Paediatric drug development and evaluation: Existing challenges and recommendations.

Despite various international regulatory initiatives over the last 20 years, many challenges remain in the field of paediatric drug development and evaluation. Indeed, drug research and development is still focused essentially on adult indications, thereby excluding many paediatric patients, limiting the feasibility of trials and favouring competing developments. Off-label prescribing persists and the development of age-appropriate dosage forms for children remains limited. Against this background, the members of this panel (TR) recommend the launch of multi-partner exchange forums on specific topics in order to focus new drug research and development on the real, unmet medical needs of children and adolescents, and in keeping with the underlying mechanisms of action. Scientific information sharing and cooperation between stakeholders are also essential for defining reference evaluation methods in each medical field. These forums can be organised through existing paediatric facilities and research networks at the French and European level. The latter are specifically dedicated to paediatric research and can facilitate clinical trial implementation and patient enrolment. Moreover, specific grants and public/private partnerships are still needed to support studies on the repositioning of drugs in paediatric indications, and pharmacokinetic studies aimed at defining appropriate dosages. The development of new pharmaceutical forms, better suited for paediatric use, and the promotion of resulting innovations will stimulate future investments. Initiatives to gather observational safety and efficacy data following off-label and/or derogatory early access should also be encouraged to compensate for the lack of information available in these situations. Finally, the creation of Ethics Committees (EC) with a specific "mother-child" advisory expertise should be promoted to ensure that the current regulation (Jardé law in France) is implemented whilst also taking into account the paediatric specificities in medical trials.

Tocilizumab plus dexamethasone versus dexamethasone in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia: A randomised clinical trial from the CORIMUNO-19 study group.

Background: In moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia, dexamethasone (DEX) and tocilizumab (TCZ) reduce the occurrence of death and ventilatory support. We investigated the efficacy and safety of DEX+TCZ in an open randomized clinical trial. Methods: From July 24, 2020, through May 18, 2021, patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia requiring oxygen (>3 L/min) were randomly assigned to receive DEX (10 mg/d 5 days tapering up to 10 days) alone or combined with TCZ (8 mg/kg IV) at day 1, possibly repeated with a fixed dose of 400 mg i.v. at day 3. The primary outcome was time from randomization to mechanical ventilation support or death up to day 14, analysed on an intent-to-treat basis using a Bayesian approach. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04476979. Findings: A total of 453 patients were randomized, 3 withdrew consent, 450 were analysed, of whom 226 and 224 patients were assigned to receive DEX or TCZ+DEX, respectively. At day 14, mechanical ventilation or death occurred in 32/226 (14%) and 27/224 (12%) in the DEX and TCZ+DEX arms, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 0·85, 90% credible interval [CrI] 0·55 to 1·31). At day 14, the World health Organization (WHO) clinical progression scale (CPS) was significantly improved in the TCZ+DEX arm (OR 0·69, 95% CrI, 0·49 to 0.97). At day 28, the cumulative incidence of oxygen supply independency was 82% in the TCZ+DEX arms and 72% in the DEX arm (HR 1·36, 95% CI 1·11 to 1·67). On day 90, 24 deaths (11%) were observed in the DEX arm and 18 (8%) in the TCZ+DEX arm (HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·42-1·41). Serious adverse events were observed in 25% and 21% in DEX and TCZ+DEX arms, respectively. Interpretation: Mechanical ventilation need and mortality were not improved with TCZ+DEX compared with DEX alone. The safety of both treatments was similar. However, given the wide confidence intervals for the estimate of effect, definitive interpretation cannot be drawn. Funding: Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique [PHRC COVID-19-20-0151, PHRC COVID-19-20-0029], Fondation de l'Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (Alliance Tous Unis Contre le Virus) and from Fédération pour la Recherche Médicale" (FRM). Tocilizumab was provided by Roche.

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.