PRESTO 2: An International Survey to Evaluate Patients' Injection Experiences with the Latest Devices/Formulations of Long-Acting Somatostatin Analog Therapies for Neuroendocrine Tumors or Acromegaly.

INTRODUCTION: Real-world data evaluating patients' injection experiences using the latest devices/formulations of the long-acting (LA) somatostatin analogs (SSAs) lanreotide Autogel/Depot (LAN; Somatuline®) and octreotide LA release (OCT; Sandostatin®) are limited. METHODS: PRESTO 2 was a 2020/2021 e-survey comparing injection experience of adults with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) or acromegaly treated with LAN prefilled syringe versus OCT syringe for > 3 months in Canada, Ireland, the UK and the USA (planned sample size, 304). PRIMARY ENDPOINT: the proportion of patients with injection-site pain lasting > 2 days after their most recent injection, analyzed using a multivariate logistic regression model. Secondary endpoints included interference with daily life due to injection-site pain and technical injection problems in patients with current SSA use for ≥ 6 months. RESULTS: There were 304 respondents (acromegaly, n = 85; NETs, n = 219; LAN, n = 168; OCT, n = 136; 69.2% female; mean age, 59.6 years). Fewer patients had injection-site pain lasting > 2 days after the most recent injection with LAN (6.0%) than OCT (22.8%); the odds of pain lasting > 2 days were significantly lower for LAN than OCT, adjusted for disease subgroup and occurrence of injection-site reactions (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.13 [0.06-0.30]; p < 0.0001). Injection-site pain interfered with daily life "a little bit" or "quite a bit" in 37.2% and 3.8% (LAN) versus 52.5% and 7.5% (OCT) of patients, respectively. Among patients with ≥ 6 months' experience with current SSA (92.4% of patients), technical injection problems never occurred in 76.8% (LAN) and 42.9% (OCT) of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with OCT, significantly fewer patients using LAN had injection-site pain lasting > 2 days after their most recent injection. Also, fewer LAN-treated patients experienced technical problems during injection. These findings demonstrate the importance of injection modality for overall LA SSA injection experience for patients with acromegaly or NETs.

Patients with neuroendocrine tumors or acromegaly often receive long-term monthly treatment with somatostatin analogs. These injectable drugs stop the body from making an excess of certain hormones. Understanding patients' experiences of these injections helps to provide better care. The PRESTO 2 online study surveyed 304 patients in Canada, Ireland, the UK and the USA with neuroendocrine tumors or acromegaly who were being treated with a somatostatin analog, either lanreotide Autogel/Depot (LAN) or octreotide long-acting release (OCT). The survey asked about injection experience, including injection-site pain lasting > 2 days and how it affected patients' lives, anxiety before injections and technical problems during injections (like syringe blockages). The survey showed fewer patients receiving LAN than OCT had injection-site pain that lasted > 2 days, and fewer said that the pain interfered with their daily lives. There were fewer technical injection problems with LAN than with OCT. However, more patients receiving LAN than OCT felt anxious before their injection. In some countries (including Canada, Ireland and the UK, but not the USA), the patient (or family member/friend) can inject LAN if they are on a stable dose, their doctor agrees, and they received training. A nurse/doctor must inject OCT. In PRESTO 2, about 40% of non-US patients who were eligible injected themselves (or were helped by a family member/friend). This may explain why more patients reported anxiety in the LAN group. PRESTO 2 provides important insights into patients' experiences of receiving somatostatin analogs and helps identify areas for improving patient care.

A practical 'How-To' Guide to plain language summaries (PLS) of peer-reviewed scientific publications: results of a multi-stakeholder initiative utilizing co-creation methodology.

BACKGROUND: Peer-reviewed scientific publications and congress abstracts are typically written by scientists for specialist audiences; however, patients and other non-specialists are understandably interested in the potential implications of research and what they may mean for them. Plain language summaries (PLS)-summaries of scientific articles in easy-to-read language-are emerging as a valuable addition to traditional scientific publications. Co-creation of PLS with the intended audience is key to ensuring a successful outcome, but practical guidance on how to achieve this has been lacking. METHODS: Building on the Patient Engagement (PE) Quality Guidance previously developed by Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD), a multi-stakeholder working group (WG) of individuals with patient engagement experience and/or expertise in PLS was established to develop further activity-specific guidance. PLS guidance was developed through a stepwise approach that included several rounds of co-creation, public consultation (two rounds), internal review and a final external review. The iterative development process incorporated input from a wide variety of stakeholders (patient representatives, industry members, publishers, researchers, medical communications agencies, and public officials involved in research bodies). Feedback from each step was consolidated by the WG and used for refining the draft guidance. The final draft was then validated through external consultation. RESULTS: The WG comprised 14 stakeholders with relevant experience in PE and/or PLS. The WG developed a set of 15 ethical principles for PLS development. These include the necessity for objective reporting and the absence of any promotional intent, the need for balanced presentation, the importance of audience focus, the need to apply health literacy principles, and the importance of using inclusive and respectful language. The first public consultation yielded 29 responses comprising 478 comments or edits in the shared draft guidance. The second public consultation was an online survey of 14 questions which had 32 respondents. The final 'How-To' Guide reflects feedback received and provides a rational, stepwise breakdown of the development of PLS. CONCLUSIONS: The resulting 'How-To' Guide is a standalone, practical, ready-to-use tool to support multi-stakeholder co-creation of PLS.

We wanted to create practical guidance for people who are interested in developing plain language summaries of publications (PLS for short). PLS are summaries of scientific research published in journals or presented at conferences and are written in language that is easy to read and understand. We focused on how to involve patients in developing PLS, as they are often an important audience for these summaries. We brought together a group of people who had experience in PLS and patient involvement. As a working group, we wrote the first version of the 'How-To' Guide. Then we asked for feedback from others experienced in patient involvement and also from members of the general public. We got feedback on how we could improve what was in the guidance and also on how useful and user-friendly the guidance was. We used this feedback to create the final version of the 'How-To' Guide which is freely available online from https://pemsuite.org/How-to-Guides/WG5.pdf .