ArticlePulmonary therapy2024
Qualitative Interviews Exploring Adverse Event Mitigation Strategies in Adults Receiving Amikacin Liposome Inhalation Suspension.
Article in Pulmonary therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comprehensive Management Algorithm forAnnals of the American Thoracic Society · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to gain insight from patients with refractory Mycobacterium avium complex lung disease (MAC-LD) into strategies used to manage adverse events (AEs) associated with amikacin liposome inhalation suspension (ALIS).
methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with US patients with refractory MAC-LD prescribed ALIS in a real-world setting. Interview transcripts were analyzed and coded to identify patterns in participants' descriptions of their ALIS treatment experiences, including AEs and their disruptiveness, and AE mitigation strategies, including participants' ratings of strategies' effectiveness. Concept saturation was also assessed.
resultsTwenty participants (mean age 48.7 years; 80% women; mean ALIS duration 5.45 months) were interviewed. At the time of the interview, 15 participants (75%) had received ALIS for > 1 month and 13 (65%) were currently receiving ALIS. Participants described 44 unique AE mitigation strategies, which can be categorized into three groups: prepare for treatment; prevent increased emergence of AEs; and persist on treatment by mitigating AEs. Common strategies (reported by ≥ 50% of participants) included use of educational materials from the patient support program, localized management of throat irritation, and symptom management to reduce fatigue. Evidence of concept saturation was observed: no new strategies were identified in the last five interviews, which suggests the sample was robust enough to identify all mitigation strategies likely to be used by the broader patient population.
conclusionsThis real-world study identified a diverse set of potential AE mitigation strategies intended to help individual patients prepare for ALIS treatment, prevent the increased emergence of certain AEs, and mitigate the impact of AEs on treatment persistence. Developing a comprehensive accounting of the types of mitigation strategies in use among patients in real-world settings can inform future investigation of the effectiveness of such strategies, and support evidence-based recommendations for treatment management.
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.