MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308133481 · doi:10.1210/jendso/bvac150.1157

PMON57 Impact of Injection Modalities on Real-World Injection Experience in Patients with Acromegaly or Neuroendocrine Tumors (NETs) Treated With Somatostatin Analog (SSA) Therapy: Data from the PRESTO 2 Survey

2022· article· en· W4308133481 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Antônio Ribeiro‐Oliveira, Dermot O’Toole, Pamela L. Kunz, Aude Houchard, Sandra Boiziau, Ally P.H. Prebtani, Susan M. Webb

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Endocrine Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPituitary Gland Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcromegalyMedicineLogistic regressionLanreotideCohortSyringeNeuroendocrine tumorsOctreotideSubcutaneous injectionSomatostatinInternal medicineSurgeryGrowth hormoneHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Long-acting (LA) SSA therapy is a common first-line medical treatment for acromegaly or NETs. Real-world data on patients’ injection experience with the latest LA SSA devices/formulations are limited. Aims PRESTO 2 assessed injection experience among patients treated with lanreotide autogel/depot prefilled syringe (LAN) or octreotide LA release syringe (OCT). Methods Conducted in 2021, PRESTO 2 was an e-survey of adults with acromegaly or NETs in Canada, Ireland, the UK and USA who had received ≥3 months’ treatment with LAN or OCT (planned sample size, 304 [min 76/cohort]; 50: 50 ratio [+/- 10%]). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with injection-site pain lasting >2 days after last injection, analyzed using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Secondary endpoints included interference with daily life due to injection-site pain, technical injection problems, and other aspects of injection experience in patients who had used their current SSA for >6 months. Results There were 304 respondents (acromegaly, n=85; NETs, n=219) from the USA (46.1%), Canada (27.3%), Ireland (13.5%) and the UK (13.2%); 55.3% were receiving LAN and 44.7% OCT; 69.2% were female; mean (SD) age was 59.6 (11.1) years. Fewer patients had injection-site pain lasting >2 days after last dose with LAN (6.0%) versus OCT (22.8%); the odds of pain lasting >2 days were significantly lower for LAN versus OCT, adjusted for disease group and occurrence of injection-site reaction (OR 0.13 [95% CI 0.06–0.30]; p<0.0001). Nine patients in the acromegaly subgroup had injection-site pain >2 days after last dose (LAN, 1; OCT, 8). In patients receiving LAN versus OCT, respectively, injection-site pain interfered with daily life 'a little bit' in 37.2% versus 52.5% and 'quite a bit' in 3.8% versus 7.5%. Among patients with >6 months’ experience with current SSA (92.4% of all patients), technical injection problems never occurred in 76.8% with LAN versus 42.9% with OCT. Consequences included replacement of syringe with injection given on the day (LAN, 5.6%; OCT, 23.6%) or not (LAN, 2.8%; OCT, 5.6%), or needle replacement only with injection given that day (LAN, 0.0%; OCT, 50.0%). Pain at injection site occurred with LAN versus OCT 'never' for 13.5% versus 7.1%, 'rarely' for 43.2% versus 37.3%, and 'most of the time' for 27.1% versus 42.9%. Conclusions Fewer patients using LAN had injection-site pain lasting >2 days after last injection compared to OCT; thus the primary endpoint was met. Other advantages of LAN versus OCT were seen and included improvements in occurrence of technical problems. These findings demonstrate the importance of injection modality for overall LA SSA injection experience, and the associated impact on daily life, for patients with acromegaly or NETs. Presentation: Monday, June 13, 2022 12:30 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Endocrine SocietySame topicPituitary Gland Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207