Platform trials.

For the past few years, platform trials have experienced a significant increase, recently amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic. The implementation of a platform trial is particularly useful in certain pathologies, particularly when there is a significant number of drug candidates to be assessed, a rapid evolution of the standard of care or in situations of urgent need for evaluation, during which the pooling of protocols and infrastructure optimizes the number of patients to be enrolled, the costs, and the deadlines for carrying out the investigation. However, the specificity of platform trials raises methodological, ethical, and regulatory issues, which have been the subject of the round table and which are presented in this article. The round table was also an opportunity to discuss the complexity of sponsorship and data management related to the multiplicity of partners, funding, and governance of these trials, and the level of acceptability of their findings by the competent authorities.

Outpatient healthcare and clinical trials in the care pathway: Organisational and regulatory aspects and tools.

Clinical research in outpatient healthcare, particularly in general practice, which is the first line of contact with the population, is now a public health issue. However, this type of research has specific characteristics that differentiate it from clinical research conducted in a hospital setting and requires an adaptation of its conditions of practice: in terms of organisation, the development of research in outpatient healthcare relies on the appropriation of its fundamentals by the investigators, which implies their presentation, upstream, from the initial cycle, and the participation of practitioners in training modules adapted to research in primary care, such as those already organised by several GIRCI (Groupement Inter régional de la Recherche Clinique et de l'Innovation [French Interregional Clusters for Clinical Research and Innovation]). To compensate for the fragmented nature of their location, on the model of the EMRCs (équipes mobiles de recherche clinique [mobile clinical research teams]) in oncology, mobile research teams should enable general medical practices to participate in clinical trials. This presupposes, on the one hand, the allocation of earmarked funding to ensure the sustainability of a base of dedicated personnel and, on the other hand, the impetus of a national dynamic through the setting up of a multi-organisation thematic institute for "research in primary care" associated, at the operational level, with a national scale investigation network supported by a platform of excellence. The use of digital tools and innovations (telemedicine; data collection via connected tools; e-consent; electronic signature) which make it possible to digitise and relocate all or part of the research procedures for both the participant and the investigation teams. An adaptation of the legal framework in order to bring the place of research closer to the patient and not the other way round, which means moving the equipment and investigations closer to the patient. Taking into account the acceptability of the patient, thus limiting the disruption that may be caused by his or her participation in a research protocol and motivating the practitioner by valuing his or her contribution and providing all the guarantees of scientific relevance and independence of practice. In view of the contextual analysis, positive feedback and the availability of organisational and digital support points facilitating the delocalisation and digitisation of the conduct of research activity as close as possible to the patient and his or her doctor, the round table concluded that opportunities exist today which favour the development of clinical research in general practice. It is important to seize this opportunity and make the most of it without delay.

From single-arm studies to externally controlled studies. Methodological considerations and guidelines.

Single-arm studies are sometimes used as pivotal studies but they have methodological limitations which prevent them from obtaining the high level of reliability as for a randomised controlled study which remains the gold standard in the evaluation of new treatments. The objective of this roundtable was to discuss the limitations of these single-arm studies, to analyse available and acceptable solutions in order to propose guidelines for their conduct and assessment. Single-arm studies themselves are intrinsically inappropriate for demonstrating the benefit of a new treatment because it is impossible to infer the benefit from a value obtained under treatment without knowing what it would have been in the absence of the new treatment. The implication is that comparison with other data is necessary. However this comparison has limitations due to (1) the post hoc choice of the reference used for comparison, (2) the confusion bias for which an adjustment approach is imperative and, (3) the other biases, measure and attrition among others. When these limitations are taken into account this should, first and foremost, lead to the conduct of externally controlled trials instead of single-arm trials as is proposed by the latest version of ICH E10. Moreover, the external control must be formalised in the study protocol with a priori selection of both the reference control and the formal method of comparison: test in relation to a standard, adjustment on individual data, a synthetic control group or matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC). Lastly, externally controlled studies must be restricted to situations where randomisation is infeasible. To be acceptable, these studies must be able to guarantee freedom from residual confusion bias, which is only truly acceptable if the observed effect is dramatic and the usual course of the disease is highly predicable.

The European "clinical trial" regulation; relationship with the Jardé Act: a Giens workshop.

In May 2014, the European Union Parliament and Council published a new regulation on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, which is designed to replace Directive 2001/20/EC. It will not come into effect until 2016. Nevertheless, it is essential to examine its relationship with national legislation, i.e. the Jardé Act, whose implementation has been delayed pending publication of the European regulation. The Giens workshop identified and examined the various issues that this relationship is bound to raise. In particular, it looked at trial methodology assessment procedures, the working relationship between the French National Agency of Drug Safety and Health Products (Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé, ANSM) and ethics committees during the authorization application evaluation phase, review of post-authorization/registration studies on medicinal products and medical devices, and data transparency.