Controlled human infection trials: Legitimacy and conditions of implementation in France.

This round table is the result of an observation. The observation being that controlled human infection clinical trials (also called "infectious challenge" trials or "Controlled Human Infection Models", "CHIM") recommended or even encouraged in the context of vaccine developments in particular, are not carried out in France. However, there are no formal prohibitions within regulations or ethical principles, which point to the prior assessment of risks and benefits for individuals and for society. The participants in this Round Table thus wished to examine, through the prism of their respective disciplines, the scientific and medical relevance of conducting such trials in France and, if possible, to imagine the conditions under which they would be carried out, thus resulting in recommendations on (1) the advisability of their conduct in France (2), the conditions under which they would be implemented in terms of logistics and regulations, and (3) their social acceptability. The recommendations on which the participants of the Round Table came to an agreement are presented as the analysis progresses.

A report on the status of vaccination in Europe.

Vaccine policy, decision processes and outcomes vary widely across Europe. The objective was to map these factors across 16 European countries by assessing (A) national vaccination strategy and implementation, (B) attributes of healthcare vaccination systems, and (C) outcomes of universal mass vaccination (UMV) as a measure of how successful the vaccination policy is. A. Eleven countries use standardised assessment frameworks to inform vaccine recommendations. Only Sweden horizon scans new technologies, uses standard assessments, systematic literature and health economic reviews, and publishes its decision rationale. Time from European marketing authorisation to UMV implementation varies despite these standard frameworks. Paediatric UMV recommendations (generally government-funded) are relatively comparable, however only influenza vaccine is widely recommended for adults. B. Fourteen countries aim to report annually on national vaccine coverage rates (VCRs), as well as have target VCRs per vaccine across different age groups. Ten countries use either electronic immunisation records or a centralised registry for childhood vaccinations, and seven for other age group vaccinations. C. National VCRs for infant (primary diphtheria tetanus pertussis (DTP)), adolescent (human papillomavirus (HPV)) and older adult (seasonal influenza) UMV programmes found ranges of: 89.1% to 98.2% for DTP-containing vaccines, 5% to 85.9% for HPV vaccination, and 4.3% to 71.6% for influenza vaccine. Regarding reported disease incidence, a wide range was found across countries for measles, mumps and rubella (in children), and hepatitis B and invasive pneumococcal disease (in all ages). These findings reflect an individual approach to vaccination by country. High VCRs can be achieved, particularly for paediatric vaccinations, despite different approaches, targets and reporting systems; these are not replicated in vaccines for other age groups in the same country. Additional measures to improve VCRs across all age groups are needed and could benefit from greater harmonisation in target setting, vaccination data collection and sharing across EU countries.

Promoting the place of the allied health professions in clinical research.

Clinical research is of major importance to today's society, as scientific evidence is increasingly demanded as a basis for progress, whether this involves developing new healthcare products, improving clinical practice and care protocols or progress in prevention. Clinical research therefore requires professionals who are both experienced and increasingly well trained. Against this background, allied health professionals are becoming involved more and more, both as team members supporting clinical research projects and as managers or coordinators of projects in their own field. Clinical research activities provide an ideal opportunity for continuing professional development. All of this means that the professional skills of the allied health professions and clinical research support professions must be enhanced, their role promoted in the context of lecturer status and in the longer term, their status recognised by the supervisory authorities.

Off-label prescriptions: how to identify them, frame them, announce them and monitor them in practice?

Following the Mediator crisis and the passage of the Health and Safety Law of December 2011, off-label prescriptions are a real concern shared by all those involved in healthcare system. Off-label, in the strictest sense of the term, is defined as all prescriptions that do not correspond to the summary of product characteristics (SPC), particularly those that fail to comply with the indications and dosage regimens defined by the marketing authorization (MA) for clear safety reasons. There are various rasons for off-label prescriptions, both conscious and unconscious. They are intended to respond to unmet medical needs, the needs of poorly studied populations or not studied at all in trials, but in relation to whom it is reasonable to extrapolate that MA would be given (common-sense prescriptions) and, additionally, to urgent public health needs (such as baclofen, pregnant women, and HIV drugs). All these prescriptions would deserve to be studied for a potential MA. However, there are off-label prescriptions that need to be restricted or even penalized in the case of compassionate prescriptions or unjustified prescriptions or prescriptions not based on any scientific grounds. Off-label prescriptions are not easy to track down because if the prescriber has to write "off-label" on his prescription, then clearly, in practice, he will only do so in exceptional cases. Neither the pharmacists who dispense the drug nor the Social Security that reimburses it, have access to the diagnosis (or targeted indication). Thus, in order to identify the off-label prescription, we must be able to cross reference the available databases (such as pharmacovigilance database, medicalized information system program [programme de médicalisation des systèmes d'information, PMSI], hospital drug formularies, general sample of beneficiaries [échantillon généraliste de bénéficiaires, EGB] or national inter-regional Health Insurance Information System [système national d'informations inter-régions d'Assurance maladie, SNIIRAM], sales data, and data from market surveys). The shared computerized patient file may resolve this problem. The temporary use recommendation (TUR) proposed by the Drug Safety Law will only partially deal with this problem for recently marketed molecules. This temporary and exceptional mechanism will authorize a recognized off-label prescription, which may be reimbursed and monitored for 3 years. These TURs will only concern a small portion of "off-label" drugs having yet a positive risk/benefit ratio (conditional MA) but this is far from matching with majority of off-label prescriptions. As such, and in order to improve the use of drugs, it is important to propose a control system for all "off-label" prescriptions with a dedicated committee: the "off-label" committee which would determine the frame of the "off-label" prescriptions.

[Attractiveness of France for international clinical trials in 2012: 6(th) survey assessed by Leem (French association of pharmaceutical companies)]. / État des lieux 2012 de l'attractivité de la France pour la recherche clinique internationale : 6(e) enquête du Leem.

Since 2002, the Leem (French Association of Pharmaceutical Companies) has conducted a survey every two years to update the attractiveness of France for international clinical trials. Thirty companies (68% of the French market) have participated in this 6(th) survey which involved 79 countries, a greater number of Phases I/II, II and III studies (420 versus 352 in 2010), a relatively stable number of included patients (246,895 versus 249,704 in 2010) and a greater number of centers (32,965 versus 24,337 in 2010). The evolution of time-lines for the go-ahead by French Authorities is heterogeneous (shorter time-lines by the French National Agency of Drug and Health Products Safety [ANSM] but longer time-lines by Research Ethics Comittees [CPP]). The time-lines for first hospital contracts remain stable. France ranks at an average position among European countries in regards to quantitative and qualitative data, and its state-of-art in early stages is still recognized. Its good performance in oncology and orphan diseases are major assets of competitiveness.

[France, an attractive country for international clinical research: 2010 survey assessed by Leem (French association of pharmaceutical companies)]. / Place de la France dans la recherche clinique internationale : enquête 2010 du Leem France et recherche clinique internationale.

In order to evaluate the attractiveness of France for conducting international clinical trials, a survey is performed every two years among pharmaceutical companies that are based in France or have affiliates in France. Twenty-nine companies (72% of the French market) including 10 newly participants, have participated in the current survey which included 328 international phase II and III clinical studies, 79 countries, 24,337 centres and 249,704 patients (included in 2008/2009). France (291 patients/million inhabitants) ranked among the best European recruiters in second position behind Scandinavia. Since 2008, protocols are still to be given the go-ahead by French Authorities (Afssaps and CPP) within 60 days, in accordance with European directive. The continuation of reduction in deadlines for hospital contracts is encouraging and highlights the positive effect of CeNGEPS. French state-of-art is well recognized in Oncology/Hematology and Orphan disease which could be an example to improve the competitiveness of France in other key therapeutic areas such as Alzheimer's disease and Immuno-Inflammation.

[Not Available]. / La France, un pays attractif pour la recherche clinique internationale : enquête 2008 du Leem.

In order to evaluate the attractiveness of France for conducting international clinical trials, a survey is performed every two years among pharmaceutical companies that are based in France or have affiliates in France. Nineteen companies (61.9 % of the French market) have participated in the current survey which included 385 international phase II and III clinical studies, 77 countries, 29,708 centres and 312,835 patients (included in 2006/2007). France (400 patients/million inhabitants) ranked among the best European recruiters in second position behind Scandinavia. Since 2006, France has improved administrative processes and reduced deadlines for hospital contracts. Protocols are now to be given the go-ahead by French Authorities (Afssaps and CPP) within 60 days, in accordance with European directive. Its performance in early phases, oncology/hematology and vaccines/anti-infectious contribute to the attractiveness of France in international clinical research.

[France, an attractive country for international clinical research: 2008 survey assessed by Leem (French association of pharmaceutical companies)]. / La France, un pays attractif pour la recherche clinique internationale : enquête 2008 du Leem.

In order to evaluate the attractiveness of France for conducting international clinical trials, a survey is performed every two years among pharmaceutical companies that are based in France or have affiliates in France. Nineteen companies (61.9 % of the French market) have participated in the current survey which included 385 international phase II and III clinical studies, 77 countries, 29,708 centres and 312,835 patients (included in 2006/2007). France (400 patients/million inhabitants) ranked among the best European recruiters in second position behind Scandinavia. Since 2006, France has improved administrative processes and reduced deadlines for hospital contracts. Protocols are now to be given the go-ahead by French Authorities (Afssaps and CPP) within 60 days, in accordance with European directive. Its performance in early phases, oncology/hematology and vaccines/anti-infectious contribute to the attractiveness of France in international clinical research.

[The attractive position of France in international clinical research: 2006 survey assessed by Leem (French pharmaceutical companies)]. / La France est un pays attractif pour la recherche clinique internationale: enquête 2006 du Leem.

In order to evaluate the attractiveness of France for conducting international clinical trials, a survey is performed every two years among pharmaceutical companies that are based in France or have affiliates in France. Initiated in 2006, the current survey was much more representative than the previous ones with 20 companies accounting for 61% of the French market. This survey included 352 international phase II and III clinical studies carried out in 2004 and 2005, 74 countries, 17 345 centres and 137 989 patients. France has participated to half of the overall number of international clinical trials. France ranked among the best European recruiters (0,19 patient/1000 inhabitants) at the second position behind Scandinavian countries, taking in account numbers of inhabitants. Protocols are now to be given the go-ahead by Ethics Committee (CCPPRB) within 60 days. With a high productivity in phase IIb and in oncology, France is still an attractive place to locate clinical research.

[Not Available]. / La France est un pays attractif pour la recherche clinique internationale : enquête 2006 du Leem.

In order to evaluate the attractiveness of France for conducting international clinical trials, a survey is performed every two years among pharmaceutical companies that are based in France or have affiliates in France. Initiated in 2006, the current survey was much more representative than the previous ones with 20 companies accounting for 61% of the French market. This survey included 352 international phase II and III clinical studies carried out in 2004 and 2005, 74 countries, 17 345 centres and 137 989 patients. France has participated to half of the overall number of international clinical trials. France ranked among the best European recruiters (0,19 patient/1000 inhabitants) at the second position behind Scandinavian countries, taking in account numbers of inhabitants. Protocols are now to be given the go-ahead by Ethics Committee (CCPPRB) within 60 days. With a high productivity in phase IIb and in oncology, France is still an attractive place to locate clinical research.