Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34972174›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Patient and retina specialists' preferences in neovascular age-related macular degeneration treatment. A discrete choice experiment.

Roberto Gallego-Pinazo, Begoña Pina-Marin, Marta Comellas, Susana Aceituno, Laia Gómez-Baldó, Carles Blanch, AMD-Manage investigators

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. US Retina Specialists' Preferences for Geographic Atrophy Treatment.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026
    Article
  4. US Patients' Preferences for Geographic Atrophy Treatment.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Roberto Gallego-PinazoUnit of Macula, Oftalvist Clinic, Valencia, Spain.
Begoña Pina-MarinDepartment of Ophthalmology, Hospital dos de Maig, Barcelona, Spain.
Marta ComellasOutcomes'10, Castellón de la Plana, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-5275-9882
Susana AceitunoOutcomes'10, Castellón de la Plana, Spain.
Laia Gómez-BaldóMedical Department, Novartis Farmacéutica S. A., Barcelona, Spain.
Carles BlanchHealth Economics & Market Access. Novartis Farmacéutica S.A., Barcelona, Spain.
AMD-Manage investigators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND

objectiveNeovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) leads to severe and permanent visual impairment, significantly impacting patients' quality of life and functional independence. Although treatment with anti- vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) prevents and, in some cases, reverses visual damage, the need for frequent monitoring visits and intravitreal injections represents a significant burden on patients, caregivers and retina specialists.

objectiveTo elicit preferences for nAMD treatment characteristics from the perspectives of patients and retina specialists.

methodA discrete choice experiment was conducted. Participants (patients > 50 years with nAMD receiving anti-VEGF drugs for at least 2 years and without previous experience with anti-VEGF and retina specialists working in the Spanish National Healthcare System) were asked to select one of two hypothetical treatments resulting from the combination of five attributes (effects on visual function, effects on retinal fluid, treatment regimen, monitoring frequency, and cost); their levels were identified by reviewing the literature and two focus groups. The relative importance (RI) given to each attribute was estimated using a mixed logit model. The marginal rates of substitution (MRS) were calculated taking cost as the risk attribute.

resultsA total of 110 patients (P) [aged 79.0 (SD:7.4) years; 57.3% women; 2.3 (SD:0.7) years with nAMD; 2.1 years (SD:0.1) in treatment] and 66 retina specialists (RS) participated in the study. Participants gave greater RI to improvements in their visual function [60.0% (P); 52.7% (RS)], lower monitoring frequency [20.2% (P); 27.1% (RS)] and reduction in retinal fluid [9.8% (P); 13.0%(RS)]. Patients and retina specialists would agree to an increase in cost by 65.0% and 56.5%, respectively, in exchange for improvements of visual function; and 25.5% and 43.3% on delaying monitoring frequency by one month.

conclusionsEfficacy of treatment, in terms of visual function improvements, is the main driver for treatment election for both patients and retina specialists. Treatment monitoring requirements are also considered, mainly from the retina specialist's perspective. These results suggest that the use of more efficacious anti-VEGF agents with a longer duration of action may contribute to aligning treatment characteristics with patients/specialists' preferences. A better alignment would facilitate better disease management, fulfilling the unmet needs of patients and retina specialists.

Indexed as

PhysiciansAgedAged, 80 and overChoice BehaviorDecision MakingFemaleFocus GroupsHumansIntravitreal InjectionsMacular DegenerationMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicPatient ParticipationPatientsRetinaVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AVEGFA protein, human

Identifiers

PMID34972174
PMCPMC8719669

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.