Data Monitoring Committees and clinical trials: From scientific justification to organisation.

Clinical trials often last several months or even several years. As the trial progresses, it can be tempting to find out whether the data obtained already answers the question posed at the start of the trial in order to stop inclusions or monitoring earlier. However, knowing and taking into account interim results can sometimes compromise the integrity of the results, which is counterproductive. To minimise this risk and ensure that the treatments are assessed reliably, safety and/or efficacy criteria are monitored during the study by a Data Monitoring Committee. After receiving the results confidentially, the Data Monitoring Committee assesses the benefit/risk ratio of the study treatment and recommends that the trial be continued, modified or terminated. Data Monitoring Committee members issuing these recommendations have an important responsibility: a hasty decision to end the trial may lead to inconclusive results unable to answer the initial question and, inversely, delaying the decision to end the trial may expose the subjects to potentially ineffective or even harmful interventions. The Data Monitoring Committee's task is therefore particularly complex. With this in mind, the round table discussion at the Giens workshops was a chance to review the scientific justification for creating Data Monitoring Committees and to recall the need for their members to receive comprehensive training on the complexities of multiple analyses, confidentiality requirements applying to the results and the need for them to be aware that recommendations to end a trial must be based on data that is robust enough to assess the benefit/risk ratio of the treatment studied.

Why and how can we improve patient and caregiver information for the proper use of their medical devices throughout the care pathway?

Information is generally a major pillar in the relationship of trust between the patient and their healthcare team. In the case of medical devices, which are operator-dependent and for which the proper "handling" of the device will directly affect its performance, information on the proper use becomes a major therapeutic issue. To do this, patients must have access to quality information about health products. Twenty years after the Kouchner Act introduced a right to information for patients, our panel questioned the quality of information provided to patients about the medical devices they use during their care pathway. We mapped off the information process throughout the life of the medical device (manufacturer, prescription, dispensing, use and monitoring) to identify deficiencies and potential corrective solutions. Thus, the device could respond to the 5B as for the drug (right device, right patient, right indication, right time, and right use). Seven recommendations have emerged and are proposed in this article.

Place of patient-reported outcomes & experiences measurements (PROMS/PREMS) in the assessment and pricing of Health technologies in France.

In the context of health technologies assessment, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become assessment criteria that are expected by evaluation agencies along with the other usual clinical criteria. PROMs instruments measure all aspects of patient experience in connection with their health: symptoms, activities of daily living (physical function, sleep, etc.), various aspects of health-related quality of life (QoL), compliance, global impression of change in wellbeing. PROMs are useful both as 1) a primary or secondary efficacy endpoints, and 2) a tolerability criterion to supplement vigilance data reported by clinicians. Measurement of PROMs must be subject to methodological rigor that is identical to that of other assessment criteria measured by an observer. Scales must be validated, suitable for the objective, and where possible specific to a disease. In addition to standard measures of quality of life, PROMs are taken into consideration in the assessments performed by the HAS, even if their impact on the conclusions is difficult to isolate, as assessments are multifactorial and take into account all data available with regard to the medical context. The CEPS will indirectly take into account PROMs in the fixing of the price or tariff only if they have contributed to the award of the ASA/ASMR by the ad hoc committee of the HAS. The working group has formulated three recommendations which aim to further the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures: (1) Better information for all parties involved in a dossier for technology assessment, (2) Systematization of the collection of PROMs for evaluation of health products, (3) Improved quality of dossiers thanks to the use of relevant and validated tools.