Evaluation of Physician Knowledge of the Key Safety Information for Aflibercept in Canada: Evaluation of Risk-Minimization Measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As part of the risk-management plan (RMP) for aflibercept, materials have been developed to educate physicians in Canada on the key safety information and safe use for aflibercept. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to assess whether physicians in Canada received and reviewed the aflibercept educational materials (i.e. vial preparation instruction card, intravitreal injection procedure video, and product monograph) and to evaluate their knowledge of key safety information. METHODS: Retinal specialists and ophthalmologists who prescribe and/or administer aflibercept were recruited to complete a survey. Physicians could complete and return a paper questionnaire by mail or complete the questionnaire online via a study website. RESULTS: Of the 308 physicians invited to participate in the survey, 95 (31%) completed the questionnaire. Nearly all physicians (98%) reported receiving at least one of the educational materials. The proportion of correct responses to individual questions on storage and preparation of aflibercept ranged from 54 to 98%. Physician knowledge was high on the recommended dose of aflibercept (91%), dose preparation (91-96% on individual items), and dosing guidelines (75-95% on individual items). Most physicians knew the contraindications for aflibercept (89%) and that aflibercept should not be used in pregnancy unless clearly indicated by medical need in which benefits outweigh risks (60%); 21% responded more conservatively that aflibercept should never be used in pregnancy. Knowledge was high for most questions about injection procedures (91-99% on individual items); however, fewer physicians (24%) correctly reported that the eye should be covered with a sterile drape. Knowledge was high for possible side effects (89-100% on individual items) and actions to take in relation to the potential for increased intraocular pressure (86-93% on individual items). CONCLUSION: Nearly all physicians (98%) reported having received the product monograph, and most (82%) reported having received the vial preparation instruction card; nearly half (46%) reported having received the intravitreal injection procedure video. Physicians' knowledge of the most important topics was high. Knowledge varied for topics that are less frequently encountered (e.g. use in women of childbearing potential) and for recommendations that are not standard medical practice in Canada (e.g. use of sterile drape).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".