Choosing between medical management and liver transplant in urea cycle disorders: A conceptual framework for parental treatment decision‐making in rare disease. Issue 3 (13th January 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gerstein, Maya T.; Markus, Anne R.; Gianattasio, Kan Z.; Le Mons, Cynthia; Bartos, Janice; Stevens, David M.; Mew, Nicholas Ah
• Is Part Of: Journal of inherited metabolic disease. Volume 43:Issue 3(2020)
• Page Start: 438
• Page End: 458
• Publication Date: 2020-01-13
• Subjects: decision‐making -- liver transplant -- qualitative research -- treatment choice -- urea cycle disorders; Metabolism, Inborn errors of -- Periodicals; Metabolism -- Disorders -- Periodicals; 616.39042
• DOI: 10.1002/jimd.12209
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0141-8955

Abstract

Abstract: Urea cycle disorders (UCD) are rare inherited metabolic disorders caused by deficiencies of enzymes and transporters required to convert neurotoxic ammonia into urea. These deficiencies cause elevated blood ammonia, which if untreated may result in death, but even with optimal medical management, often results in recurrent brain damage. There are two major treatments for UCD: medical management or liver transplantation. Both are associated with mortality and morbidity but the evidence comparing outcomes is sparse. Thus, families face a dilemma: should their child be managed medically, or should they undergo a liver transplant? To (a) describe the factors that contribute to treatment choice among parents of children diagnosed with UCD and to (b) organise these factors into a conceptual framework that reflects how these issues interrelate to shape the decision‐making experience of this population. Utilising grounded theory, qualitative data were collected through semi‐structured interviews with parents (N = 35) and providers (N = 26) of children diagnosed with UCD and parent focus groups (N = 19). Thematic content analysis and selective and axial coding were applied. The framework highlights the life‐cycle catalysts that frame families' personal perceptions of risks and benefits and describes the clinical, personal, social, and system factors that drive treatment choice including disease severity, stability, and burden, independence, peer experiences, and cost, coverage and access to quality care. Findings equip providers with evidence upon which to prepare for productive patient interactions about treatment options. They also provide a foundation for the development of patient‐centred outcome measures to better evaluate effectiveness of treatments in this population.