Exploring patient acceptability of emerging intravitreal therapies for Geographic Atrophy: a mixed-methods study

Jamie Enoch; Arevik Ghulakhszian; Mandeep Sekhon; David P. Crabb; Deanna J. Taylor; Christiana Dinah

doi:10.1101/2022.09.19.22279938

Abstract

Purpose The acceptability of emerging intravitreal therapies for patients with Geographic Atrophy (GA) is currently unknown. This study therefore aimed to: investigate whether regular intravitreal injections will be acceptable as treatment for GA patients; identify which attributes of current treatments in late stage development patients find less acceptable; and explore whether patient-related factors influence GA treatment acceptability.

Design Exploratory, cross-sectional, mixed-methods study.

Participants 30 UK-based individuals with GA secondary to age-related macular degeneration (AMD), recruited from two London-based hospitals, interviewed in April-October 2021.

Methods Participants responded to a structured questionnaire, as well as open-ended questions in a semi-structured interview. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and non-parametric measures of correlation. Qualitative data were analysed using the framework method of analysis, informed by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability.

Main outcome measures Main quantitative measures were Likert-type scale responses about acceptability of GA treatments. Qualitative outcomes of interest related to participants’ hopes, concerns and understanding of the proposed new intravitreal treatments for GA.

Results Twenty participants (67%) were female, and median (interquartile range (IQR)) age was 83 (78, 87) years. 37% of participants had foveal centre-involving GA, and better eye median (IQR) logMAR visual acuity was 0.30 (0.17, 0.58). Data suggested that 18 participants (60% (95% CI: 41-79%)) would accept the treatment if offered today, despite their awareness of potential drawbacks. Eight participants (27% (95% CI: 10-43%) were ambivalent or undecided about treatment, and four (13%) (95% CI: 0-26%) would be unlikely to accept treatment. Reducing the frequency of injections from monthly to every other month increased the proportion of participants who considered the treatments acceptable.

Qualitative data indicated that participants’ prioritisation of continuation with vision-specific activities influenced treatment acceptability. Conversely, factors limiting acceptability clustered around: the limited magnitude of treatment efficacy; concerns about side effects or the increased risk of neovascular AMD; and the logistical burden of regular clinic visits for intravitreal injections. Misunderstandings of potential benefits indicate the need for appropriately designed patient education tools to support decision-making.

Conclusions Our study suggests a majority of participants would be positive about intravitreal treatment for GA, in spite of potential burdens.

Competing Interest Statement

Jamie Enoch, Arevik Ghulakhszian and Mandeep Sekhon declare that they have no competing interests. David P Crabb reports grants from Roche, grants and personal fees from Santen, grants and personal fees from Apellis, grants from Allergan, personal fees from Thea, personal fees from Bayer and personal fees from Centervue, outside the submitted work. DPC receives funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking under grant 116076 (Macustar). This joint undertaking receives support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). The communication reflects the author's view and that neither IMI nor the European Union, EFPIA, or any Associated Partners are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. Deanna J Taylor holds a research grant from Apellis. Christiana Dinah has served on advisory boards for Novartis, AbbVie, Ora Clinical, Roche and Apellis. CD is on the scientific advisory board for Ora Clinical, has received speaker fees from Roche and Novartis and holds a research grant from Apellis.

Clinical Protocols

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/4/e049495.info

https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049495

Funding Statement

This study was funded by: 1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Enabling Involvement Fund (EIF) (Grant number EIFApp ID: 397); 2. City, University of London School of Health Sciences Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF); 3. Apellis Pharmaceuticals (Grant ID: AMR-000001). The funding organizations had no role in the design or conduct of this research.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The NHS Health Research Authority in the UK gave ethical approval for this work on 23 March 2021 (IRAS Project ID: 287824). This was subsequent to a favourable opinion from the Proportionate Review Subcommittee of the NHS South Central- Berkshire Research Ethics Committee on 10 March 2021 (REC reference: 21/SC/0085)

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Footnotes

Financial support: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Enabling Involvement Fund (EIF) (Grant number EIFApp ID: 397). City, University of London School of Health Sciences Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF). Apellis Pharmaceuticals (Grant ID: AMR-000001). The funding organizations had no role in the design or conduct of this research.
Conflicts of interest: Jamie Enoch, Arevik Ghulakhszian and Mandeep Sekhon declare that they have no competing interests.
David P Crabb reports grants from Roche, grants and personal fees from Santen, grants and personal fees from Apellis, grants from Allergan, personal fees from Thea, personal fees from Bayer and personal fees from Centervue, outside the submitted work. DPC receives funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking under grant 116076 (Macustar). This joint undertaking receives support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). The communication reflects the author’s view and that neither IMI nor the European Union, EFPIA, or any Associated Partners are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
Deanna J Taylor holds a research grant from Apellis.
Christiana Dinah has served on advisory boards for Novartis, AbbVie, Ora Clinical, Roche and Apellis. CD is on the scientific advisory board for Ora Clinical, has received speaker fees from Roche and Novartis and holds a research grant from Apellis.
The Abstract, Results and Discussion have been updated to reflect more on how the treatment interval affects acceptability, with our results showing that treatment every-other-month is more acceptable to patients than monthly treatment. We have brought this out more in the Results, and devote more reflection to this finding in the Discussion. Table 2 (Demographic and clinical characteristics of study participants) has been removed, and replaced with a table in the supplement (Appendix 3), although this has been redacted on MedRxiv due to potential indirect identifiers. This means that what was previously Appendix 3 (OCT images) has become Appendix 4.

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AMD: Age-related Macular Degeneration
GA: Geographic Atrophy
NHS: National Health Service
TFA: Theoretical Framework of Acceptability
VEGF: Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor

bioRxiv and medRxiv thank the following for their generous financial support:

The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Comments

medRxiv aims to provide a venue for anyone to comment on a medRxiv preprint. Comments are moderated for offensive or irrelevant content (this can take ~24 h). Please avoid duplicate submissions and read our Comment Policy before commenting. The content of a comment is not endorsed by medRxiv.

Community Reviews

medRxiv aims to inform readers about online discussion of this preprint occurring elsewhere. The content at the links below is not endorsed by either medRxiv or the preprint's authors.

Community reviews for this article:

There are no community reviews for this paper.

Automated Evaluations

Certain services provide automated analysis of preprints. Analyses invited by the authors are displayed at the top of this tab. Those done independently of authors are shown underneath . None of these analyses is endorsed by medRxiv.

Automated Evaluations:

There are no automated evaluations for this paper.

Exploring patient acceptability of emerging intravitreal therapies for Geographic Atrophy: a mixed-methods study