg

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

24 Apr 2024

PONE-D-24-09705Gene Therapy for Alzheimer’s Disease: Clinicians’ perspectives on patient needsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Boucher,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. After careful consideration by 2 Reviewers and an Academic Editor, all of the critiques of both Reviewers must be addressed in detail in a revision to determine publication status. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision, but revision of the original submission without directly addressing the critiques of the Reviewers does not guarantee acceptance for publication in PLOS ONE. If the authors do not feel that the queries can be addressed, please consider submitting to another publication medium. A revised submission will be sent out for re-review. The authors are urged to have the manuscript given a hard copyedit for syntax and grammar.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 08 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Stephen D. Ginsberg

Section Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:  

[No].

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly.

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.  

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Much of your work may be applicable to the use of monoclonal antibodies. Would you consider doing a similar study for that indication?

More importantly, your work on gene therapy for AD is more applicable in the near term to APP, PS1 and PS2 mutations. This could be mentioned in your discussion. Consider working with clinicians participating in the DIAN cohort studies and persons at risk of carrying such genes. You may get different answers than from your current study.

Reviewer #2: Overall

The researchers aimed to understand clinicians’ perspectives regarding gene therapy, their understanding of patients’ views, and potential barriers and facilitators to its use as a future treatment for Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

Given advances in developing these therapies and the lack of knowledge about clinicians’ and patients’ perspective, this is a topical study. It’s important to include the perspectives of the people who might be affected by new innovative treatments at an early stage.

The researchers identified gaps in knowledge, a need for educational materials, and barriers such as cost, difficulty to understand such complex interventions and lack of trust in health care systems.

However, my main concerns are:

- It remains unspecified what is meant by “gene therapies”, for whom this are intended, in what stage, etcetera. Although I understand that this may vary somewhat, by leaving it so vague, the findings could be applicable to any new medical intervention for Alzheimer’s disease.

- The sample population is small (10 health care providers) and not very representative (4 have a Master’s Degree as highest education). Based on this I doubt to what extent these findings may reflect and be generalizable to the perspectives of the clinicians who would discuss gene therapies with patients if and when they are introduced.

- In addition, potential patients are referred to as individuals who are cognitively impaired, and potentially unable to perform activities of daily living, to the extent they are no longer competent to make their own decisions. To the best of my knowledge, these therapies are generally intended for patients in earlier stages of the disease, where these challenges play a smaller role and other barriers apply (for example, related to treating relatively healthy individuals with invasive and risky therapies).

- In relation to this, the interview guide does not seem to be based on literature or findings, and only incorporates feedback from three clinicians with expertise in social work and neurology. The questions focus on specific topics, such as understanding, costs and tensions in health care delivery which correspond directly to the findings. So, I don’t feel like this is an exploration of which concerns, barriers and facilitators might be involved, but a specification of certain pre-specified aspects.

- Lastly, as this qualitative study is not reported in accordance to the Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) checklist or Standards for reporting qualitative research (SRQR) checklist (the authors don’t report adhering to guidelines), I doubt whether it is reproducible and generalizable.

Thus, while the topic is very relevant and I commend the authors for investigating it, I believe the study can be improved in several aspects. So rather than spending my time commenting on what is already good, I tried to address what could be done better. So I hope my comments may helpful for the authors to accomplish this.

In general

- Please add line numbers to facilitate reviewing.

Abstract

- Title: “Gene Therapy for Alzheimer’s Disease: Clinicians’ perspectives on patient needs” seems to suggest this is about patients need, while only clinicians were interviews. As this does not correspond directly to the findings and is not the best way to study patients’ needs, I suggest changing it.

- Introduction: The aim does not correspond to the aim as specified in the introduction (facilitators are missing)

- Methods: “Personal morals” were not addressed in this study (these generally refer to an individual's principles or standards of behavior) and are therefore not synonymous to religious or spiritual aspects.

- Results: These findings don’t seem to entirely correspond to the headings and findings in the manuscript. And while I can see how patients may find it difficult to understand gene therapy, I would strongly suggest refraining from claiming that they lack the education or ability to do so. These therapies are not introduced in clinical practice yet, the fact that ten clinicians expect that they are unable to comprehend this, does not make it a scientifically supported finding and in my humble opinion this could be perceived as derogatory and offensive, which I am sure was not intended by the authors.

- Discussion/conclusion: I would say clinicians need to be educated themselves and learn to explain this to their patients, rather than merely being aware of their patients’ needs and their own gaps in knowledge.

Introduction

- “that poses social and economic challenges for clinicians, health systems, patients, and families worldwide”: I’d say these are first and foremost challenges for patients, their families, society and the health care system, rather than clinicians.

- The NIA-AA diagnostic framework is intended for research, not clinical practice. and it does not define Alzheimer’s Disease as A+T+N+ but as A+T+. Also, it is not clear to me how biological disease criteria relate to gene therapies.

- How do treatments for sickle cell disease fit in a listing of treatments for AD?

- “E (APOE) gene impart increased genetic risk for AD”: not necessarily, it could also decrease.

- “Every individual carries one of three possible alleles”: they carry two.

- “As rates of AD and AD-related deaths increase in the population, there is high demand from patients, caregivers and patient advocates for effective disease-modifying therapies”: I’d say they ask this because it is a devastating disease and the prevalence is already very high and rising (although according to some reports not as fast as projected), rather the mere fact that deaths are rising.

- “Disparities in dementia care are well documented.” While important, this is a rather abrupt introduction of an entirely new topic.

- “The importance of how clinicians approach complex treatments and clinical decision- making with AD patients and their families cannot be understated.” I suggestion adding a few sentences here and there to smooth these transitions.

- “research exploring how patients and caregivers understand gene therapy as an emerging treatment for AD is lacking.[13] We took a high-level approach, seeking to understand how clinician’s themselves perceive gene therapy and their understanding of patients’ awareness of gene therapy”: asking clinicians is not the best way to study patients perspectives. If you want to study patients’ perspective I would suggest including them in the study population. Or if you only interview clinicians, report clinicians’ perspectives. Again, as far as I know, these gene therapies are not introduced in clinical practice yet, so asking one group what another group may or may not understand about unspecified and unapproved treatments is in my opinion quite an unnecessary stretch.

- I strongly suggest specifying here what is meant by these novel gene therapies, for which patients they are intended, in which stage, with what target, as well as potential benefits and harms, and what exactly may be so difficult to explain and understand. As ApoE is discusses somewhat out of the blue, I gather the authors may have therapies targeting this gene in mind, whereas CRISPR-Cas interventions to alter causal mutations of dominantly inherited Alzheimer’s Disease may introduce a different applications, which do not necessarily include the same views, barriers and facilitators. As this is the topic of this study, it should be specified, at least to some extent. In addition, I would be interested in literature on views, barriers, and facilitators related to gene therapies for other diseases that have already been approved and introduced in clinical practice, as they give insights and a starting point for gene therapies in AD.

Methods:

- “We conducted semi-structured interviews with providers who would play a pivotal role in guiding patients through decisions regarding gene therapy for Alzheimer’s disease.” Please specify this.

- “we collaborated with key health system leaders who suggested clinicians appropriate for the study across disciplines”: again, this is quite vague.

- “The multidisciplinary research team created a semi-structured interview guide complete with open-ended interview questions and probes.”: How? Based on what literature, of which findings? Why include these topics and not others?

- “Three clinicians with social work and neurology expertise in our health system reviewed the guide, and we incorporated their feedback.” What makes them qualified to do so?

- “domains queried in the interview guide included: cost, access, and quality[15]––predominant tensions driving healthcare delivery––as well as patient and clinician concerns around establishing understanding of gene therapy as a treatment. Additionally, we asked about personal morals, including religion and spirituality.”: Why focus on this selection of topics?

- How long were the interviews?

- It would be insightful to include the topic guide and script for the semi-structured interviews.

- How were participants informed about the topic of interest (gene therapies), how was this defined?

Analysis

- “When further observations and analysis were no longer generating new or discrete themes, the study team stopped interviews and recruitment” I find it somewhat unexpected that data saturation was reached after only ten interviews, when they concern such a complex topic.

Results:

- “10 in-depth interviews with clinicians” Please specify what is meant by clinicians. General practitioners or neurologists? In primary care or memory clinics? Academic centers? Did they have experience with gene therapies in clinical trials in this population?

- Sample characteristics: based on this, I don’t think this sample is representative of the physicians who would actually discuss gene therapies with potential patients, given their education and clinical discipline.

- “Analysis resulted in a focus on three main themes with related subthemes – 1) Understanding of gene therapy and Alzheimer’s disease 2) Consideration of inequity (care access, disease awareness along with education level, family support, trust in care systems); and 3) Considerations in decision-making (religious/spiritual beliefs and method of treatment delivery as a decision-making tools).”: How do these correspond to the results reported in the abstract?

Gaps in understanding of gene therapy and Alzheimer’s disease

- “Our clinician interviewees noted that, to provide optimal care to people living with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), healthcare providers should consider the patients’ own preferences.”: Yet everything listed in this paragraph seems to concerned with patients characteristics, rather than the patients’ own preferences?

- Also, how does this relate to understanding of AD and gene therapy?

Consideration of inequity

- “gene therapy––the details of which may even stump a knowledgeable clinician.”: I suggest reconsidering or rephrasing this.

Results in general

These results are very general and rather superficial and seems to apply any new medical therapy for AD, rather than gene therapy specifically.

The findings seem to focus mostly on barriers, where are the facilitators reported…?

In addition, potential patients are referred to as individuals who are cognitively impaired, and potentially unable to perform activities of daily living, to the extent they are no longer competent to make their own decisions. To the best of my knowledge, these therapies are generally intended for patients in earlier stages of the disease, where these challenges play a smaller role and other barriers apply (for example, related to treating relatively healthy individuals with invasive and risky therapies).

Discussion

- “We explored patient needs regarding the future of AD gene therapy from the clinician’s perspective.” Again, I think this study should focus on clinicians’ perspectives alone. Or include patients in the sample population.

- “While colleagues work diligently on the biological science of gene therapy, our team posited that many barriers potentially exist to the successful rollout of gene therapy in the practical world of patient care.”: Our team…?

Conclusion

- “Clinicians working in this area see the challenges ahead and readily suggest what might be done to mitigate them.”: Were these suggestions included in the results?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Jul 18;19(7):e0307567. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307567.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

14 Jun 2024

Also see formatted attachment with same...

Responses to Reviewers’ Comments to the Author

Thank you for your thoughtful review. We now have a better paper because of this feedback.

Reviewer #1:

1. Much of your work may be applicable to the use of monoclonal antibodies. Would you consider doing a similar study for that indication? Thank you. Monoclonal antibody treatment to amyloid has proven therapeutic limitations or a therapeutic ceiling of effectiveness. We have described this in the Introduction. Gene therapy actually offers more promise as an effective treatment or possible cure. Therefore, this paper focuses on gene therapy as a potential treatment.

2. More importantly, your work on gene therapy for AD is more applicable in the near term to APP, PS1 and PS2 mutations. This could be mentioned in your discussion. Consider working with clinicians participating in the DIAN cohort studies and persons at risk of carrying such genes. You may get different answers than from your current study. Thank you for the comment and we feel this is an important point. We added this detail to the introduction and to the discussion sections.

Reviewer #2:

Overall

The researchers aimed to understand clinicians’ perspectives regarding gene therapy, their understanding of patients’ views, and potential barriers and facilitators to its use as a future treatment for Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

Given advances in developing these therapies and the lack of knowledge about clinicians’ and patients’ perspective, this is a topical study. It’s important to include the perspectives of the people who might be affected by new innovative treatments at an early stage.

The researchers identified gaps in knowledge, a need for educational materials, and barriers such as cost, difficulty to understand such complex interventions and lack of trust in health care systems.

However, my main concerns are:

1. It remains unspecified what is meant by “gene therapies”, for whom this are intended, in what stage, etcetera. Although I understand that this may vary somewhat, by leaving it so vague, the findings could be applicable to any new medical intervention for Alzheimer’s disease. The introduction was rewritten and expanded to clarify that this paper addressed gene therapies targeted at the APOE4 allele.

2. The sample population is small (10 health care providers) and not very representative (4 have a Master’s Degree as highest education). Based on this I doubt to what extent these findings may reflect and be generalizable to the perspectives of the clinicians who would discuss gene therapies with patients if and when they are introduced. Thank you for the comment. We addressed the comment in the limitations section of the discussion.

3. In addition, potential patients are referred to as individuals who are cognitively impaired, and potentially unable to perform activities of daily living, to the extent they are no longer competent to make their own decisions. To the best of my knowledge, these therapies are generally intended for patients in earlier stages of the disease, where these challenges play a smaller role and other barriers apply (for example, related to treating relatively healthy individuals with invasive and risky therapies). Thank you for the comment. We addressed this issue in the limitations section of the Discussion.

4. Lastly, as this qualitative study is not reported in accordance to the Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) checklist or Standards for reporting qualitative research (SRQR) checklist (the authors don’t report adhering to guidelines), I doubt whether it is reproducible and generalizable. We have provided more detail on our adherence to COREQ and have attached the checklist to the resubmission.

Thus, while the topic is very relevant and I commend the authors for investigating it, I believe the study can be improved in several aspects. So rather than spending my time commenting on what is already good, I tried to address what could be done better. So I hope my comments may helpful for the authors to accomplish this. Thank you for your comments. Since the study concluded, we cannot change the methods for this study but we appreciate your comments to incorporate changes in future studies. We did include your point in the limitations section of the Discussion.

In general

- Please add line numbers to facilitate reviewing.

Abstract

5. Title: “Gene Therapy for Alzheimer’s Disease: Clinicians’ perspectives on patient needs” seems to suggest this is about patients need, while only clinicians were interviews. As this does not correspond directly to the findings and is not the best way to study patients’ needs, I suggest changing it. We changed the title of the study to Clinician’s Perspectives on Gene Therapy for Alzheimer’s Disease: A Qualitative Study

6. Introduction: The aim does not correspond to the aim as specified in the introduction (facilitators are missing) Thank you. We corrected this.

7. Methods: “Personal morals” were not addressed in this study (these generally refer to an individual's principles or standards of behavior) and are therefore not synonymous to religious or spiritual aspects. We agree and have revised to be more accurate.

8. Results: These findings don’t seem to entirely correspond to the headings and findings in the manuscript. And while I can see how patients may find it difficult to understand gene therapy, I would strongly suggest refraining from claiming that they lack the education or ability to do so. These therapies are not introduced in clinical practice yet, the fact that ten clinicians expect that they are unable to comprehend this, does not make it a scientifically supported finding and in my humble opinion this could be perceived as derogatory and offensive, which I am sure was not intended by the authors. We have rephrased this as potential gaps in understanding and being sure that clinicians are poised to help inform patients and families, meeting them where they are. We believe we emphasized the need for trust building and rapport in the clinical relationship.

9. Discussion/conclusion: I would say clinicians need to be educated themselves and learn to explain this to their patients, rather than merely being aware of their patients’ needs and their own gaps in knowledge. Thank you for this comment. This comment was added to the first paragraph of the Discussion and we have done our best to emphasize the importance of clinicians’ awareness/education.

Introduction

10. “that poses social and economic challenges for clinicians, health systems, patients, and families worldwide”: I’d say these are first and foremost challenges for patients, their families, society and the health care system, rather than clinicians. We made this change.

11. The NIA-AA diagnostic framework is intended for research, not clinical practice. and it does not define Alzheimer’s Disease as A+T+N+ but as A+T+. Also, it is not clear to me how biological disease criteria relate to gene therapies. Thank you for your comments. We state that neurodegeneration criteria is +/-. “To fulfill criteria for pathologic AD, there must be the presence of β-amyloid plaques (A), +/- neurofibrillary tau deposits (T) and +/- neurodegeneration (N).” In clinical practice, pre-clinical diagnosis of AD is made by the presence of amyloid plaques. A clinical diagnosis of AD is made by the presence of B-amyloid plaques in the presence of cognitive decline.

12. How do treatments for sickle cell disease fit in a listing of treatments for AD? The success of gene therapy for the treatment of sickle cell disease is an example of an emerging gene therapy treatment.

13. “E (APOE) gene impart increased genetic risk for AD”: not necessarily, it could also decrease. APOE4 gives increase in genetic risk; APOE2 decreases genetic risk. We clarified the language in the Introduction to reflect this fact.

14. “Every individual carries one of three possible alleles”: they carry two. Thank you. We reworded this section to reflect this fact.

15. “As rates of AD and AD-related deaths increase in the population, there is high demand from patients, caregivers and patient advocates for effective disease-modifying therapies”: I’d say they ask this because it is a devastating disease and the prevalence is already very high and rising (although according to some reports not as fast as projected), rather the mere fact that deaths are rising. We added wording to reflect this idea.

16. “Disparities in dementia care are well documented.” While important, this is a rather abrupt introduction of an entirely new topic. We re-worded this area of the introduction to address this issue.

17. “The importance of how clinicians approach complex treatments and clinical decision- making with AD patients and their families cannot be understated.” I suggestion adding a few sentences here and there to smooth these transitions. We re-worded this section.

18. “research exploring how patients and caregivers understand gene therapy as an emerging treatment for AD is lacking.[13] We took a high-level approach, seeking to understand how clinician’s themselves perceive gene therapy and their understanding of patients’ awareness of gene therapy”: asking clinicians is not the best way to study patients perspectives. If you want to study patients’ perspective I would suggest including them in the study population. Or if you only interview clinicians, report clinicians’ perspectives. Again, as far as I know, these gene therapies are not introduced in clinical practice yet, so asking one group what another group may or may not understand about unspecified and unapproved treatments is in my opinion quite an unnecessary stretch. We re-worded the introduction to reflect this idea.

19. I strongly suggest specifying here what is meant by these novel gene therapies, for which patients they are intended, in which stage, with what target, as well as potential benefits and harms, and what exactly may be so difficult to explain and understand. As ApoE is discusses somewhat out of the blue, I gather the authors may have therapies targeting this gene in mind, whereas CRISPR-Cas interventions to alter causal mutations of dominantly inherited Alzheimer’s Disease may introduce a different applications, which do not necessarily include the same views, barriers and facilitators. As this is the topic of this study, it should be specified, at least to some extent. In addition, I would be interested in literature on views, barriers, and facilitators related to gene therapies for other diseases that have already been approved and introduced in clinical practice, as they give insights and a starting point for gene therapies in AD. Thank you for this comment. We addressed this issue in the introduction and the discussion.

Methods: Please address these comments for methods, analysis, results

20. “We conducted semi-structured interviews with providers who would play a pivotal role in guiding patients through decisions regarding gene therapy for Alzheimer’s disease.” Please specify this. We revised to “We conducted semi-structured interviews with academic center clinicians who would guide patients through decisions regarding gene therapy for Alzheimer’s disease.”

21. “we collaborated with key health system leaders who suggested clinicians appropriate for the study across disciplines”: again, this is quite vague. We changed this to “To recruit clinicians, we collaborated with department heads who suggested clinicians appropriate for the study across disciplines, those who would usually work with patients in the setting of Alzheimer’s disease.”

22. “The multidisciplinary research team created a semi-structured interview guide complete with open-ended interview questions and probes.”: How? We have the additional clarifying text “Three clinicians with social work and neurology expertise, knowledge of Alzheimer’s disease, and knowledge of research methods in our health system reviewed the guide and helped the team identify domains of interest to our health system at the time. NAB piloted the interview guide with two clinicians to improve understanding and word clarity. We incorporated feedback from both engagements. Along with demographic questions, domains queried in the interview guide included: cost, access, and quality[15]––predominant tensions driving healthcare delivery––as well as potential patient and clinician concerns around establishing understanding of gene therapy as a treatment. Additionally, we asked about the role of religion and spirituality, as our interview guide reviewers indicated these as important considerations in patients’ health decision making locally.”

23. “Three clinicians with social work and neurology expertise in our health system reviewed the guide, and we incorporated their feedback.” What makes them qualified to do so? The additional qualification was added to the paragraph and is reflected in the excerpt above under response 22.

24. “domains queried in the interview guide included: cost, access, and quality[15]––predominant tensions driving healthcare delivery––as well as patient and clinician concerns around establishing understanding of gene therapy as a treatment. Additionally, we asked about personal morals, including religion and spirituality.”: Why focus on this selection of topics? We included topics that might impact a patient or clinician’s decision to pursue gene therapy as a treatment as identified by knowledgeable clinicians at our academic center. While the effectiveness of a treatment’s symptom-mitigating or disease-altering quality is of paramount concern, a patient could choose not to move forward with that treatment if the clinic where it is provided is too far away or if the treatment is too expensive. When a patient understands the treatment they are considering––including the risks and benefits of undergoing that treatment––they may be more inclined to choose it. Additionally, more personal factors like individual belief systems, religion, and spirituality may impact why a patient chooses one treatment over another – as indicated by our collaborators. Our study aims to better understand how these factors might interact in the context of using gene therapy to treat Alzheimer’s disease.

25. How long were the interviews? The interview guide comprised 10 questions, and each interview lasted between twenty minutes to an hour. Variability in the length of interview depended on the individual care provider’s communication style and follow questions. This detail on time was added to the first line of Results.

26. It would be insightful to include the topic guide and script for the semi-structured interviews. Thank you for your comment. We will add the interview guide as a supplementary document.

27. How were participants informed about the topic of interest (gene therapies), how was this defined? Great point. Participants were first asked about their current level of understanding of gene therapy. Interviewers then followed this initial question by defining gene therapy for each participant with the same standard definition: “Gene therapy is an experimental technique that uses genes - a unit of heredity written in our DNA - to treat or prevent disease. In the future, this technique may allow health care providers to treat a disorder, such as Alzheimer’s disease by adding or changing a gene in a patient's cells.” This detail was added to Measurement.

Analysis

28. “When further observations and analysis were no longer generating new or discrete themes, the study team stopped interviews and recruitment” I find it somewhat unexpected that data saturation was reached after only ten interviews, when they concern such a complex topic.

Results:

29. “10 in-depth interviews with clinicians” Please specify what is meant by clinicians. General practitioners or neurologists? In primary care or memory clinics? Academic centers? Did they have experience with gene therapies in clinical trials in this population? These clinicians were academic center clinicians working with patients in the setting of Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis or ongoing care and have clarified this in the Results section.

30.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers.docx

pone.0307567.s003.docx (32.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Stephen D Ginsberg

24 Jun 2024

PONE-D-24-09705R1Clinician’s Perspectives on Gene Therapy for Alzheimer’s Disease: A Qualitative StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Boucher,

Thank you for resubmitting your work to PLOS ONE. Please make the corrections posed by Reviewer #2 so I can render a decision on this manuscript.

==============================

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. 

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? 

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you answering my questions. Hopefully you will follow-up on this topic in the future. Consider reaching out to the DIAN network.

Reviewer #2: Dear authors,

Although most of my comments have been addressed appropriately, I still have one major issue:

The introduction has been rewritten and expanded to clarify that this paper addresses clinician's views on gene therapies targeted at the APOE4 allele.

However the methods section now states that participants were provided the following - very general - definition of gene therapies: "Gene therapy is an experimental technique that uses genes - a unit of heredity written in our DNA - to treat or prevent disease. In the future, this technique may allow health care providers to treat a disorder, such as Alzheimer’s disease by adding or changing a gene in a patient's cells."

Yet ApoE4 is not mentioned anywhere in the interview guide. Moreover, most questions, except for the first one, relate to "new Alzheimer’s care and treatment strategies", or "a treatment is able to stop Alzheimer’s" or "an Alzheimer’s treatment". Some do not even mention treatment of any kind ("6. According to the Alzheimer’s Association, Black Americans are diagnosed with Alzheimer’s at a later stage than White Americans. a. Why do you think this happens?"). The interview guide does not seem to focus on gene therapies targeted at ApoE4, or even gene therapies in general, but at any kind of hypothetical new strategy for treatment or care.

I think this is problematic, as the clinicians who were interviewed, seemed to talk about treatments in a very broad sense, given their comments about patients' decision-making capacities, assuming they are cognitively impaired, even confined to bed, or have “progressed to such a degree that it seems that any further treatment would just be burdensome”. In my opinion it is extremely unlikely that gene therapies would be offered to patients with MCI or dementia. So I get the impression that the results do not relate to gene therapies targeted at ApoE4, but to any kind of treatment or care in any stage of the disease.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 08 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Stephen D. Ginsberg, Ph.D.

Section Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

PLoS One. 2024 Jul 18;19(7):e0307567. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307567.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

1 Jul 2024

Reviewer #2: Dear authors,

Although most of my comments have been addressed appropriately, I still have one major issue:

The introduction has been rewritten and expanded to clarify that this paper addresses clinician's views on gene therapies targeted at the APOE4 allele.

However the methods section now states that participants were provided the following - very general - definition of gene therapies: "Gene therapy is an experimental technique that uses genes - a unit of heredity written in our DNA - to treat or prevent disease. In the future, this technique may allow health care providers to treat a disorder, such as Alzheimer’s disease by adding or changing a gene in a patient's cells."

Yet ApoE4 is not mentioned anywhere in the interview guide. Moreover, most questions, except for the first one, relate to "new Alzheimer’s care and treatment strategies", or "a treatment is able to stop Alzheimer’s" or "an Alzheimer’s treatment". Some do not even mention treatment of any kind ("6. According to the Alzheimer’s Association, Black Americans are diagnosed with Alzheimer’s at a later stage than White Americans. a. Why do you think this happens?"). The interview guide does not seem to focus on gene therapies targeted at ApoE4, or even gene therapies in general, but at any kind of hypothetical new strategy for treatment or care.

I think this is problematic, as the clinicians who were interviewed, seemed to talk about treatments in a very broad sense, given their comments about patients' decision-making capacities, assuming they are cognitively impaired, even confined to bed, or have “progressed to such a degree that it seems that any further treatment would just be burdensome”. In my opinion it is extremely unlikely that gene therapies would be offered to patients with MCI or dementia. So I get the impression that the results do not relate to gene therapies targeted at ApoE4, but to any kind of treatment or care in any stage of the disease.

RESPONSE: Thank you for these additional comments. We changed the final paragraph of the introduction and the first paragraph of the discussion to address the issue of addressing views specifically on gene therapy with APOE4 which as you point out is in error. We agreed with your comment. We changed the language to mention the possible gene therapies with AD, but to state that the study addressed general gene therapy for AD. We agree that we assess views on novel treatments, but this is in the context of gene therapy as a novel treatment. We feel it is important to gauge clinician decision making of novel treatments in the MCI/dementia due to AD population. Many novel therapies for AD, including gene therapy will most likely be tested or trialed in a cognitively impaired population before testing in a cognitively normal population, for safety reasons. We state this in the conclusion. We thank you for your review and opportunity to improve our paper on these important ideas related to possible future AD treatments.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer 2 Response.docx

pone.0307567.s004.docx (13.9KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Stephen D Ginsberg

9 Jul 2024

Clinician’s Perspectives on Gene Therapy for Alzheimer’s Disease: A Qualitative Study

PONE-D-24-09705R2

Dear Dr. Boucher,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Stephen D. Ginsberg, Ph.D.

Section Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Stephen D Ginsberg

10 Jul 2024

PONE-D-24-09705R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Boucher,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Stephen D. Ginsberg

Section Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Institutional review board approval.

    (PDF)

    pone.0307567.s001.pdf (106.9KB, pdf)
    S2 File. Provider interview guide.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0307567.s002.docx (15.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers.docx

    pone.0307567.s003.docx (32.5KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer 2 Response.docx

    pone.0307567.s004.docx (13.9KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Regarding data repository filing, this is a qualitative data set and would be of limited reproducible value especially since it would have to be fully anonymized. Additionally, participants did not give consent to data sharing beyond the study team. Contact for IRB questions: campusirb@duke.edu. This is an expert led student project. We appreciate your consideration.

    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES