France's competitiveness in global pharmaceutical research: The situation is improving.

AIMS: The French pharmaceutical companies' association (LEEM) biennially carries out a study on the attractiveness of France in pharmaceutical clinical research. This study aims to measure France's global competitiveness for international clinical trials (CT) and assess its strengths and areas of excellence. METHODS: A descriptive and comparative analysis was conducted using the data from both the ClinicalTrials.gov registry for the 2015-2019 period and those reported in a national web-based database (OSCAR) involving the major pharmaceutical companies operating in France in 2018-2019. OSCAR allows to describe the administrative authorization and starting process for all drug trials conducted in France. RESULTS: Among 8607 worldwide drug trials initiated in 2019, 34.3% (n=2.954) were funded exclusively by pharmaceutical companies (52.1% in France). On average, France was involved in 10.5% of all global industrial CTs launched over 2018-2019, still ranking in the 4th position among European countries. Early-phase trials represented 17.3% of trials conducted by the drug companies in France, versus 25% in Germany and 29% in United Kingdom. Oncology remains an area of excellence in France with 18.7% of all worldwide CTs conducted in this therapeutic area over the study period involving at least some French centres, ranking France 2nd among European countries. The median of total deadline before the first patient inclusion of 204 days in 2018-2019 with no marked improvement as compared to 2016-2017 period. However, the delay getting initial trial authorization was slightly reduced and an overall deadline of 167 days was observed for CTs entered the pilot phase initiated recently by the European regulation. CONCLUSION: After ten difficult years, areas of excellence, such as oncology and rare diseases and more recently, the outstanding mobilization for the COVID-19 research, have enabled France to maintain its pharmaceutical research. Furthermore, a set of additional decisions would strengthen this position in the next years.

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.

Requests for post-registration studies (PRS), patients follow-up in actual practice: Changes in the role of databases.

Early market access of health products is associated with a larger number of requests for information by the health authorities. Compared with these expectations, the growing expansion of health databases represents an opportunity for responding to questions raised by the authorities. The computerised nature of the health system provides numerous sources of data, and first and foremost medical/administrative databases such as the French National Inter-Scheme Health Insurance Information System (SNIIRAM) database. These databases, although developed for other purposes, have already been used for many years with regard to post-registration studies (PRS). The use thereof will continue to increase with the recent creation of the French National Health Data System (SNDS [2016 health system reform law]). At the same time, other databases are available in France, offering an illustration of "product use under actual practice conditions" by patients and health professionals (cohorts, specific registries, data warehouses, etc.). Based on a preliminary analysis of requests for PRS, approximately two-thirds appeared to have found at least a partial response in existing databases. Using these databases has a number of disadvantages, but also numerous advantages, which are listed. In order to facilitate access and optimise their use, it seemed important to draw up recommendations aiming to facilitate these developments and guarantee the conditions for their technical validity. The recommendations drawn up notably include the need for measures aiming to promote the visibility of research conducted on databases in the field of PRS. Moreover, it seemed worthwhile to promote the interoperability of health data warehouses, to make it possible to match information originating from field studies with information originating from databases, and to develop and share algorithms aiming to identify criteria of interest (proxies). Methodological documents, such as the French National Authority for Health (HAS) recommendations on "Les études post-inscription sur les technologies de santé (médicaments, dispositifs médicaux et actes). Principes et méthodes" [Post-registration studies on health technologies (medicinal products, medical devices and procedures). Principles and methods] should be updated to incorporate these developments.

The impact of parallel regulatory-health technology assessment scientific advice on clinical development. Assessing the uptake of regulatory and health technology assessment recommendations.

AIMS: The parallel regulatory-health technology assessment scientific advice (PSA) procedure allows manufacturers to receive simultaneous feedback from both EU regulators and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies on development plans for new medicines. The primary objective of the present study is to investigate whether PSA is integrated in the clinical development programmes for which advice was sought. METHODS: Contents of PSA provided by regulators and HTA bodies for each procedure between 2010 and 2015 were analysed. The development of all clinical studies for which PSA had been sought was tracked using three different databases. The rate of uptake of the advice provided by regulators and HTA bodies was assessed on two key variables: comparator/s and primary endpoint. RESULTS: In terms of uptake of comparator recommendations at the time of PSA in the actual development, our analysis showed that manufacturers implemented comparators to address both the needs of regulators and of at least one HTA body in 12 of 21 studies. For primary endpoints, in all included studies manufacturers addressed both the needs of the regulators and at least one HTA body. CONCLUSIONS: One of the key findings of this analysis is that manufacturers tend to implement changes to the development programme based on both regulatory and HTA advice with regards to the choice of primary endpoint and comparator. It also confirms the challenging choice of the study comparator, for which manufacturers seem to be more inclined to satisfy the regulatory advice. Continuous research efforts in this area are of paramount importance from a public health perspective.

Using Real-World Data in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Practice: A Comparative Study of Five HTA Agencies.

BACKGROUND: Reimbursement decisions are conventionally based on evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which often have high internal validity but low external validity. Real-world data (RWD) may provide complimentary evidence for relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) and cost-effectiveness assessments (CEAs). This study examines whether RWD is incorporated in health technology assessment (HTA) of melanoma drugs by European HTA agencies, as well as differences in RWD use between agencies and across time. METHODS: HTA reports published between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2016 were retrieved from websites of agencies representing five jurisdictions: England [National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)], Scotland [Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC)], France [Haute Autorité de santé (HAS)], Germany [Institute for Quality and Efficacy in Healthcare (IQWiG)] and The Netherlands [Zorginstituut Nederland (ZIN)]. A standardized data extraction form was used to extract information on RWD inclusion for both REAs and CEAs. RESULTS: Overall, 52 reports were retrieved, all of which contained REAs; CEAs were present in 25 of the reports. RWD was included in 28 of the 52 REAs (54%), mainly to estimate melanoma prevalence, and in 22 of the 25 (88%) CEAs, mainly to extrapolate long-term effectiveness and/or identify drug-related costs. Differences emerged between agencies regarding RWD use in REAs; the ZIN and IQWiG cited RWD for evidence on prevalence, whereas the NICE, SMC and HAS additionally cited RWD use for drug effectiveness. No visible trend for RWD use in REAs and CEAs over time was observed. CONCLUSION: In general, RWD inclusion was higher in CEAs than REAs, and was mostly used to estimate melanoma prevalence in REAs or to predict long-term effectiveness in CEAs. Differences emerged between agencies' use of RWD; however, no visible trends for RWD use over time were observed.

[Hepatitis C infection: Therapeutic strategies]. / Infection par le virus de l'hépatite C : prise en charge thérapeutique.

The development of new direct acting antivirals has significantly modified strategies to treat chronic hepatitis C. Treatments were previously made of an interferon-based combination. This article aims to review the direct acting antivirals clinical data and to discuss the new regimens for the management of chronic hepatitis C. Direct acting antivirals combinations - with or without ribavirin - are the new chronic hepatitis C standard treatment regimen. These combinations often result in sustained viral response rate (>90%, including in patients with uncomplicated cirrhosis) after a 12-week treatment for most patients. The innovation could represent a new era for patients with unmet medical need (especially ineligible or non-responders to interferon and/or ribavirin patients). Further investigations are required to confirm the efficacy in specific population (complicated cirrhosis, pre- or post-transplantation, chronic renal failure, comorbidities, etc.) where clinical data are still limited. Other treatments are currently being developed and might lead to new perspectives, especially in terms of treatment duration or therapeutic simplification.

Relative effectiveness assessment of pharmaceuticals: similarities and differences in 29 jurisdictions.

OBJECTIVE: Assessment of the effectiveness compared with alternative treatment(s) plays an important role in many jurisdictions in determining the reimbursement status of pharmaceuticals. This type of assessment is often referred to as a relative effectiveness assessment (REA) and is carried out by many jurisdictions. Increased sharing of information across jurisdictions may save costs and reduce duplication. The objective of this study was to explore the main similarities and differences in the major methodological aspects of REA in multiple jurisdictions. METHODS: Data were gathered with a standardized data extraction form by searching publicly available information and by eliciting information from representatives at relevant organizations. RESULTS: Of the initially included 35 jurisdictions, data were gathered for 29 jurisdictions. There seem to be substantial similarities on the choice of the comparator, the role of indirect comparisons, and preferred end points in REAs (except for the use of health state utilities). Jurisdictions, however, differ in whether effectiveness (usual circumstances of health care practice) is estimated in case no (comparative) effectiveness data are available and how this is done. CONCLUSION: Some important methodological aspects for REA are approached in a similar way in many jurisdictions, indicating that collaboration on assessments may be feasible. Enhanced collaboration in the development of methods and best practices for REA between jurisdictions will be a necessary first step. Important topics for developing best practice are indirect comparisons and how to handle the gap between efficacy and effectiveness data in case good quality comparative effectiveness data are not yet available at the time of reimbursement decisions.

[Choosing between peritoneal dialysis and haemodialysis: a critical appraisal of the literature]. / Le choix entre dialyse péritonéale et hémodialyse: une revue critique de la littérature.

In France, incidence and prevalence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are increasing, requiring a more rational use of available replacement therapies. To help practitioners make their choice between treatment modalities of peritoneal dialysis (PD) and haemodialysis (HD), critical appraisal of relevant literature has been conducted. Although few absolute or relative contraindications for PD and HD exist, arguments in favour of one versus the other dialysis technique can be made. When patients receive adequate and complete information, their preference is neutral between PD and HD. To date, no trial presenting a convincing level of evidence has been published which demonstrates the superiority of one technique compared to the other. Relative to mortality, it appears that no difference can be observed between the two modalities. However, in those instances where patients expect a rapid transplantation, PD is the preferred technique. This analysis suggests that peritoneal dialysis and haemodialysis are not competitive but rather complementary treatments. It is therefore interesting to identify the reasons supporting the various choices between the two different treatment modalities amongst France's regions. Access to transplant, economic or organizational factors must be considered.