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.

Cancer-associated thrombosis in patients with implanted ports: a prospective multicenter French cohort study (ONCOCIP).

The need to accurately identify cancer outpatients at high risk of thrombotic complications is still unmet. In a prospective, multicenter cohort study (ONCOlogie et Chambres ImPlantables [ONCOCIP]), consecutive adult patients with a solid tumor and implanted port underwent 12-month follow-up. Our primary objective was to identify risk factors for (1) catheter-related thrombosis, defined as ipsilateral symptomatic upper-limb deep-vein thrombosis with or without pulmonary embolism, and (2) venous thromboembolism other than catheter-related, defined as any symptomatic superficial- or deep-vein thrombosis (other than catheter-related) or pulmonary embolism, and incidental pulmonary embolism. All events were objectively confirmed and centrally adjudicated. Rate assessments integrated competing risk of death. Overall, 3032 patients were included (median age: 63 years; women: 58%). The most frequent cancer locations were breast (33.7%), lung (18.5%), and colorectal (15.6%), cancer being metastatic in 43.2% of patients. Most patients (97.1%) received chemotherapy. By 12 months, 48 (1.6%) patients had been lost to follow-up and 656 (24.6%) had died; 3.8% (n = 111) of patients had experienced catheter-related thrombosis, and 9.6% (n = 276) venous thromboembolism other than catheter-related. By multivariate analysis, use of cephalic vein for catheter insertion predicted catheter-related thrombosis, whereas ongoing antiplatelet therapy was protective; risk factors for venous thromboembolism other than catheter-related were advanced age, previous venous thromboembolism, cancer site, and low hemoglobin level or increased leukocyte count before chemotherapy. In conclusion, this large prospective cohort study showed a high rate of venous thromboembolism in patients with a solid tumor and implanted port. Risk factors for catheter-related thrombosis differed from those for venous thromboembolism not catheter-related. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02025894.

Prevalence of poor biological response to clopidogrel: a systematic review.

The existence of poor biological response to clopidogrel has been shown in some patients. Despite the increasing number of studies, this phenomenon remains difficult to quantify. We performed a systematic review to estimate the prevalence of poor biological response to clopidogrel and investigate the factors known to modulate this. An exhaustive search was performed. Altogether 171 publications were identified, providing data for a total of 45,664 subjects. The estimated prevalence of poor biological response to clopidogrel ranged from 15.9% to 49.5% according to the platelet function assay employed. The assays most frequently used were light transmittance aggregometry (LTA), the vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein (VASP) assay and the Verifynow® assay. For all these assays, higher cut-off values were associated with a lower prevalence of poor biological response to clopidogrel. However, when choosing a fixed cut-off point for each assay, the prevalence of poor biological response to clopidogrel was highly variable suggesting that other factors could modulate poor biological response to clopidogrel. Finally, none of the studied factors could apparently explain the variability of poor biological response to clopidogrel. This meta-analysis shows that the prevalence of poor biological response depends on the assay employed, the cut-off value and on various unidentified additional factors.