Clinical research and methodology: What usage and what hierarchical order for secondary endpoints?

In a randomised clinical trial, when the result of the primary endpoint shows a significant benefit, the secondary endpoints are scrutinised to identify additional effects of the treatment. However, this approach entails a risk of concluding that there is a benefit for one of these endpoints when such benefit does not exist (inflation of type I error risk). There are mainly two methods used to control the risk of drawing erroneous conclusions for secondary endpoints. The first method consists of distributing the risk over several co-primary endpoints, so as to maintain an overall risk of 5%. The second is the hierarchical test procedure, which consists of first establishing a hierarchy of the endpoints, then evaluating each endpoint in succession according to this hierarchy while the endpoints continue to show statistical significance. This simple method makes it possible to show the additional advantages of treatments and to identify the factors that differentiate them.

Biosimilars: from Technical to Pharmacoeconomic Considerations.

A biosimilar is a biological medicinal product claimed to be similar to a reference biological medicinal product. Its development plan includes studies comparing it with the reference product in order to confirm its similarity in terms of quality, preclinical safety, clinical efficacy, and clinical safety, including immunogenicity. Biosimilars differ from generics both in their molecular complexity and in the specific requirements that apply to them. Since patents on many biological medicinal products will expire within the next 5 years in major therapeutic areas such as oncology, rheumatology and gastroenterology and as those products are so costly to the French national health insurance system, the availability of biosimilars would have a considerable economic impact. The round table has issued a number of recommendations intended to ensure that the upcoming arrival of biosimilars on the market is a success, in which prescribing physicians would have a central role in informing and reassuring patients, an efficient monitoring of the patients treated with biologicals would be set up and time to market for biosimilars would be speeded up.

Biosimilars: from technical to pharmacoeconomic considerations. 30th Rencontres Nationales de Pharmacologie et Recherche clinique pour l'Innovation et l'Evaluation des Technologies de Santé. Tables rondes.

A biosimilar is a biological medicinal product claimed to be similar to a reference biological medicinal product. Its development plan includes studies comparing it with the reference product in order to confirm its similarity in terms of quality, preclinical safety, clinical efficacy, and clinical safety, including immunogenicity. Biosimilars differ from generics both in their molecular complexity and in the specific requirements that apply to them. Since patents on many biological medicinal products will expire within the next 5 years in major therapeutic areas such as oncology, rheumatology and gastroenterology and as those products are so costly to the French national health insurance system, the availability of biosimilars would have a considerable economic impact. The round table has issued a number of recommendations intended to ensure that the upcoming arrival of biosimilars on the market is a success, in which prescribing physicians would have a central role in informing and reassuring patients, an efficient monitoring of the patients treated with biologicals would be set up and time to market for biosimilars would be speeded up.

Telemedicine: what framework, what levels of proof, implementation rules.

The concept of telemedicine was formalised in France in the 2009 "Hospital, patients, health territories" (loi hôpital, patients, santé, territoire) law and the 2010 decree through which it was applied. Many experiments have been carried out and the regulatory institutions (Ministry, Regional Health Agency [Agence régionale de santé, ARS], French National Health Authority [Haute autorité de santé, HAS], etc.) have issued various guidance statements and recommendations on its organisation and on the expectations of its evaluation. With this background, the round table wanted to produce recommendations on different areas of medical telemonitoring (the role of telemonitoring, the regulatory system, the principles for assessment, methods of use and conditions for sustained and seamless deployment). Whilst many studies carried out on new medical telemonitoring approaches have led to the postulate that it offers benefit, both clinically and in terms of patient quality of life, more information is needed to demonstrate its impact on the organisation of healthcare and the associated medico-economic benefit (criteria, methods, resources). Similarly, contractual frameworks for deployment of telemonitoring do exist, although they are complicated and involve many different stakeholders (Director General fo the Care Offering [Direction générale de l'offre de soins, DGOS], ARS, HAS, Agency for Shared Health Information Systems [Agence des systèmes d'information partagés de santé, ASIP], French National Data Protection Commission [Commission nationale informatique et libertés, CNIL], French National Medical Council [Conseil national de l'Ordre des médecins, CNOM], etc.) that would benefit from a shared approach and seamless exchange between the partners involved. The current challenge is also to define the conditions required to validate a stable economic model in order to promote organisational change. One topical issue is placing the emphasis on its evaluation and operation. Access to patient data, particularly data from the health insurance funds and the use of these data, may enable the process to be more effective. In addition, the budgetary non-fungibility of the various financial envelopes for the different areas of work, restricts the consolidation of financial impact. Funding methods will need to be adapted to this new distribution of roles, both at the centre of the healthcare system and in the industrial ecosystem. All of these changes will help the leaders of our healthcare system to bring this new ambition closer to all of the people working in the health economy.

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.

Randomized double-blind study of immunoprophylaxis with basiliximab, a chimeric anti-interleukin-2 receptor monoclonal antibody, in combination with mycophenolate mofetil-containing triple therapy in renal transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Acute rejection remains a major problem in renal transplantation. Immunoprophylaxis with basiliximab (Simulect) has achieved significant reductions in acute rejection episodes in renal allograft recipients receiving dual immunosuppression. This study explored the tolerability and cumulative benefit of combining basiliximab with triple-drug therapy-cyclosporine (USP Modified, Neoral), mycophenolate mofetil, and steroids. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study, 123 kidney transplant recipients received either basiliximab at 20 mg before transplantation (day 0) and 20 mg on day 4 (n=59), or placebo (n=64). All received triple-drug immunosuppression and were followed for 6 months. RESULTS: Tolerability of basiliximab was equivalent to placebo, with no increase in serious adverse events, infection, malignancy, or posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder. At 6 months, there were trends in favor of basiliximab over placebo in the incidences of first biopsy-confirmed acute rejection (15.3% vs. 26.6%, P=NS) and of acute rejection treated with antibody (5.1% vs. 15.6%, P=NS). Kaplan-Meier estimates at 4 weeks and 6 months were significantly in favor of basiliximab treatment for first acute rejection, biopsy-confirmed rejection, rejection episodes treated with antibody therapy, and treatment failure. Renal function improved more rapidly in the basiliximab group, with mean creatinine clearance at week 2 being 54.7 mL/min versus 43.2 mL/min for placebo (P=0.034). At 12 months, patient survival was 100% in both groups; graft survival was 94.9% with basiliximab and 92.2% with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Basiliximab immunoprophylaxis is safe, well tolerated, and shows a trend toward reduction in number of acute rejection episodes in renal transplant patients receiving cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroids.

Methodology for small clinical trials.

Small clinical trials are trials in which the number of patients does not enable the objective of the study to be appropriately met with the usual methodological rules. This situation is common in the case of rare diseases, in paediatrics, in certain cancer pathologies or when the number of patients exposed to the treatment needs to be limited. The principal methodological problems are initially identified, and the classical methods (controlled, randomised, double-blind trial using parallel groups, crossover trial, factorial design, trial performed with several measures repeated over time, add-on design, randomised withdrawal design or early-escape design) and more uncommon methods (sequential approaches, meta-analyses, the 'N of 1' method and other methods that facilitate decision making or modelling) are then discussed. Subsequently, recommendations are made to ensure that the results obtained are not a matter of chance, and to increase the level of proof.

Immunoprophylaxis with basiliximab, a chimeric anti-interleukin-2 receptor monoclonal antibody, in combination with azathioprine-containing triple therapy in liver transplant recipients.

Acute graft rejection remains a major problem among additional sequelae in liver transplant recipients. Basiliximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody with high affinity for the CD25 chain of the interleukin-2 receptor, has significantly reduced the incidence of acute rejection episodes in renal transplant recipients. This single-arm, open-label, multicenter study investigated the efficacy and tolerability of basiliximab immunoprophylaxis in adult patients undergoing first elective liver transplantation. One hundred one patients (70 hepatitis C virus [HCV]-negative patients, 31 HCV-positive patients) were administered basiliximab, 20 mg, by intravenous bolus injection the day of transplantation (day 0) and day 4. In addition, all patients were administered triple immunosuppressive therapy with cyclosporine, steroids, and azathioprine. The efficacy of basiliximab was assessed by conventional parameters, and tolerability was assessed by the incidence of adverse events, infections, and laboratory test result abnormalities. At 6 months, the incidence of first acute biopsy-confirmed rejection episodes was 22.8%. Rejections were more frequent in the HCV-positive (29.0%) than HCV-negative subgroup (20.0%; P =.441). No rejection episode was graded histologically as severe, and no patient required antibody therapy for the management of acute rejection. Ten patients (9.9%) required treatment with tacrolimus for acute rejection episodes. Patient and graft survival rates at 12 months were 90.1% and 88.1%, respectively. Basiliximab caused no injection-site reactions, anaphylaxis, or cytokine release syndrome. Five malignancies were reported at 12 months: of these, three malignancies predated transplantation surgery. Compared with earlier studies, the addition of basiliximab immunoprophylaxis to triple immunosuppressive therapy provides increased efficacy in reducing the incidence of acute rejection episodes, with no clinically significant increase in adverse events.