A population-based survey of Americans with frequent migraine and acute medication use: A plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: The Harris Poll Migraine Report Card was a survey about people's experiences and challenges with headaches and migraine. The survey was conducted from December 9, 2021, to January 10, 2022, in the United States. The people who took the survey had frequent headaches/migraine attacks (on 8 or more days per month) and used acute headache/migraine medication to relieve head pain and other symptoms (on 10 or more days per month). This summary focuses on the responses of adults with frequent headaches and frequent acute medication use at the time of the survey or within the few months (not specified) before the survey (and not those who previously had frequent headaches and frequent acute medication use at some point in their life prior to the survey). The group of people who took the survey will be called 'respondents'. The term 'headaches' can mean any type of headache including as part of a migraine attack, a tension type headache, or another unknown headache type. All respondents screened positive for having migraine, so many of the headaches they reported on may have been a migraine headache or part of a migraine attack. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Over 50% of respondents said their headaches affected their overall quality of life. Many respondents wished their healthcare provider who was managing their headaches understood more about how headaches affect their mental well-being, how much pain their headaches cause, and why they get headaches. 80% of respondents had concerns about their overall health. Over 60% of respondents said they have experienced anxiety and/or depression. In this survey, although all respondents were eligible to receive a preventive headache/migraine medication because of their headache frequency, only 15% were taking one. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEY MEAN?: The findings from this survey showed many ways that headaches/migraine care can improve, including talking about mental and emotional well-being, making sure the treatment plan works and does not have side effects that cannot be tolerated, and trying to prevent headaches/migraine from occurring.

Improvements in daytime sleepiness and disrupted nighttime sleep with once-nightly sodium oxybate in people with narcolepsy type 1 and type 2: a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a plain language summary of a published article in the journal Sleep. Narcolepsy is a sleep condition that has 2 different subtypes: narcolepsy type 1 and narcolepsy type 2. These are called NT1 and NT2 for short. Sodium oxybate (SXB) is approved to treat excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) and cataplexy. People with NT1 and NT2 both have EDS, but cataplexy is only present in people with NT1. Limited information is available about how SXB works in people with NT2. This is because previous trials have included only people with NT1 or people with unspecified narcolepsy. For more than 20 years, the only available formulation of this medicine had to be given twice during the night. Many people with narcolepsy find that chronically waking up in the middle of the night for a second dose of SXB is disruptive to themselves or others in their household. People have also reported sleeping through alarm clocks, missing their second dose, and feeling worse the next day. Some people have accidentally taken the second dose too early, putting them at risk for serious adverse effects. These adverse effects may include slow breathing, low blood pressure, or sedation. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a medicine called LUMRYZ™ (sodium oxybate) for extended-release oral suspension in May 2023. LUMRYZ is a once-nightly formulation of SXB (ON-SXB for short) and is taken as a single dose before bedtime. This medicine treats EDS and muscle weakness (also known as cataplexy) in people with narcolepsy. A clinical trial called REST-ON studied ON-SXB to find out if it was better at treating narcolepsy symptoms than a medicine with no active ingredients (placebo). This summary describes a study that tested whether ON-SXB was better than placebo at treating narcolepsy symptoms in people with NT1 or NT2. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: This study showed that compared to people who took placebo, people who took ON-SXB were able to stay awake longer during the day, felt less sleepy during the daytime, had less cataplexy, and had more improvements in their symptoms overall than people who took placebo. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: ON-SXB has been proven effective for people with NT1 or NT2. Unlike prior formulations of SXB, ON-SXB is taken once at bedtime, without requiring waking up in the middle of the night for a second dose.

People with multiple sclerosis help design a tool to measure physical functioning and how it affects their daily lives: a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary describes how researchers worked with people with multiple sclerosis (MS), neurologists and measurement experts to create an easy-to-use questionnaire to measure the physical function of people with MS. This questionnaire covers topics that are relevant and important to people with MS and their doctors.The ability to do what you want to do, when you want to do it, is one of the most important concerns for people with MS. This questionnaire could help doctors to record and manage how much MS affects people's lives.MS can bring a range of challenging symptoms such as 'brain fog', tiredness, and problems with movement and balance. Many of these symptoms can make day-to-day activities, like working, very difficult for people with MS. Doctors currently use examinations like the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and the MS Functional Composite (MSFC), but these do not fully consider what is important to people living with MS. A questionnaire that specifically measures physical functioning of people with MS could help doctors and people with MS to better understand, communicate and manage the physical effects of MS. In this study, people with MS were asked to help create a questionnaire about physical function that reflects topics that are important to them. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: The PROMIS®nq physical function - Multiple Sclerosis 15a (the PROMIS® PF MS questionnaire) was successfully created with the help of people with MS. People with MS thought that the PROMIS® PF MS questionnaire covered issues important to their physical function. Scores were in line with results of other physical symptom measurement scales like the EDSS. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: The PROMIS® PF MS questionnaire could be used to meaningfully record physical function among people with MS.

Abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy for HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer: a plain language summary of the monarchE study.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This article summarizes the most recent results of the monarchE study. This study was completed in participants with a type of breast cancer called HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer. In this study, abemaciclib, a non-chemotherapy treatment, was administered with standard of care endocrine therapy after curative surgery. Most participants had received prior chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. The study investigated if abemaciclib helped participants live longer without their cancer returning compared with participants who only received standard of care endocrine therapy. The study participants were assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups. Participants in Group A were assigned to receive standard of care endocrine therapy with abemaciclib for 2 years, followed by endocrine therapy for a total of at least 5 years. Participants in Group B were assigned to receive standard of care endocrine therapy only for at least 5 years. The effect of treatment was compared between these 2 groups. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Overall, the results showed that the cancer was 34% less likely to come back after surgery in the participants in Group A (abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy) compared with those in Group B (endocrine therapy only). At 4 years since the start of the study treatment, more participants who received the combination of abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy remained free of cancer compared with participants who received endocrine therapy alone (86% versus 79%). Participants who received abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy had more side effects than those who received endocrine therapy alone, but most of these effects were mild to moderate and reversible upon the end of therapy. The most common side effects in the abemaciclib group were diarrhea, infections, low number of white blood cells, and tiredness. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: This study found that administering abemaciclib in combination with standard endocrine therapy after curative breast surgery helped lower the risk of cancer returning in people with HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer. Abemaciclib is a new treatment option for people with this diagnosis. People with high-risk early breast cancer should always talk to their doctors and nurses before making any decisions about their treatment.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03155997 (monarchE study).

Changes in symptom burden and quality of life among women with uterine fibroids receiving relugolix combination therapy: a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of findings from two research studies (known as clinical trials). The studies looked at how well a medicine called relugolix combination therapy worked in women with heavy menstrual bleeding (heavy bleeding during a period) with uterine fibroids (noncancerous or benign growths in the uterus). In this analysis of the studies, researchers looked at how patients self-reported their uterine fibroid symptoms before and after taking relugolix combination therapy. Researchers also looked at how patients self-reported the impact of uterine fibroids on their health-related quality of life before and after taking relugolix combination therapy. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Women took either relugolix combination therapy or placebo (a pill that contains no medicine) by mouth once daily for 24 weeks. Women completed the Uterine Fibroid Symptom and Quality of Life questionnaire (where "quality of life" refers to the women's health-related quality of life related to uterine fibroids) before, during, and after treatment. The questionnaire let researchers see if the women felt that relugolix combination therapy decreased the burden of uterine fibroid symptoms and improved the women's health-related quality of life related to uterine fibroids. More women said that they felt less distress due to their uterine fibroid symptoms and that their health-related quality of life related to uterine fibroids was better after taking relugolix combination therapy compared with women who took placebo. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Relugolix combination therapy may lessen distress associated with uterine fibroid symptoms and improve health-related quality of life related to uterine fibroids.

Zolbetuximab plus chemotherapy for locally advanced unresectable or metastatic stomach or gastroesophageal junction cancers: a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of two articles. The first article is about a clinical trial called SPOTLIGHT and it was published in the medical journal The Lancet in in April of 2023. The second article is about a clinical trial called GLOW and it was published in the medical journal Nature Medicine in July of 2023. WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: Until recently, chemotherapy was the first treatment given to people with stomach cancer or gastroesophageal junction (or GEJ) cancer that is locally advanced unresectable or metastatic. When cancer cells have high amounts of the protein CLDN18.2 but do not have high amounts of the protein HER2, the cancer is known as CLDN18.2-positive (or CLDN18.2+) and HER2-negative (or HER2-). New medicines to treat cancer are being developed. These medicines attach to proteins on cancer cells to help the body recognize and kill cancer cells.The clinical trials SPOTLIGHT and GLOW included participants with CLDN18.2+ and HER2- stomach or GEJ cancer that was locally advanced unresectable or metastatic. These trials looked at whether adding a medicine called zolbetuximab to chemotherapy as the first treatment for cancer helped people live longer before their tumors grew bigger or new tumors grew, after starting the trial. These studies also looked at whether adding zolbetuximab to chemotherapy helped people live longer after starting the trial. WHAT WERE THE MAIN CONCLUSIONS REPORTED BY THE RESEARCHERS?: In SPOTLIGHT and GLOW, on average, participants assigned to zolbetuximab plus chemotherapy lived 1.4 to 1.9 months longer before their tumors grew bigger or new tumors grew, after starting the trial, than participants assigned to a placebo plus chemotherapy. On average, participants assigned to zolbetuximab plus chemotherapy also lived 2.2 to 2.7 months longer, after starting the trial, than participants assigned to a placebo plus chemotherapy. These results suggest that zolbetuximab plus chemotherapy could be a new first treatment for people with CLDN18.2+ and HER2- stomach or GEJ cancer that is locally advanced unresectable or metastatic.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03504397 (SPOTLIGHT); NCT03653507 (GLOW).

The clinical trials SPOTLIGHT and GLOW showed that, on average, participants with stomach or GEJ cancer assigned to zolbetuximab plus chemotherapy lived 2.2 to 2.7 months longer than participants assigned to a placebo plus chemotherapy.

A plain language summary of the perspectives of women who were interviewed about their experiences with uterine fibroids.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary describes what researchers learned during interviews of women with uterine fibroids and heavy menstrual bleeding (or period bleeding). At this time, little is known about how women perceive the impact of uterine fibroids on their lives and more information is needed. The goal of this study was to provide new information about the symptoms women have and how these symptoms affect their everyday lives. These interviews were done to better understand how uterine fibroid symptoms affect the lives of women in their own words. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Thirty women from the United States, who had completed a clinical trial for a new treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding and uterine fibroids, agreed to be interviewed. The women described what their experiences with uterine fibroids were and the impact these experiences with uterine fibroids had on their lives before participating in the clinical trial. The most common symptoms of uterine fibroids the women described were heavy bleeding with their menstrual periods, pain in the pelvis or groin area, the passing of blood clots, and anemia (or low hemoglobin in red blood cells). Women said their symptoms affected them physically, emotionally, socially, and financially. They also said their symptoms made it hard to do daily activities, sleep, have a sex life, and go to work or school. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Women who have heavy menstrual bleeding and uterine fibroids experience various uterine fibroid symptoms, and these symptoms affect most parts of the their lives.

Are plain language summaries more readable than scientific abstracts? Evidence from six biomedical and life sciences journals.

In recent decades, members of the general public have become increasingly reliant on findings of scientific studies for decision-making. However, scientific writing usually features a heavy use of technical language, which may pose challenges for people outside of the scientific community. To alleviate this issue, plain language summaries were introduced to provide a brief summary of scientific papers in clear and accessible language. Despite increasing attention paid to the research of plain language summaries, little is known about whether these summaries are readable for the intended audiences. Based on a large corpus sampled from six biomedical and life sciences journals, the present study examined the readability and jargon use of plain language summaries and scientific abstracts on a technical level. It was found that (1) plain language summaries were more readable than scientific abstracts, (2) the reading grade levels of plain language summaries were moderately correlated with that of scientific abstracts, (3) researchers used less jargon in plain language summaries than in scientific abstracts, and (4) the readability of and the jargon use in both plain language summaries and scientific abstracts exceeded the recommended threshold for the general public. The findings were discussed with possible explanations. Implications for academic writing and scientific communication were offered.

Progression-free survival and safety at 3.5 years of follow-up: results from the randomized phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial of niraparib maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer - a plain language summary.

What is this summary about? This PLSP provides a short summary of an original scientific article that presented results from the PRIMA study after 3.5 years of follow-up time. The original article was published in the European Journal of Cancer in 2023.The PRIMA study included adult patients with newly diagnosed advanced high-risk ovarian cancer whose tumors shrunk or became undetectable after treatment with chemotherapy with or without surgery. The PRIMA study evaluated how well the drug niraparib, also known as Zejula, worked at delaying or preventing ovarian cancer from coming back (recurring) or getting worse (progressing) compared with placebo (a substance with no effects that a doctor gives to a patient instead of a drug). The first results from the PRIMA study were published in 2019, when patients had participated in the PRIMA study for about 1.2 years.The article this PLSP is based on reports longer-term data from the PRIMA study, when patients had participated in the PRIMA study for about 3.5 years. Patients were monitored (or followed) for a longer time to understand how well niraparib continued to work and to evaluate whether the safety of niraparib changed with additional time being monitored.What were the results? Patients who took niraparib had more time before their cancer came back or got worse than patients who took placebo. In terms of safety, no new types of side effects with niraparib treatment were observed with additional time being monitored as part of the PRIMA study.What do the results mean? These results support that niraparib remains an important treatment option to help delay the cancer from coming back or getting worse in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer that responded to initial treatment.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02655016 (PRIMA study) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Measuring fatigue in people with multiple sclerosis - which questionnaire should be used? A Plain Language Summary of Publication.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary explains the findings of a recent study that compared different questionnaires used by doctors to measure levels of fatigue in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). The aim of the study was to find out which questionnaire doctors should use to measure fatigue in people with MS in the future. Fatigue, which can be described as the overwhelming feeling of tiredness or exhaustion, is a very common symptom of MS. For the majority of people with MS, fatigue is one of the worst symptoms of MS, so it is essential that doctors can measure it accurately. Currently, people with MS are asked to complete questionnaires so that their care team can see the effect of fatigue on their day-to-day lives. There are many questionnaires that are used to measure fatigue in people with MS. It would be valuable to come to an agreement, based on evidence from research like this study, on which questionnaire is the most appropriate for measuring fatigue in both research and healthcare settings. This study compared a questionnaire called the PROMIS® Fatigue (MS) 8a, referred to throughout this summary as the PROMIS® MS Fatigue Short Form, with two of the most commonly used questionnaires: the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) and the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS). The questionnaires were compared to see which one should be recommended to doctors for measuring fatigue in people with MS. WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: It was found that while all three questionnaires were good, the PROMIS® MS Fatigue Short Form questionnaire was better than the other two questionnaires at showing differences in levels of fatigue between people with MS. The PROMIS® MS Fatigue Short Form was also found to be better than the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) at showing changes in the person with MS's level of fatigue. The PROMIS® MS Fatigue Short Form questionnaire may help people with MS to better communicate challenges with their fatigue to their doctors. WHAT WAS THE MAIN CONCLUSION REPORTED BY THE RESEARCHERS?: The study suggests that the PROMIS® MS Fatigue Short Form questionnaire is a helpful tool for doctors and people with MS to measure fatigue.

Plain language summary of the CheckMate 76K study results: nivolumab given after stage 2B/2C melanoma is removed by surgery.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: In this article, we summarize results from the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 76K clinical study published online in Nature Medicine in October 2023. The study goal was to learn whether nivolumab works as an adjuvant therapy (that is, helps to keep cancer from coming back when it is given after surgery) for stage 2 melanoma (skin cancer) that has not spread to other parts of the body. Nivolumab is an immunotherapy that activates a person's immune system so it can destroy cancer cells. In melanoma, staging describes the severity of the cancer. Melanoma staging ranges from 0 (very thin and confined to the upper layer of the skin) to 4 (spread to distant parts of the body), with earlier stages removed by surgery. The people in this study had stage 2 melanoma that had not spread to the lymph nodes or other organs in the body. HOW WAS THE STUDY DESIGNED?: People 12 years and older with stage 2 melanoma that had not spread and had been removed by surgery were included in CheckMate 76K. People were randomly assigned to receive either nivolumab (526 patients) or placebo (264 patients). A placebo resembles the test medicine but does not contain any active medicines. The researchers assessed whether people who received nivolumab lived longer without their cancer returning and/or spreading to other parts of their bodies (compared with placebo) and if nivolumab was well tolerated. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Researchers found that people who received nivolumab were 58% less likely to have their cancer return and 53% less likely of having their cancer spread to distant parts of their body, compared with placebo. These reductions in risk with nivolumab were seen in different subgroups of people with a range of characteristics, and regardless of how deep the melanoma had gone into the skin. People taking nivolumab had more side effects than those taking placebo, but most were mild to moderate and manageable. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Results from CheckMate 76K support the benefit of using nivolumab as a treatment option for people with stage 2 melanoma post-surgery.

A plain language summary of the TROPiCS-02 study in patients with breast cancer (HR-positive/HER2-negative).

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: Sacituzumab govitecan (brand name: TRODELVY®) is a new treatment for certain types of advanced or metastatic breast cancer. One common type of breast cancer has at least 1 of 2 hormone receptors (HR positive) and does not have human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2 negative). The HR and HER2 receptors are known to influence how severe a case of breast cancer is. Certain treatments will only work if a specific receptor is present on breast cancer cells. HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer can be treated with sacituzumab govitecan. This is a summary of the results of the TROPiCS-02 study. This study compared sacituzumab govitecan with standard chemotherapy in participants with HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: The study showed that participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan lived significantly longer without their cancer getting worse than participants treated with chemotherapy. Participants also survived significantly longer and their tumors became significantly smaller in more participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan than with chemotherapy. In general, participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan were more likely to have side effects and had more severe side effects. These side effects included low levels of a type of white blood cell known as neutrophils and diarrhea. Oncologists (doctors that treat cancer) know of these side effects as they are common among people being treated for cancer. Doctors can control these side effects by following standard treatment guidelines and the package insert for sacituzumab govitecan. Participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan maintained their sense of well-being and ability to do daily activities (quality of life) longer than participants treated with chemotherapy. It also took longer for fatigue and other symptoms of cancer to worsen in participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan compared with chemotherapy. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Sacituzumab govitecan is more effective than standard chemotherapies for people who have already received multiple treatments for HR-positive/ HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. The side effects from sacituzumab govitecan could generally be managed well by doctors. Although there were more side effects with sacituzumab govitecan than with chemotherapy, they were generally mild to moderate.

Use of isavuconazole antifungal medicine to treat mold infections in Asia and the Western Pacific region: a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: Molds are types of fungus that can invade humans. It can cause a disease called invasive mold infection (IMI) and make people sick or cause death. This is a summary of a study that looked at mold samples collected from people in Asia and the Western Pacific region to check if an antifungal medicine called isavuconazole (ISC) can stop the growth of or kill these molds. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: One type of mold known as Aspergillus or type 1 molds, was more common than other molds. Antifungal medicines including ISC, posaconazole, voriconazole, and itraconazole slowed or stopped the growth of the type 1 molds. ISC was very active in slowing or stopping the growth of this mold. Other molds, known as non-Aspergillus or type 2 mold, were less common. The antifungals medicines mentioned above were able to slow or stop the growth of some but not all of the type 2 molds. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: ISC stopped the growth of most type 1 molds and was as good as the other antifungal medicines against type 2 molds. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY?: The purpose of this plain language summary is to help you to understand the findings from recent research. The results of this study may differ from those of other studies. Health professionals should make treatment decisions based on all available evidence not on the results of a single study.

The effects of adding palbociclib to endocrine therapy to treat advanced breast cancer: a plain language summary of a study using the PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3 trial results.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of an article that reported results of a study using data from two phase 3 clinical trials called "PALOMA-2" and "PALOMA-3." Both PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3 trials included women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer. HR+/HER2- breast cancer means the breast cancer cells of these women have receptors for female sex hormones and little or no HER2 receptors. Both PALOMA trials tested the effect of adding a medication called palbociclib (brand name, Ibrance®) to a hormone therapy. Hormone therapy, also known as endocrine therapy, is a treatment that blocks or removes hormones that cause cancer cells to grow and divide. In both trials, women took endocrine therapy with either palbociclib or a placebo. WHAT WAS THE AIM OF THIS STUDY?: The researchers aimed to see if the results from the PALOMA trials were similar for subgroups of women in the 2 trials. The subgroups in the study included women who shared certain features about their cancer or treatment history, for example, women whose cancer had spread to the liver. For each subgroup, the study compared the results from the 2 treatment groups: (1) women who took palbociclib plus endocrine therapy, and (2) women who took placebo plus endocrine therapy. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS & WHAT DO THEY MEAN?: The same effect was found in all subgroups. Compared with those who took placebo, women who took palbociclib lived longer without their cancer getting worse (growing or spreading). Also, among women who had chemotherapy after stopping the trial treatment, those who took palbociclib started chemotherapy later than those who took placebo. Because palbociclib slows cancer growth and leads to tumor shrinkage, this may have played a part in starting chemotherapy later. These results show that palbociclib plus endocrine therapy is better at slowing the progression of advanced HR+/HER2- breast cancer than endocrine therapy alone. This can be said for women with different advanced HR+/HER2- breast cancer features and treatment history. Overall, the results support women taking palbociclib with an endocrine therapy if they have advanced HR+/HER2- breast cancer.

Plain language summary of erdafitinib in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a phase 2 study with long-term follow-up.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a plain language summary of two articles describing the results from a study called BLC2001. The study examined the effect of a medication called erdafitinib on participants with a type of cancer known as urothelial carcinoma that had either spread beyond the bladder or urinary tract into surrounding organs and/or nearby muscles (locally advanced) and was not removable by surgery (unresectable) or had spread to other parts of the body (metastatic). In this study, researchers wanted to learn if erdafitinib was safe and effective at stopping or reducing tumor growth in participants with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma with certain genetic alterations (changes in DNA sequence) in two related genes called fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) and 3 (FGFR3). Treatment options for people with this disease are very limited; some may not have responded to other therapies, or their tumors continued to grow after they received other treatments. 212 participants took part in the study. 111 participants were treated with oral (by mouth) erdafitinib at different doses to find a recommended dose regimen. 101 additional participants then received the recommended starting dose of erdafitinib at 8 mg daily with possible increase to 9 mg daily, these participants make up the 8 mg regimen group. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE BLC2001 STUDY IN THE 8 MG REGIMEN GROUP?: Researchers found that tumors decreased in size or completely disappeared in 40% of participants. With approximately 1 year of follow-up, an estimated 55% of participants were still alive, and after 2 years, an estimated 31% of participants were still alive. Common side effects of erdafitinib included high phosphate levels in the blood (hyperphosphatemia), an inflamed and sore mouth, diarrhea, and dry mouth. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Participants had locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma with certain FGFR gene alterations that had been treated with erdafitinib after previous chemotherapy and/or a type of medicine that uses the immune system to help the body fight cancer (immunotherapy). The BLC2001 study found that some participants treated with 8 mg erdafitinib had the benefit of a longer period without their cancer growing or spreading to other parts of the body. About 80% of participants achieved some level of disease control where their tumor shrank or remained stable.

A plain language summary exploring a new treatment combination for untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer: enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary provides the results of a study of two treatments for cancer, enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab, that were studied together against locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC), a cancer that occurs most commonly in the bladder. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: In the 45 patients studied, around 16% did have serious side effects, but most side effects were manageable. Twenty-four percent of patients, however, stopped the study treatment because of their side effects. Within about 2 months of starting treatment, most patients' (73%) tumors were smaller and stayed smaller, on average, for more than 2 years. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: The combination of enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab is a new treatment option for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer when they cannot receive the typical treatment, cisplatin. Advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer is a type of cancer where the cancer has already spread outside of the bladder or urinary tract.

Plain language summary of RACE study results: addition of eltrombopag to standard treatment of severe aplastic anemia.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: Severe aplastic anemia (SAA) and very severe aplastic anemia (vSAA) are blood diseases of the bone marrow. If a suitable donor for bone marrow transplant as initial treatment is unavailable, standard immunosuppression is used. Standard immunosuppression treatment includes horse antithymocyte globulin (hATG) and cyclosporin A (CsA). This summary investigated the results of standard immunosuppression treatment (Group A) versus standard immunosuppression treatment with a medication called eltrombopag (Group B) in participants with SAA and vSAA. Eltrombopag is a medicine that improves the blood platelet level and is taken by mouth (orally). WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY?: Compared to Group A, more participants in Group B showed increased blood cell level to a normal range without SAA or vSAA and faster treatment response. Side effects were similar in both groups even with the addition of eltrombopag for Group B. Participants in both groups reported feeling well after 6, 12 and 24 months. Differences in the participant-reported scores (overall health, physical, emotional, and social) between Group A and Group B were minimal. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: Immunosuppression treatment (hATG plus CsA) with eltrombopag benefited participants with SAA and vSAA and could be the new standard for SAA in persons who cannot undergo bone marrow transplant. At this time, eltrombopag is only approved in specific countries to treat the condition under study that is discussed in this summary. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02099747 (RACE study).

Epicutaneous immunotherapy with Viaskin™ Peanut in toddlers: a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of an article published in The New England Journal of Medicine about the EPITOPE clinical study, which tested a skin patch called ViaskinTM Peanut 250 µg (micrograms) as a treatment option for peanut allergy in children aged 1 through 3 years. The patch is a form of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT), which is a new approach to allergen immunotherapy that delivers a small amount of peanut protein to the immune system through the skin. Viaskin Peanut is an investigational therapy, meaning it has not yet been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), that has been studied before in young children aged 4 through 11 years. In those studies, the children who received the patch were desensitized and were less likely to experience anaphylaxis when they ate peanut at the end of the study. The EPITOPE study included children aged 1 through 3 years with peanut allergy and looked at how well the peanut patch worked and how safe it was compared to a patch with no medicine (placebo, no medicine) after 12 months. WHAT WERE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: The study showed that the peanut patch was better in desensitizing children to peanuts than the placebo patch. Most of the children in the study who received the peanut patch for 12 months (the treatment group) were able to eat and tolerate more peanut at the end of the study than those who received only the placebo patch (the control group). This demonstrates that the children in the treatment group were less likely to have an allergic reaction if they ate peanut by accident at the end of the study. The children in the treatment group also had less severe symptoms when they were given peanut during the oral food challenges at the end of the study. Most children in both groups experienced side effects. Mild to moderate local skin reactions where the patch was applied were most common. These side effects happened less often and were less serious over the 12-month treatment period. WHAT WERE THE MAIN CONCLUSIONS REPORTED BY THE RESEARCHERS?: Overall, these results show the peanut patch may be a possible treatment option to help desensitize young children with peanut allergy to peanut.

Recommended characteristics and processes for writing lay summaries of healthcare evidence: a co-created scoping review and consultation exercise.

BACKGROUND: Lay summaries (LSs) of scientific evidence are critical to sharing research with non-specialist audiences. This scoping review with a consultation exercise aimed to (1) Describe features of the available LS resources; (2) Summarize recommended LS characteristics and content; (3) Outline recommended processes to write a LS; and (4) Obtain stakeholder perspectives on LS characteristics and writing processes. METHODS: This project was a patient and public partner (PPP)-initiated topic co-led by a PPP and a researcher. The team was supported by three additional PPPs and four researchers. A search of peer-reviewed (Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane libraries, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC and PubMed data bases) and grey literature was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute Methodological Guidance for Scoping Reviews to include any resource that described LS characteristics and writing processes. Two reviewers screened and extracted all resources. Resource descriptions and characteristics were organized by frequency, and processes were inductively analyzed. Nine patient and public partners and researchers participated in three consultation exercise sessions to contextualize the review findings. RESULTS: Of the identified 80 resources, 99% described characteristics of a LS and 13% described processes for writing a LS. About half (51%) of the resources were published in the last two years. The most recommended characteristics were to avoid jargon (78%) and long or complex sentences (60%). The most frequently suggested LS content to include was study findings (79%). The key steps in writing a LS were doing pre-work, preparing for the target audience, writing, reviewing, finalizing, and disseminating knowledge. Consultation exercise participants prioritized some LS characteristics differently compared to the literature and found many characteristics oversimplistic. Consultation exercise participants generally supported the writing processes found in the literature but suggested some refinements. CONCLUSIONS: Writing LSs is potentially a growing area, however, efforts are needed to enhance our understanding of important LS characteristics, create resources with and for PPPs, and develop optimal writing processes.

This study was suggested by a patient partner to place attention on the role patient and public partners (PPPs) could play in developing lay summaries. A lay summary (LS) is a summary of a research project written for members of the public, including patients. A lot of information is written about recommendations for LSs, but none of it has been summarized. This study: (1) Pulled together and summarized all existing resources that made recommendations on features of LSs and/or the steps for writing them; and (2) Conducted meetings with people interested in LSs (PPPs and researchers) to gather their perspectives on this summary of resources. The study engaged PPPs in all aspects, including co-leadership. We found 80 resources on LSs. Almost all (95%) of the resources were written by researchers for researchers, with only 18% involving PPPs. The most common recommendations were to avoid jargon (78%) and remove unnecessary and complex words (60%). Only 13% of the resources had information about the steps for writing a LS. People in our meetings did not always agree with the recommended LS characteristics and found them overly simplistic. They felt that identifying and writing for the intended audience of the LS was important, every study should have a LS, PPPs should have the opportunity to be involved, and greater attention should be paid to the steps involved in writing a LS. Lay summary development is a complex, multistep process requiring the inclusion of PPPs for their irreplaceable perspectives and contributions.

Drug treatment with empagliflozin lowered risk for hospitalization in people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: plain language summary of the EMPEROR-Reduced study.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of the article describing the EMPEROR-Reduced study of empagliflozin, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Empagliflozin (brand name Jardiance®) is a new drug therapy for the treatment of chronic heart failure. Chronic heart failure is a long-term condition where the heart cannot pump enough blood around the body, leading to symptoms such as shortness of breath, fatigue and build-up of too much water in the body (fluid retention). It also increases the risk for premature death. WHAT WAS THE EMPEROR-REDUCED STUDY?: The EMPEROR-Reduced study looked at the effects of empagliflozin, a medication taken once daily, in people with reduced ejection fraction. This is a type of heart failure where insufficient blood is pushed out of the heart muscle as it contracts. The study was conducted because more evidence is needed on the effects of empagliflozin and similar drugs in people with heart failure, including those with reduced ejection fraction. The main aim of the EMPEROR-Reduced study was to see if empagliflozin reduces the risk of being taken to hospital for complications of heart failure or dying from heart disease. WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE STUDY?: Over 3700 people with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction were randomly given either empagliflozin or placebo (an identical pill lacking medication) daily for about 16 months. This was a double-blind study, which means that neither the participants nor the researchers knew which treatment participants were receiving. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: After an average of 16 months of continuous treatment, fewer patients taking empagliflozin (13.2%) needed to be hospitalized for complications of heart failure than those taking placebo (18.3%). Also, fewer patients taking empagliflozin (1.6%) developed serious kidney problems than those taking placebo (3.1%). Side effects were generally similar in participants who received empagliflozin and those who received placebo, except for genital tract infections, which affected more participants who received empagliflozin (1.7%) than placebo (0.6%). WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: This study suggests that people with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may benefit from treatment with empagliflozin, mainly by needing to go to hospital less often because of complications of heart failure. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03057977 (EMPEROR-Reduced study) (ClinicalTrials.gov).