ArticleJAMA ophthalmology2025
Patient-Reported Importance of Functional Benefit in Geographic Atrophy.
Article in JAMA ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Intravitreal complement inhibitors injections (IVCIs) slowed progression of geographic atrophy (GA) lesions in several registration phase 3 trials although without benefit for prespecified secondary functional vision outcomes. Patient acceptability of these therapies needs further exploration. Objective: To quantify the acceptability of IVCI therapy to United Kingdom patients with GA, assuming vision outcome benefits are expected. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study took place at 9 geographically dispersed UK National Health Service centers from April 2023 to April 2024 among 153 participants with treatment-naive GA in at least 1 eye. Exposures: GA in at least 1 eye. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were (1) acceptability of IVCI therapy based on completion of validated acceptability questionnaire. Participants were provided with a treatment information leaflet coproduced by a patients with lived experience of GA to inform them about the risks and benefits of IVCI for GA, assuming there were vision outcome benefits to this treatment and (2) response to the EuroQol 5-dimension with a vision bolt-on questionnaire to assess general health and vision-related quality of life. Spearman rank correlations and χ2 tests were used to explore associations between acceptability levels and specific ocular and sociodemographic characteristics. Results: A total of 153 participants were recruited (93 [60%] women; mean [SD] age, 82 [7]), 57 (38%) of whom had bilateral foveal involvement. Median (IQR) visual acuity with habitual correction in the better-seeing eye and in eyes where neither eye was better or worse was logMAR, 0.30 (0.14-0.54; approximate Snellen equivalent, 20/40) and 0.47 (0.14-0.84; approximate Snellen equivalent, 20/63), respectively. Among the 153 participants, 81 (53%; 95% CI, 45-61) reported IVCIs were very much or extremely acceptable under the theoretical scenarios provided. The proportion finding IVCIs acceptable rose to 82% (95% CI, 76-88) when including those who rated prospective treatment as moderately acceptable. Belief in the perceived effectiveness of the treatment (ρ, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40-0.63; P < .001) and confidence in their ability to attend the eye clinic regularly (ρ, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.38-0.62; P < .001) correlated with overall acceptability. Conclusions and Relevance: IVCI therapy for GA may be acceptable to most UK patients with GA under the assumption that there are vision outcome benefits to this treatment. While current treatments do not result in vision outcome benefits, perceived effectiveness by patients was associated with acceptability, emphasizing the desire to quantify vision functional benefit concomitant with anatomical slowing of progression.
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.