ArticlePatient preference and adherence2023
Towards a Therapy for Geographic Atrophy: A Patient's Experience.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Complement Inhibition in Geographic Atrophy: Clinical Evidence for Pegcetacoplan and Avacincaptad Pegol.Cureus · 2026Review
- Prioritising the Burden of Geographic Atrophy and Treatment Expectations: A Modified Nominal Group Technique Study with International Patient-Led Organisations.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Proliferative Sickle Cell Retinopathy: A Patient and a Physician's Perspective on Quality of Life and Quality of Eye Care.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Geographic atrophy (GA) is the advanced form of the non-neovascular (dry) type of age-related macular degeneration. Presently, GA cannot be treated. However, new therapies administered by intravitreal injection are in late-stage development. These can slow down, but do not stop or reverse, GA progression. The acceptability of these emerging therapies to people with GA is currently unknown. The present case study explores the perspectives of a person living with GA who took part in the terminated Phase 3 clinical trial of Lampalizumab, a candidate intravitreal treatment for GA. We explored this patient's perspective on the retrospective acceptability of regular Lampalizumab injections, and the prospective acceptability of future intravitreal therapies for GA. Patients and Methods: A 78-year-old woman living in the UK was recruited as part of a mixed-methods pilot study and interviewed by telephone, regarding: her experience of the Lampalizumab trial injections; and her thoughts regarding emerging intravitreal therapies for GA. The Framework Method was used for initial inductive analysis of the interview transcript. Subsequently, deductive analysis was undertaken, informed by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA). Results: For this participant, intravitreal injections in the Lampalizumab trial were acceptable, although streamlining processes within the clinic would have improved the patient experience. Regarding prospective acceptability of new intravitreal therapies, the participant considered a delay in progression of GA a valuable goal. Potential discomfort, anxiety and inconvenience associated with regular intravitreal injections would be acceptable in the context of preserving her vision for as long as possible. Conclusion: Analysis of one participant's experience demonstrates the value of exploring GA patients' unique views on the acceptability of new intravitreal treatments. Larger prospective studies will provide more insight that help to optimise treatment design and delivery, thereby maximising likelihood of adherence and persistence when these therapies eventually arrive in clinic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.